Welcome to PatsFans.com

Workers hours cut over Obamacare

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsWSB47, Dec 22, 2012.

  1. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,582
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    Is this the new normal? People's hours are cut and can even less afford health care premiums. What are these people supposed to do?


  2. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,334
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -11

    Thank Obama I guess....
  3. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    It's because "they" (as in our gov't) changed the definition of full-time employment. It used to be full-time workers had to work 35 hours or more per week. But Obamacare changed it to anyone working 30 hours or more has to be covered.

    So of course businesses like restaurants will cut hours to under 30 hours. I think common-sense would have told us that was going to happen.

    I can't blame businesses for trying to keep cost from increasing, can you?

    Obamacare Mandate: Anyone Who Works 30-Hour Week Is Now 'Full-Time'

    Obamacare Mandate: Anyone Who Works 30-Hour Week Is Now 'Full-Time' | CNS News


    One of the reasons unemployment has gone down is because many businesses are cutting hours and hiring more part-time employees. All that smoke & mirror stuff that gives some the impression "things are getting better"...even though they're staying status-quo.
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2012
  4. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    As with minimum wage increases, the short term reaction is negative, but in the longer term things return to normal. It's no surprise that there are some businesses trying to avoid paying for their employee's healthcare because they can't afford it or have other motives. In time, healthcare will the norm, and the economy will adjust accordingly. When minimum wage increases, employers hire fewer people, but in time, the increase in minimum wage yields more disposable income which benefits employers so things normalize. The same is likely to happen with Obamacare. Numerous new jobs in healthcare will be created and people will be more productive because they will get better care. This will result in the situation normalizing. But, you can always hope for the worst, which seems to be the guiding principle of much of the Republican Party today.
  5. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,582
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    Who's hoping for the worst? I asked a sincere question. What are these people supposed to do? They're required by law to buy it. What are they going to buy it with?
  6. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,334
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -11


    Or.....it cuts employment and wages and becomes a continual drain on the economy.
  7. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    I realize that's what much of the right wing is hoping. Perhaps if Republicans drive us off the fiscal cliff their dreams will come true. In general, though, liberal economic policies has been better for wages, employment, and the stock market than conservative economic policies.
  8. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,334
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -11


    That's true....thats why most people who work for the financial sector want liberal policies rather than conservative ones. :rolleyes:
  9. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    Actually, you're probably right, having worked in the financial sector myself for many years. That said, those at the top tend to be more Republican, but corporate Republicans are not a lot different than corporate Democrats.
  10. Charlotte Pats Fan

    Charlotte Pats Fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Can anyone seriously be suprised this is happening?
  11. Ilikehappyppl

    Ilikehappyppl Rookie

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Its why they should of made the law across the board, this way business can't weasel their way out of it. Full-time, Part-time, anytime, should have to cover healthcare.

    What are they supposed to do? The right thing.....GOD WHAT A NOVEL IDEA....DOING THE RIGHT THING? CRAZY TALK!:cool:

    You know what's funny? The CEO's and other top brass at these company's have no issue cutting hours and letting people go but you ever hear of them taking a pay cut or cutting their hours. Maybe the issue isn't healthcare maybe its greed....

    Healthcare should be a right! This shouldn't even be a discussion....
  12. IllegalContact

    IllegalContact Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,626
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +12 / 1 / -2

    Healthcare being a right means more people get to mooch. This country was never about that not should it be
  13. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    My feeling is that Obamacare is a poor alternative to the far more cost effective single payer approaches, which in world class countries produces world class health care. But, Obamacare is still better than the current system. There will be some marginal employers who balk at providing their workers with healthcare, and if they can find a model using part-time workers will hold onto it. But, my guess is that the part-time worker model won't last long because it is too inefficient (losing employees to full-time jobs, dealing with caretakers who may not be able to be reliable employees, and so on). That said, asking a person who earns $25k/year to pay $1000/year for health insurance is a problem, especially considering that many of these people may not really be well informed and $80/month is a substantial amount of money for them.
  14. DocHoliday

    DocHoliday Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    That's where the subsidized government packages come in.

    There is no net 'loss' here. Before we had a person with no healthcare going to the ER and relying on the government to reimburse their sky high ER visits they couldn't pay.

    Now they are roughly 5-10 (my guess) week hours poorer, probably 70/week. The government is now subsidizing their new health plan they are qualified for.

    Either way the government is paying less in the long run due to this person taking care of himself properly with PCP visits instead of ER and the net effect is his extra income lost is paying for healthcare.
  15. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,582
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    Nice speech, but back to the current dilemma. I guess this is one of the things that can happen when you pass a bill just so you can see what's in it. The reality is though these working people have had their hours cut because the employer either won't take on the expense or can't take it on. Many business's are no different than the workers. They have to operate competitively and make enough money to pay their bills too. The cost of paying for 50 or more employees insurance may force a business to have to raise their prices to cover it a then lose any competitive edge they count on remain solvent. If that happens you may have 50+ workers without any hours at all. Sure there are some greedy business that will take advantage of the hours loophole too. The employees wind up with the short end of the stick and now, under the law they will be fined if they don't buy the insurance they can't afford.
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2012
  16. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,582
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    Where does the government get the money to do this? That's not meant to be rhetorical.
  17. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    This is the new normal. It will only get worse too as companies will opt for the fine over offering insurance, since that will be cheaper. Don't be surprised if wages suffer as well, since companies, unlike government, actually have to operate with a bottom line. i.e. under this thing called a budget. So if companies have to pay fines and taxes, that money will either have to come from wages, or be passed on to consumers via higher costs. it is what it is.

    Remember my words on Obamacare. It's designed to fail. The program doesn't work long term. Common sense is all you need to understand that. The failure is imbedded in the policy so that a government owned and operated single payer system will be the only alternative 5-10 years from now. Then we get RMV type care with public employee union run hospitals, and goverment suits in rooms determining who gets what via rationed care. Rationing care is the only way to control costs in a system where everyone gets "free" coverage.






    Cuz that model is working out so well here in Massachusetts. :rolleyes:
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2012
  18. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    Not sure what "these people" are supposed to do.....I do know what alot of Americans ARE doing in protest - and I hope that they do to Royal Farms what they've done to Red Lobster and Olive Garden and other Darden enterprises - boycott them over their "answer" to Obamacare - hitting them where it hurts, in their profit margin.

    Darden Blames Negative Obamacare Publicity For Declining Profits

    It's caused them to change their minds - at least for now....perhaps the same thing will happen with Royal Farms.


    Darden says it won't reduce full-time staff, for now - Orlando Sentinel

    Same story for Papa Johns who also said he would cut employees hours from full time to part time in order to avoid having to provide health care insurance to his employees.

    Papa John's, Applebee's And Others Pay Huge Price For Anti-Obamacare Politicking - Forbes

    They, too, backtracked after huge amounts of bad publicity and public outcry and now plan on offering health care to all employees.

    Papa John's Schnatter Says He Will Honor Obamacare And Give Health Insurance To All Employees - Forbes
  19. DocHoliday

    DocHoliday Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    1.) working quite well
    2.) good, I hope it Medicare for all does happen
    3.) your healthcare was already rationed by suits - they just happened to be corporate suits. See: lifetime limits and pre-auths

    The details of the ACA are online for you to see and it does involve net cost savings through not having to pay ER prices for people ago could've had their issues under control 3 months ago with a PCP for cheap.
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2012
  20. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    You're not from Massachusetts, or are simply ignorant of the numbers. Romneycare was designed under the very logic you mentioned. All those people going to the ER, using up the "free care" pool of dollars, and how mandating insurance would simply take that free care money and make their new system fiscally prudent. In the end premiums rose at twice the national average, and the programs costs have risen well beyond a billion dollars, and at last check I believe it's approaching $2 billion. Unsustainable my friend. By all means though, keep thinking gimmicks work.

    You know the rationing I speak of. It will be nothing like that which you speak of, and this is a critical distinction people need to understand. When the government takes over via single payer, their rationing will amount to arbitrary regulations that state people over age X will not recieve treatment Y. It is the only way to curb and control costs, if an everyone gets healthcare "free" model is implemented. So people over 60 won't get a hip replacement persay, or anyone over 70 won't be given a new knee. All they'll get is a cane instead. Those of us who understand math, and how the Real World operates, know that this is what will happen.
  21. DocHoliday

    DocHoliday Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    You've given nothing but speculation, assumptions about me, and ignorance of how Mass is leading the nation on healthcare reform and is doing far better than any other state.

    Check out NPR's article in Feb when the Romneycare issue was in full swing.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...sachusetts-abject-failure-or-work-in-progress
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2012
  22. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1


    At any rate.

    Report: Total spending due to '06 health care law in Massachusetts hit $1.95 billion in 2011

    Published: Friday, April 13, 2012, 10:40 AM Updated: Friday, April 13, 2012, 2:08 PM

    The report prepared for the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation found that Massachusetts spent $453 million more in state tax dollars in fiscal 2011 on programs that can be directly attributable to the health care reform law, an increase the report's authors said has been expected and manageable for state budget writers.

    The increase amounts to 1.4 percent of the state's $32 billion budget in fiscal 2011, although the overall costs are higher since 50 percent of expenses were covered through federal government reimbursements to the state - total state spending attributable to the 2006 law grew from $1.04 billion in fiscal 2006 to $1.95 billion in fiscal 2011, an 87 percent increase.



    87% increase in cost in a 5 year span. Now on to the latest gimmick. Price controls.
  23. Ivan

    Ivan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    5,203
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +22 / 4 / -4

    Simple answer, universal healthcare. businesses should not have to pay an insurance industry that is raping america. take the insurance middleman that serves no purpose out of the equation altogether and allow those who want to buy some as supplementary to do so. businesses will have much more to take home or reinvest and everyone would have healthcare.
  24. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    What you're referring to (I take it) by the term "universal healthcare" is the single-payer system. One where the government runs, and pays for, healthcare. That sounds nice and all, but aside from the quality questions that arise, how would such a system curb costs?
  25. Ivan

    Ivan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    5,203
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +22 / 4 / -4


    By eliminating the insurance company middleman. Insurance companies are for profit middleman who contribute absolutely nothing to actual healthcare, and by law they are required to do their best to make more money for their shareholders each and every day, the way they do that is by increasing rates and cutting services, so people pay more and more for less and less. They should have no role other than as a supplement for those who want to buy their product. The government should go back to using its bulk buying power to reduce pharmaceutical costs and implement a universal/single payer system that eliminates the insurance companies and takes the burden of healthcare off of the back of businesses.

    Don't get me wrong, there are many answers that are needed to reduce costs but the first step is getting rid of the insurance industry, because as long as it serves as the middleman this country is just going to see healthcare costs continue to skyrocket.

    As healthcare becomes more and more exclusive to the richest americans the majority will come around to this conclusion because millions and millions more people will lose loved ones due to their lack of access to the system. I opposed Obamacare because of the mandate,which made the scumbag insurance industry the stewards of healthcare, however if republicans get their wish and it fails then single payer will be what replaces it because eventually americans will demand access to the system, and a for the rich only system will eventually die the death it deserves.
  26. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    You do understand that insurance companies work on margins first and foremost. On top of that, insurance companies tend to try to keep costs down since they're ultimately paying the final bill. You pay X for your insurance, and then it's up to the insurance company to make sure that number works. When it doesn't, premiums go up. Go up too much, and you price people out of the insurance market. Healthcare for many reasons, has no silver bullet solution. Removing the middleman, or anyone from the payment pie, theoretically will reduce costs via the process of elimination, but theoretics aren't always the practical reality. What you propose is the government assuming the cost of healthcare. No one would be represented by an insurance company, or agent. Everyone would walk into a hospital and get care whenever they wanted or needed. From a quality standpoint, that is assuming the quality is supposed to remain the same, the costs of this type of system would skyrocket. Profit is the incentive for all who operate. Doctors and nurses, hospitals and the med industry, don't work for free. Therefore the only way to control costs, were it a government run system, would be to ration care. Significantly if I might add. Over the age of X, instead of a knee replacement, you get a cane. Instead of a hip, you get a walker. Those types of controls would have to be put in place to make the system fiscally solvent.
  27. Kid~Brady

    Kid~Brady Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    fundraisers and bake sales, of course.
  28. Kid~Brady

    Kid~Brady Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    If you can afford to "give away" 2,000,000 free pizzas, you can afford to pay healthcare. Lets say the average pizza from Papa John's run you, say $12.00/pizza.

    2,000,000 x $12.00 = 24,000,000. That's alot of money to "give away" to then complain about paying healthcare.
  29. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    Yeah, and some would claim everyone has the right to eat healthy. So should everyone be able to afford organic food for their kids because it doesn't contain hormones or genetically engineered seeds?

    I tend to agree that eveyone deserves at least basic health care. But somone has to weigh the costs of what it will take. No business is going to cut they profits just so because they have to pay for health care, so obviously we'd all end up paying higher prices if everyone including part-time workers are to be covered.

    This is not the time to consider higher taxes for eveyone nor higher prices for everyone, is it?
  30. Ivan

    Ivan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    5,203
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +22 / 4 / -4



    Insurance companies perform no service that benefits health, and their profits are at the expense of actual care, they contribute nothing other than to serve as a money changing middleman that is wasteful and unnecessary. Care would be managed by a triage system in a universal system, and yes i would have to wait for surgery on my MCL while the person needing a heart transplant got priority, but that's still better than not getting one at all because the cost is too high. And despite the claims to the contrary i have been talking to Canadiens for the last 20 years about their healthcare and always get the same answer when i ask them about their healthcare system, they don't believe it is perfect but really like it and would never exchange it for our for profit system. the truth is that the only people who hate the canadien system are american right wingers, and they don't use it, other than as a scapegoat to try and scare americans out of going to it.

Share This Page