- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 16,559
- Reaction score
- 10,793
- Location
- Louisiana
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
what denial? that i have to buy insurance so your premiums will be cheaper?
It's like you don't even understand the argument, lol.
what denial? that i have to buy insurance so your premiums will be cheaper?
Spending on health benefits in service occupations and among small firms exposed to ObamaCare mandates shrank over the past year, new Labor Department data show.
Although employers face penalties in 2014 if they fail to offer affordable coverage, this decline in spending on health benefits shows that they're finding ways to shift some of ObamaCare's looming costs back to the government.
Strikingly, Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that health benefit increases came to a standstill in service occupations after the first quarter of 2010 — when ObamaCare became law. Prior to that, benefit costs had grown steadily since the mid-1990s.
But following ObamaCare's passage, health benefits per hour of work in service occupations grew 0% through March 2011 and 0% the next year, before falling 0.7% through March 2013.
Meanwhile, over the past three years, health benefits rose a moderate 2%, 2.8% and 2.7% per hour for the broad workforce, evidence that lower health care inflation doesn't explain the unusual declines in some sectors.
Rather, a likely culprit is a shift in the mix of full-time workers who will come under ObamaCare's employer mandate and part-time workers who won't.
BLS data, though volatile from month to month, clearly show that retailers have been cutting the average workweek for nonsupervisory employees over the past year.
May's employment report showed that the number of temp workers hit a record high, evidence that employers are embracing temps as a strategy for dodging ObamaCare fines.
The cost-shifting of ObamaCare's expenses won't only fall back on government, but on workers clocking fewer hours and, in other cases, on workers covering a bigger share of their health premiums.
For perspective, ObamaCare's $5,000 wage-equivalent fine comes out to $2.40 an hour for a 40-hour workweek. That's nearly 4.5 times after-tax spending on health benefits.
It's like you don't even understand the argument, lol.
then explain what is your arguement
then explain what is your arguement
Erod said:So when does the "Affordable" part of the Affordable Care Act kick in? High deductibles and high co-pays were not what Obama sold us.
So it makes it way more expensive for those making over $90k, since they will be paying for their insurance and the subsidies? I didn't realize 2 married elementary school teachers were so well off that they could afford to pay for all that!
what denial? that i have to buy insurance so your premiums will be cheaper? If you think you should have a say so if i buy insurance or not then i should have a say so that welfare moms should be forced not have any more children so my taxes will be cheaper
They would be the same idiots who passed it before reading it.
So wait, a major selling point of the ACA was that it mad eit illegal to deny anyone insurance for pre-existing conditions. And now you propose that the fix to the major flaw in the penalty system is to... limit access to people with pre-existing conditions?
Hmmmmm....
Elementary school teachers would take insurance through their employer, so that's a moot point.
I love this rightwing meme. It's almost as far-fetched as the teleprompter meme.
Yes, totally far-fetched. I think it's pretty much a given that they didn't read it after it was passed, either.I love this rightwing meme. It's almost as far-fetched as the teleprompter meme.They would be the same idiots who passed it before reading it.
Are you saying they get it for free? Huh, I bet a lot of teachers would like to know to sign up for that!
We needed to do something
Wait a second, if the rate of increase is not as great post recession (your "after 2009"), then the increases in DI awards are not attributable to "Fakers/takers" since unemployment and those not seeking work have remained steady, employment has barely kept pace with population.I don't know what chart Krugman is looking at, but the one he links shows that "a large part of the rise in the disability rolls" reflected "simple demographics" was true from about 2002-2008. Since 2009, however, only a very small part of rise in disability rolls "reflects simple demographics" (the difference in slope being much, much less pronounced). Someone should tell Krugman that the entirety of the "aging baby boomers" has been in the "older worker" column since 2009, and started leaving for retirement in 2011.
If you want to understand the trouble Democrats are in, all you need to do is try following the "logic" of one Paul Krugman.
"At Congressional hearings this week, Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said it was necessary to tap the prevention fund because Congress had refused to provide money requested by the president for outreach and education activities."
It's insurance. You can't just look at a single year and say "see you're over paying!" Because then you overlook that one year where you needed emergency surgery with a short stay in the ICU, where you shelled out a few thousand but didn't have to pay the other hundred thousand dollars of your bill. Do you really not understand that or are you being intentionally thick headed?
Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said...
Uh...she did.LOL!
what does the minister of information say?
in other words, tell it to harkin, who is "beyond upset"
tell it to the author, chair of senate finance, tell it to his health care subcommittee chair...
all aboard!
What exactly are you afraid of?
Comps will flee private insurance in mass leaving its employees with no options other than obammy care
So the Insurance industry wrote the insurance bill and then spent huge sums of money trying to defeat it?
You're right! We should also change the US tax system to a voluntary program.