yea, cons always get mad at me when I point out their hypocrisy. I'm going to ignore your "quick, post a bunch of words" deflection
You mean all the actual content that explains how this works? You don't care about the issues, you just want to prattle on in a partisan manner? Okay, go ahead and ignore all the content then.
and again inform that if dropping coverage made sense companies would have done it. They didn't because it didn't make sense. and you still don't understand. and you're still trying convince yourself it does.
There's nothing to suggest employers (public and private) can or will immediately synthesize the complexity of a regulatory monstrosity like the ACA (which has been and still is a moving target in terms of what comes into effect for whom and when) and analyze the viability to this option. The reasons more haven't done it yet could include any number of things, but your lazy assumption that it's all or nothing, either they all would have done it already or none of them ever will, is intentionally ignorant.
I was in a conference a couple of years ago in which the Director of the Alaska Health Care Commission at the time predicted publicly that within about 10 or so years, insurance would be permanently separated from employment in Alaska. She admittedly was lofting up a long range prediction, but if you look at the prices of insurance in Alaska, and consider the fact that the law provides for ways (albiet roundabout) to externalize some of this cost by disentangling it from employment, you can see why that might be a reasonable prediction. Our premium prices are crisis-level up here.
I have consulted some businesses who expressed being at a loss and distressed over the fact that they believed the law was forcing them to insure people averaging over 30 hours that their entire business model depended on not having to insure. They were furious with Obamacare because they felt it was putting a major strain on their business. I told them to just intentionally not insure those people. They were perplexed and literally asked, "but don't I have to?" I said no, pay the $2,000 federal "penalty" and reassure them that the fact they're not offered insurance renders them eligible for subsidies that will cap their premium costs at some paltry percentage of their income.
Businesses specialize in a lot of different specific things, and navigating a 1,200 (or whatever) page piece of federal legislation on health insurance is almost never one of those things. Especially small businesses between 50 and 150 employees are not experts in navigating federal legislation. It hasn't dawned on them yet that they can actually work within the law to their own advantage. If the glitches in the law were fixed and employers had help navigating the complexity of this law, there would probably be quite a bit less resistance to it.
But what do you care, right? You're too busy trying to get me to defend Republicans and telling me employers haven't done (x) yet and therefore they never will. Why do I bother explaining things like this to partisan clowns?
Now please address the fact that you've obediently complained about the "cost wall" for people over 400% of FPL but don't care about republican efforts to hurt those under 400%.
Lets face it, you parroted yourself into a corner and want to discuss anything but that.
Why the hell would I have to address that? You're trying to assign an argument to me that I'm not here to make, as an attempt to ignore what I'm actually saying.
and fyi, repealing Obamacare is not some ramblings from "random conservatives". It's the official goal of every republican.
Really? Cool.
