Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of ACA..

Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of ACA employer mandate? I was listening to Rush Limbaugh the other day and he was complaining about this trying to make it about a speech issue.But one could argue that a company that is deliberately reducing the hours of their employees or firing their employees in order to get exempted from the employer mandate is a form of fraud.


Mostly this question is aimed at Obama-care supporters. Because I know that anyone who is against it is going to say no they shouldn't be fined.

Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

jamesrage said:

Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of ACA employer mandate? I was listening to Rush Limbaugh the other day and he was complaining about this trying to make it about a speech issue.But one could argue that a company that is deliberately reducing the hours of their employees or firing their employees in order to get exempted from the employer mandate is a form of fraud.

Mostly this question is aimed at Obama-care supporters. Because I know that anyone who is against it is going to say no they shouldn't be fined.

Click to expand...

If you fine comps for firing workers you will have to fine individuals for purposely staying in an income bracket that lets them get subsidized health care.

Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

I'm pretty sure in another thread about this it shows that if a company does reduce hours or workers just to get the waiver, they will be refused the waiver. There's no fine involved.

Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

sawyerloggingon said:

If you fine comps for firing workers you will have to fine individuals for purposely staying in an income bracket that lets them get subsidized health care.

Click to expand...

How do you prove that a individual purposely stayed in that income bracket to get subsidized? With a company it can be pretty obvious that if they had so many full time employees before the ACA was even thought of or if they have a hundred or so employees but they are all part timers, contract labor or temp workers.

Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

jamesrage said:

Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of ACA employer mandate? I was listening to Rush Limbaugh the other day and he was complaining about this trying to make it about a speech issue.But one could argue that a company that is deliberately reducing the hours of their employees or firing their employees in order to get exempted from the employer mandate is a form of fraud.


Mostly this question is aimed at Obama-care supporters. Because I know that anyone who is against it is going to say no they shouldn't be fined.

Click to expand...

That is an interesting question . I'll be curious to see how anyone will argue that the government should fine.

Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

I'm all for the idea of universal health care, I want everybody to have access to the health care they need.

I'm not at all a fan of how the ACA is mandated however. I know the argument goes deep on this topic but I believe that the way it's being done is wrong for America on a number of very fundamental levels. And it pisses me off. So I'll stop talking about it because I don't want to waste any time arguing it.

So I vote "no" based upon my absolute opposition to the ACA and how it is being implemented.

Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

jamesrage said:

How do you prove that a individual purposely stayed in that income bracket to get subsidized? With a company it can be pretty obvious that if they had so many full time employees before the ACA was even thought of or if they have a hundred or so employees but they are all part timers, contract labor or temp workers.

Click to expand...

It would be just as difficult to prove the reason a comp laid off workers as it would be to prove the reason an individual turned down a promotion.

Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

jamesrage said:

Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of ACA employer mandate? I was listening to Rush Limbaugh the other day and he was complaining about this trying to make it about a speech issue.But one could argue that a company that is deliberately reducing the hours of their employees or firing their employees in order to get exempted from the employer mandate is a form of fraud.


Mostly this question is aimed at Obama-care supporters. Because I know that anyone who is against it is going to say no they shouldn't be fined.

Click to expand...

To me it has nothing to do with O'Care but rather the freedom that a company should have to make choices as to how to reduce costs to remain competitive in their chosen market.

This is similar, IMHO, to prevailing wage laws. Companies that want to reduce costs can locate in a Right To Work state or have an open shop in other states. Companies should not be required to make commitments to employees that may threaten the survivability of the company.

Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

Off with their heads.

Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

sawyerloggingon said:

It would be just as difficult to prove the reason a comp laid off workers as it would be to prove the reason an individual turned down a promotion.

Click to expand...

Some of the companies have been stating that they will lay off reduce workers because of Obama-care.So it would be really easy regarding those companies.

Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

jamesrage said:

Some of the companies have been stating that they will lay off reduce workers because of Obama-care.So it would be really easy regarding those companies.

Click to expand...

You have to realize that nobody is going to be prosecuted for this. The whole so called law is so companies can't come out and say they reduced their work force because of obamacare. It is obama covering his ass.

Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

spud_meister said:

I'm pretty sure in another thread about this it shows that if a company does reduce hours or workers just to get the waiver, they will be refused the waiver. There's no fine involved.

Click to expand...

Not getting it despite having the requirments is in itself a fine. Should all companies get fined for using all the loopholes that is in the IRS? No matter how small the company? Should individuals get fined for using all the loopholes they possibly can?

The idea of fineing someone or a company for simply meeting requirements laid out by the government is rediculous and smacks of tyranny imo.

Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of ACA..

Click to expand...

no. we should ditch the employer as healthcare provider model and make medicare the single payer for all routine health care.

Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

jamesrage said:

Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of ACA employer mandate? I was listening to Rush Limbaugh the other day and he was complaining about this trying to make it about a speech issue.But one could argue that a company that is deliberately reducing the hours of their employees or firing their employees in order to get exempted from the employer mandate is a form of fraud.


Mostly this question is aimed at Obama-care supporters. Because I know that anyone who is against it is going to say no they shouldn't be fined.

Click to expand...

Is it legal for the gov to do that?

If not, I'd say they shouldn't.

Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

spud_meister said:

I'm pretty sure in another thread about this it shows that if a company does reduce hours or workers just to get the waiver, they will be refused the waiver. There's no fine involved.

Click to expand...

There have been hundreds of waivers granted mostly to liberal supporters of the Liberals who have condemned the rest of us to suffer under the yoke of this abortion.

Michelle Malkin | » Nancy Pelosi on 1,800 Obamacare Waiver Recipients: Mostly Very Small Companies
<snip>
During an interview on CNBC, Nancy Pelosi claimed that the health care law was put into place to help save businesses money on health care costs.

Pelosi, hopelessly unable to appreciate the irony of the need to afford certain businesses special protections from a law that was purportedly enacted to safeguard them, was asked about companies that have received a number of the 1,800 Obamacare waivers that have been issued:
“They’re small. I couldn’t speak to all 1,800 of them, but some of the lists that I have seen have been very, very small companies. They will not have a big impact on the economy of our country,” Nancy Pelosi said in an interview with CNBC.

True… very small companies and organizations, such as McDonalds and Darden Restaurants. Heck, entire states have gotten waivers (but only very small ones).

Also being allowed on the waiver train have been other not-so-small entities, such as AARP and countless labor unions. The United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, with 351,000 people, was also a waiver recipient.
Pelosi also should have said the waivers went to “mostly unionized companies” instead of “mostly small companies.”

Quite a few of those businesses are also in Pelosi’s district. In May, 20 percent of a single round of waivers went to businesses located in the area Pelosi represents — but to very small businesses, so “nothing to see here.”
<snip>

Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

jamesrage said:

Some of the companies have been stating that they will lay off reduce workers because of Obama-care.So it would be really easy regarding those companies.

Click to expand...

What would be the justification for this?

What's next? Fine companies that make too much money?

Why not just nationalize all industry and start living in the banana republic that obama is trying to set up.

Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

jamesrage said:

Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of ACA employer mandate? I was listening to Rush Limbaugh the other day and he was complaining about this trying to make it about a speech issue.But one could argue that a company that is deliberately reducing the hours of their employees or firing their employees in order to get exempted from the employer mandate is a form of fraud.


Mostly this question is aimed at Obama-care supporters. Because I know that anyone who is against it is going to say no they shouldn't be fined.

Click to expand...

Actually this type of issue is settled law. A company or person has every right to structure and operate in such a way as to minimize their taxes and or regulations they are subject to. It is perfectly legal to do this.

Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

The idea that you should punish companies explicitly for trying to survive the added burdens that you are placing on business seems to me to be somewhat maliciously insane - it's like an odd refusal to accept that reality disproves your thesis by insisting that you can use state power to reshape reality instead of re-checking your assumptions.

Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

spud_meister said:

I'm pretty sure in another thread about this it shows that if a company does reduce hours or workers just to get the waiver, they will be refused the waiver. There's no fine involved.

Click to expand...

That's correct. There's a tax involved.

So to answer the spirit of the OP in a more accurate form...

No, a company should not be exempt from the waiver for firing or reducing of workers with the expressed intent of qualifying for the waiver.

The Government has created a new TAX on business. It is completely reasonable, logical, and common for a business to make decisions about it's financial well being based on tax regulation and law.

The Waiver being granted is simply an additional piece of Tax law, providing an avenue for people to be exempt from said tax.

To give the IRS or another agency power to determine if an individual is fired in an effort to qualify for an exemption of tax law is not only ridiculous but sets a poor precedence.

Let's say a carbon tax is levied on corporations, with a waiver granted for those who utilize green energy...but a Republican administration tells the IRS they need to check into each company applying for the waiver and assure that those companies bought the green energy equipment for reasons OTHER than to grant the waiver. Not only does this put a ridiculous restriction on the business making decisions based around the tax laws and regulations the government created, but it presents a situation where the government can intimidate companies into forgoing the action (in this case, purchasing green energy) entirely to avoid the process.

The government CREATED the situation that would necessitate a logical and reasonable business decision of deciding between more or less workers as it relates to the bottom line. It levied a tax on business and then continued to put forth regulations regarding how that tax will work. It is completely over the line to essentially make said regulations, and then penalize companies for making sound and intelligent business decisions as it relates to said regulations imposed by the government.

Frankly, I wouldn't be shocked if in reality this is an entirely political move. That the way to certify that a person fired wasn't to confirm with ACA will be RIDICULOUSLY easy. However, by doing so...the administration will be able to go "See! No one fired after the employee mandate occured was fired because of ACA! The IRS numbers prove it!"

Essentially, I could very easily see this as a calculated political move that creates a situation where a business is either going to get subjected to a new Tax OR they're going to be used as pawns for political purposes.

Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

Zyphlin said:

That's correct. There's a tax involved.

So to answer the spirit of the OP in a more accurate form...

No, a company should not be exempt from the waiver for firing or reducing of workers with the expressed intent of qualifying for the waiver.

The Government has created a new TAX on business. It is completely reasonable, logical, and common for a business to make decisions about it's financial well being based on tax regulation and law.

The Waiver being granted is simply an additional piece of Tax law, providing an avenue for people to be exempt from said tax.

To give the IRS or another agency power to determine if an individual is fired in an effort to qualify for an exemption of tax law is not only ridiculous but sets a poor precedence.

Let's say a carbon tax is levied on corporations, with a waiver granted for those who utilize green energy...but a Republican administration tells the IRS they need to check into each company applying for the waiver and assure that those companies bought the green energy equipment for reasons OTHER than to grant the waiver. Not only does this put a ridiculous restriction on the business making decisions based around the tax laws and regulations the government created, but it presents a situation where the government can intimidate companies into forgoing the action (in this case, purchasing green energy) entirely to avoid the process.

The government CREATED the situation that would necessitate a logical and reasonable business decision of deciding between more or less workers as it relates to the bottom line. It levied a tax on business and then continued to put forth regulations regarding how that tax will work. It is completely over the line to essentially make said regulations, and then penalize companies for making sound and intelligent business decisions as it relates to said regulations imposed by the government.

Frankly, I wouldn't be shocked if in reality this is an entirely political move. That the way to certify that a person fired wasn't to confirm with ACA will be RIDICULOUSLY easy. However, by doing so...the administration will be able to go "See! No one fired after the employee mandate occured was fired because of ACA! The IRS numbers prove it!"

Essentially, I could very easily see this as a calculated political move that creates a situation where a business is either going to get subjected to a new Tax OR they're going to be used as pawns for political purposes.

Click to expand...

Personally, I'm half wondering if the large companies who buy politicians looked at the break small/(medium?) businesses were getting and told the government to make it harder to accomplish.

But that's my conspiracy-prone/cynical side talking.