• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Health Law Spurs Shift in Hours

radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Let's see:

  1. People will have their hours cut, which means less money on which to live.
  2. They will thus lose, or not get, health care benefits.
  3. As if that's not enough, they will then be required to purchase health insurance at full cost, or pay a tax penalty, with the money they don't have because they had their wages cut.

Yeah... that helps.
Health Law Spurs Shift in Hours

Health Law Spurs Shift in Hours - Yahoo! Finance
Click to expand...
 
The poor who don't buy insurance get a waiver so the whole purpose of the program is essentially defeated from the outset by the Obama Administration.
 
Fisher said:
The poor who don't buy insurance get a waiver so the whole purpose of the program is essentially defeated from the outset by the Obama Administration.
Click to expand...
Would the person whose hours were cut from 32 to 28 qualify as low enough?
 
In my business, the direct result will be:

Reduce hours from unlimited to 29. (out of 115 employees, average hours are 44.5 weekly)
Eliminate all full time positions.
Keep total FTE's at less than 30 to try to avoid being subject to the employee mandate provision.
Explore the possiblity of requiring proof of health insurance or Medicaid prior to hire.

Most of my staff are minority and Obama supporters. I fail to see how any of the above could be good for them and I fail to see how any of these things can be avoided the law is fully implemented. Right now if we chose not to reduce workers hours, we would pay over 100,000 annually in excess of our revenues- thereby bankrupting. No. We will not bankrupt. The losers in this deal will be the low income workers.
 
radcen said:
Would the person whose hours were cut from 32 to 28 qualify as low enough?
Click to expand...

Not sure. I think I heard "Under $30K"
 
radcen said:
Let's see:

  1. People will have their hours cut, which means less money on which to live.
  2. They will thus lose, or not get, health care benefits.
  3. As if that's not enough, they will then be required to purchase health insurance at full cost, or pay a tax penalty, with the money they don't have because they had their wages cut.

Yeah... that helps.
Click to expand...

Now if only most employers would take responsibility for their employees and help better America.

Now for small business owners I understand that in harder times you need to cut back, but that article was pretty clearly targeted towards larger corprate chains which rake in huge profits. For the sake of bettering America these corporations should maintain hours and positions and offer these benefits to help the lives of those people. Its not the inefficecy of the law as much as the selfishness of some.

It's not that I hate the rich, I just dislike those who don't care about the rest of society and focuses only on their own intrests.
 
kamikaze483 said:
In my business, the direct result will be:

Reduce hours from unlimited to 29. (out of 115 employees, average hours are 44.5 weekly)
Eliminate all full time positions.
Keep total FTE's at less than 30 to try to avoid being subject to the employee mandate provision.
Explore the possiblity of requiring proof of health insurance or Medicaid prior to hire.

Most of my staff are minority and Obama supporters. I fail to see how any of the above could be good for them and I fail to see how any of these things can be avoided the law is fully implemented. Right now if we chose not to reduce workers hours, we would pay over 100,000 annually in excess of our revenues- thereby bankrupting. No. We will not bankrupt. The losers in this deal will be the low income workers.
Click to expand...


Exactly, it's time to reduce employee weekly hours.

Employees will be unhappy, but what can they do about it?
 
johnny_rebson said:
Exactly, it's time to reduce employee weekly hours.

Employees will be unhappy, but what can they do about it?
Click to expand...

****. What can they do about it? They can learn to think for themselves and evaluate the propaganda coming out of the White House and logically deduce what it really means for them. The worst part about this, to me, is the shameless ignorance of this president's base. All he has to do is say it and these nuts believe it.
 
falcata said:
Now if only most employers would take responsibility for their employees and help better America.

Now for small business owners I understand that in harder times you need to cut back, but that article was pretty clearly targeted towards larger corprate chains which rake in huge profits. For the sake of bettering America these corporations should maintain hours and positions and offer these benefits to help the lives of those people. Its not the inefficecy of the law as much as the selfishness of some.

It's not that I hate the rich, I just dislike those who don't care about the rest of society and focuses only on their own intrests.
Click to expand...

do you own a business?
 
Hiring PT workers instead of FT has been a growing trend for close to a decade if not longer.
 
radcen said:
Let's see:

  1. People will have their hours cut, which means less money on which to live.
  2. They will thus lose, or not get, health care benefits.
  3. As if that's not enough, they will then be required to purchase health insurance at full cost, or pay a tax penalty, with the money they don't have because they had their wages cut.

Yeah... that helps.
Click to expand...

When I owned my business, I hired part-time workers instead of full-time workers except for two positions. I was able to offer a great deal of flexibility hours-wise, so I always had people standing in line for positions.

I did that for a number of reasons: people who worked part-time didn't expect hospitalization, nor did I have to provide it at that time. I never had to deal with absenteeism since my employers were free to mix-and-match at will. I paid them very well on an hourly basis. No sick days. Two weeks' vacation. Paid holidays.

I wouldn't be surprised if that becomes a growing trend...especially with women.
 
Easy fix. Remove health care from employment. UHC, say two tiered single payer system that allows those who can and want to buy more to do so.
 
Yep, this will really hurt the middle and lower classes. Companies will shift to the 29-hour employee bandwagon to avoid the additional costs.

Fortunately, Romney will repeal the piece of trash altogether so we can reform healthcare like we should have in the first place. Much will be expected of Romney and Congress in this regard, in addition to re-shifting the economic environment in a way that encourages private industry to expand and hire as fast as possible.
 
Fisher said:
The poor who don't buy insurance get a waiver so the whole purpose of the program is essentially defeated from the outset by the Obama Administration.
Click to expand...
The poor shouldn't get any kind of waiver since they consume most of the benefits. If anything the poor should be taxed at a higher rate, relative to the benefits they consume. The poor should pay their fair share.
 
Jerry said:
The poor shouldn't get any kind of waiver since they consume most of the benefits. If anything the poor should be taxed at a higher rate, relative to the benefits they consume. The poor should pay their fair share.
Click to expand...

I agree especially those folks who get EIC or pay no federal taxes.
 
Jerry said:
Require mandatory term-of-service in the military upon HS graduation or turning 18, then everyone will be on TriCare.

Problem = solved.
Click to expand...

We may have a starting place. Some service requirement works for me, though I may be more open to alternative options.
 
MaggieD said:
When I owned my business, I hired part-time workers instead of full-time workers except for two positions. I was able to offer a great deal of flexibility hours-wise, so I always had people standing in line for positions.

I did that for a number of reasons: people who worked part-time didn't expect hospitalization, nor did I have to provide it at that time. I never had to deal with absenteeism since my employers were free to mix-and-match at will. I paid them very well on an hourly basis. No sick days. Two weeks' vacation. Paid holidays.

I wouldn't be surprised if that becomes a growing trend...especially with women.
Click to expand...
I believe that independent contracting in many industries is the wave of the future, and people will take care of ALL their own benefits, taxes, and so on. The only thing they'll get from their employers will be a paycheck and a 1099.
 
Boo Radley said:
We may have a starting place. Some service requirement works for me, though I may be more open to alternative options.
Click to expand...
TriCare is already open to DoD civilians, so there are options. Currently, the kind of service you perform dictates the kinds of TriCare programs you're eligible for. Someone who serves in a 'safe' support roll will not have as good of coverage as someone who puts themselves in harm's way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom