Jump to content

Obamacare causing loss of full time jobs? Naaah!


Recommended Posts

Liberals and trolls vociferously deny that the huge burden of Obamacare on many businesses is causing companies not to hire full time.

 

They're reality-free, as usual.

Even Obama's allies in government are doing that.

 

 

 

the New York Times reported on an example of unhelpful behavior from Washington: "Cities, counties, public schools and community colleges around the country have limited or reduced the work hours of part-time employees to avoid having to provide them with health insurance under the Affordable Care Act."

That's right, ObamaCare's employer mandate applies to the public as well as the private sector, and although it's been delayed until next year, "many public employers have already adopted policies, laws or regulations" to avoid its costliest effects, the Times reports.

That means making sure part-time workers don't exceed 30 hours a week, the threshold at which the mandate kicks in: "Among those whose hours have been restricted in recent months are police dispatchers, prison guards, substitute teachers, bus drivers, athletic coaches, school custodians, cafeteria workers and part-time professors."

Local officials from across the country describe the dilemmas ObamaCare has forced upon them. "Are we supposed to lay off full-time teachers so that we can provide insurance coverage to part-time employees?" asks Mark Benigni, schools superintendent of Meriden, Conn. "If I had to cut five reading teachers to pay for benefits for substitute teachers, I'm not sure that would be best for our students."

In suburban Cleveland, Mayor Dennis Hanwell of Medina (population 26,678), tells the paper his city had to reduce the hours--and thus the pay--of office clerks, sanitation men, park inspectors and police dispatchers to 29 hours from 35. "Our choice was to cut the hours or give them health care, and we could not afford the latter," the mayor says.

The Times reports the American Federation of Teachers website has a list of "three dozen public colleges and universities in 15 states" that have restricted working hours of adjunct or part-time faculty members. By our count it's 34 institutions in 17 states, but in any case the list isn't comprehensive. The introductory text asks for more information: "Do you know of employers cutting faculty workloads and blaming ACA? We want to hear from you!"
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304709904579407261250790736?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Especially since the latest edict from Der Leader regarding Obamacare has an illegal requirement that employers attest to the IRS, under penalty of perjury, that they have not reduced the number of employees or cut hours to shield themselves from the extra costs of Obamacare. Apparently, the government and government employees are again to be treated differently than private companies and their employees. But why should they if Obamacase is so wonderful? Hmmmm, LF liberals? Hmmmmm? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oblameo and his spokesperson say part time or no time oblameojobs are better for you. You can spend more time on your artistic endeavors. You can write poetry or paint. You can spend more time with your family. Togetherness. You can get a subsidy for your healthcare if you earn less. In the world of oblameo less work is better. Less work, more aid. More taken from the people still working. They voted for this. This is what they want. Less work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Especially since the latest edict from Der Leader regarding Obamacare has an illegal requirement that employers attest to the IRS, under penalty of perjury, that they have not reduced the number of employees or cut hours to shield themselves from the extra costs of Obamacare. Apparently, the government and government employees are again to be treated differently than private companies and their employees. But why should they if Obamacase is so wonderful? Hmmmm, LF liberals? Hmmmmm? :D

 

NOTHING about your paragraph is in ANY way socialist or a violation of constitutional principles of liberty. Nope

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Especially since the latest edict from Der Leader regarding Obamacare has an illegal requirement that employers attest to the IRS, under penalty of perjury, that they have not reduced the number of employees or cut hours to shield themselves from the extra costs of Obamacare. Apparently, the government and government employees are again to be treated differently than private companies and their employees. But why should they if Obamacase is so wonderful? Hmmmm, LF liberals? Hmmmmm? :D

And people are wondering why corporations are leaving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And people are wondering why corporations are leaving.

Other reasons corperations are leaving the US is strangling regulation and high energy costs.

The price of a gallon of gas was only $1.80 when "H" became President.

"H" is chasing the corperations outta the country. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Liberals and trolls vociferously deny that the huge burden of Obamacare on many businesses is causing companies not to hire full time.

 

They're reality-free, as usual.

 

Even Obama's allies in government are doing that.

 

 

According to Obama toadies, "bad weather" caused a 3% drop in economic growth first quarter this year.

 

Which I've never seen in my entire life. Another first for The Chosen One.

 

 

 

Do you know why the U.S. economy shrank almost 3 percent in the first quarter of this year?

 

.....The quick reaction was to blame the bad GDP numbers on the weather, and it is true that much of the country did have record cold temperatures, but in all likelihood the weather was only a minor factor.....The excuse-making by the president reminded me of how the rulers of the Soviet Union used to blame bad economic news on the weather — 70 years of bad weather. :D

 

However, serious economists such as professor Casey Mulligan of the University of Chicago have better explanations for the downturn. Mr. Mulligan has carefully documented both the explicit and implicit new taxes in Obamacare, many of which came into effect during the first quarter of this year. An implicit tax is a reduction in benefits going to workers, which reduces the rewards for working. Mr. Mulligan argues that Obamacare adds “about six points to the marginal tax rate faced, on average, by workers in the economy . Let’s not be surprised that, as we implement a new law that taxes jobs and incomes, we are ending up with fewer jobs and less income.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/30/rahn-an-act-of-economic-strangulation/#ixzz36KAUupTb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

championing the wealthy some more huh?

 

 

how many votes do you get from the wealthy?

 

 

you may have to cheat in elections to win if you don't worry about the REST of the Americans in this democracy.

 

 

Oh yeah you guys just cheat voters out of their right to vote to win elections.

 

 

Money can buy that huh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

richclem you moron it was bush not Obama that said America is no long a manufacturing company but a serves country .

 

job left this country by the handfuls .

 

you are one stupid little person

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1. Obama costing jobs? I don't know - look how well the pipeline went. Wait - that didn't go well, did it? Possibly not enough time for the research.

Other reasons corperations are leaving the US is strangling regulation and high energy costs.

The price of a gallon of gas was only $1.80 when "H" became President.

"H" is chasing the corperations outta the country. :)

I remember when I could fill both tanks on the old 150; and the fuel cell. The good old days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

richclem you moron it was bush not Obama that said America is no long a manufacturing company but a serves country .

 

job left this country by the handfuls .

 

you are one stupid little person

 

Bush's economic policies brought unemployment to a record low, moonbat.

 

Had Dems allowed him to reform Fannie Mae, which they obstructed 13 times, the Financial Freeze would have been minimal, and a McCain presidency would have easily brought prosperity back.

But ignorant moonbats like you don't have the slightest grasp of Economics and related issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Bush's economic policies brought unemployment to a record low, moonbat.

 

Had Dems allowed him to reform Fannie Mae, which they obstructed 13 times, the Financial Freeze would have been minimal, and a McCain presidency would have easily brought prosperity back.

But ignorant moonbats like you don't have the slightest grasp of Economics and related issues.

Richclem,

 

No sense on arguing with liberals, they have no concept of economics or the money supply. This is proven by those vast amount of facts that came out of leftys mouth, NOT. I've tried to post economic posts and get no takers from the left, because they don't understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richclem,

 

No sense on arguing with liberals, they have no concept of economics or the money supply. This is proven by those vast amount of facts that came out of leftys mouth, NOT. I've tried to post economic posts and get no takers from the left, because they don't understand.

 

That is true. They don't have a firm grasp of much of any issue.

 

I gave up trying to debate with liberals many years ago. They're incapable of actual debate.

 

So I simply ridicule them. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, the fines for businesses have been postponed twice, so still haven't come into effect. So how could an expense which hasn't even started yet be causing a loss of jobs for real? Some businesses might be using it as an excuse for firing workers for other reasons, but there is no cost to any businesses yet.

 

Second, the fines are only a little over $1000 per employee, while businesses have to pay more than $10,000 per year per employee for health insurance. Businesses are already saving money by shifting from paying for health insurance themselves to making employees buy their own health insurance. Even when and if the fines go into effect, businesses will still be saving a large amount of money by ending the health care insurance they provide. So if Obamacare is saving employers money already and will continue to save employers money in the future, why would that reduce jobs? Does it make sense to say that an employer will save money, and in saving money, will have to reduce jobs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, the fines for businesses have been postponed twice, so still haven't come into effect. So how could an expense which hasn't even started yet be causing a loss of jobs for real? Some businesses might be using it as an excuse for firing workers for other reasons, but there is no cost to any businesses yet.

 

Because anyone in business with half a brain anticipates not only the direct cost, but the huge drag on the economy and resulting lower profits.

 

 

 

Second, the fines are only a little over $1000 per employee, while businesses have to pay more than $10,000 per year per employee for health insurance. Businesses are already saving money by shifting from paying for health insurance themselves to making employees buy their own health insurance. Even when and if the fines go into effect, businesses will still be saving a large amount of money by ending the health care insurance they provide. So if Obamacare is saving employers money already and will continue to save employers money in the future, why would that reduce jobs? Does it make sense to say that an employer will save money, and in saving money, will have to reduce jobs?

 

You can't easily shift that kind of cost to employees. They'll refuse or demand a huge raise.

 

But companies have already begun to dump employees onto Obama care, and one top Obamacare planner has admitted that most Americans will be dropped from company provided plans.

 

So Obama and Dems told huge lies to Americans about almost every aspect of the plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That is true. They don't have a firm grasp of much of any issue.

 

I gave up trying to debate with liberals many years ago. They're incapable of actual debate.

 

So I simply ridicule them. :)

Now that we agree on this may I suggest something to you.

 

If cons like yourself would stop bringing the following with regards to politics you may win more elections. You'd get the vote of myself and at least 9 other people I know that vote Libertarian.

 

1. Homosexuals

2. Gay marriage

3. Abortions

4. Religion

5. Stopping drug legalization

 

I vote Libertarian because of the GOP's stance on the above. I do not like abortion, but that is part of living in a free society.

 

LIBERTY OR DEATH!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that we agree on this may I suggest something to you.

 

If cons like yourself would stop bringing the following with regards to politics you may win more elections. You'd get the vote of myself and at least 9 other people I know that vote Libertarian.

 

1. Homosexuals

2. Gay marriage

3. Abortions

4. Religion

5. Stopping drug legalization

 

I vote Libertarian because of the GOP's stance on the above. I do not like abortion, but that is part of living in a free society.

 

LIBERTY OR DEATH!

 

Sorry, but I could never in good conscience demand that people stop defending what they consider to be life.

 

How can you?

 

Most policies advocated by Christians are in fact libertarian; stopping government policies and actions that infringe on our religious freedom or spread immoral behavior among others.

 

Allowing homosexual marriage will initiate a federal war on religion, the beginning of which can already be seen. It will be vast and will crush religious freedom and religious institutions.

 

But aside from that, conservatives overwhelmingly are willing to allow homosexuals to live their lives how they want.

 

And I'll bet there's as much support for drug legalization on the right as on the liberal-left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that we agree on this may I suggest something to you.

 

If cons like yourself would stop bringing the following with regards to politics you may win more elections. You'd get the vote of myself and at least 9 other people I know that vote Libertarian.

 

1. Homosexuals

2. Gay marriage

3. Abortions

4. Religion

5. Stopping drug legalization

 

I vote Libertarian because of the GOP's stance on the above. I do not like abortion, but that is part of living in a free society.

 

LIBERTY OR DEATH!

Kind of a paradox for the unborn in a supposedly free society. That being, so many are never allowed to live. OK to jerk away their freedom.

  • I do not care for any agenda being hammered into.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, the fines for businesses have been postponed twice, so still haven't come into effect. So how could an expense which hasn't even started yet be causing a loss of jobs for real? Some businesses might be using it as an excuse for firing workers for other reasons, but there is no cost to any businesses yet.

 

Second, the fines are only a little over $1000 per employee, while businesses have to pay more than $10,000 per year per employee for health insurance. Businesses are already saving money by shifting from paying for health insurance themselves to making employees buy their own health insurance. Even when and if the fines go into effect, businesses will still be saving a large amount of money by ending the health care insurance they provide. So if Obamacare is saving employers money already and will continue to save employers money in the future, why would that reduce jobs? Does it make sense to say that an employer will save money, and in saving money, will have to reduce jobs?

In our local paper last week, the Gov. made the call to hold a special legislative session to to address teacher insurance premiums. As it looks now all part-time state employees will be excluded from insurance packages and spouses will be eliminated if they can get insurance elsewhere. The last part is very interesting to me as I may be affected, my wife is a teacher and I am on her policy, so much for if you like your policy you can keep it, but we all knew that was a lie in the first place. All this is being done to control the skyrocketing cost of healthcare policies, I have no idea how anyone would half a brain could say Obamacare won't have an effect on jobs as employers everywhere will be looking at any possibility to control their cost. Also you bring up the notion that the fines haven't gone into effect as of yet which is crazy because employers see them coming and are making preporations to avoid or control them, what kind of a moron would wait until the last second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...