joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux The reason that every employed person still has theirs is because the employer mandate was pushed back a year. (At a cost of billions). Various components necessary for the employer portion, even despite the "failure is not an option" dictate were nothing but vaporware. Your knowledge of recent US History is PATHETIC! While this will be a complete shock to you, its fairly normal to anyone with an actual brain and uses it: The President is a fairly reasonable individual. And he surrounds himself with very intelligent, reasonable people as well. When companies approached him back in the summer of 2010 and even as far as the fall of 2011, they expressed having a great deal of problems switching their company policies over into compliance with the new law. Some of those policies were actually held up in court cases, and some of them need to be restructured to account for all the finer aspects of the law. The President responded by setting those set of rules back a full year as a compromise. This is information one can find on any non-conservative source to date. Conservative media sources did not report this information, as it would place the President in the correct lighting: Being reasonable towards US Companies. quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Also pushed back: Hispanic websites. The President has total power and access over all Hispanic websites? Don't look now, Phydeaux, but your 'right wing conspiracy nutcase' is showing.... quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Now in the employer market, the disaster will be both bigger and milder than in the individual market. But its coming, just the same. The government (again) has made essentially no additional progress on the employer mandate, yet. THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FAILING!!!!! You really have no idea what your babbling about. Most US Companies will have their healthcare policy(ies) in place within the year. Those that do not, will pay the fine each year until its fixed. The employer mandate is proceeding just fine when you live in the rational world. Those companies in Massachusetts handled the problem within a year's time after the MHCRA of 2007 was past. Granted that was just one state instead of fifty and one district, the Democrats in office gave a fair amount of lead time to make adjustments. And it worked. At a national level, companies must make sure their healthcare policy works and operates in each area to which they might do business in the future. Not exactly a simple of easy task to perform under a deadline; but that's why the lawyers get paid the big bucks! quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux In the meantime, businesses are continuing to shed full time positions into part time positions, to avoid the health care costs. A company shedding jobs and making the excuse 'its because of the ACA' is REALLY shedding them for other reasons (i.e. their profit for the end quarter is not as good as they stated). Most people in high levels of business know NOT to publically state a political affiliation unless it helps their bottom line. For example, firearm companies joining up with their lackey lobbyist group: The NRA. Companies 'shed' jobs as you put it, for quite a number of reasons. The REAL reason(s) for shedding those jobs may not be made public for an all together different set of reasons. The evidence in the marketplace simply does not support what your stating. quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Now, since employers typically have larger pools of individuals, and hence do not have to be sold on a case by case basis, the premiums are smaller. And since many employers will pick up the costs, many people will be shielded from the effects. Many however will not I worked for the Small Business Administration. Most employers were considered 'small businesses' in America. Corporations with great numbers of people only fill up about 20-25% of the total employers in America (and that's a generous number). For every 'Dell Computer' Employer, there exists a few hundred if not a thousand small businesses called 'Bob's Computers'. They do the same thing: sell computers. One is much bigger and employees a far greater number of workers than that at Bob's Computers. Its been understood in macro economics (a course you never took in college) called 'scale of economies'. A big company can handle situations and issues that smaller companies and/or individuals could never muster. Buying 100 brand new cars from GM is simply not something Bob's Computers could afford. Even Dell would need to explain to shareholders why those cars were purchased. Would anyone notice if the US Government bought those cars? The ACA was originally aimed at two groups of people: 1 ) Those would could not get healthcare and were going bankrupt (causing everyone else's rates to rise), and small businesses. The first one should be fairly obvious to anyone with a brain. The second takes some explaining. Small businesses generally do not have the purchasing power of large corporations. Yet the owner and upper level manager(s) know the employees on a first name basis. When something dreadful happens to an employee, those employers are often very empathetic to the employee but unfortunately very limited in how they can help them out. quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Finally, hundreds and thousands of exemptions have been granted. So the employees of cronies of the democrats - unions, gm, etc got special grandfathering that are not available to average americans. The depth of 'wrong' that is with you is staggering! If it has ANYTHING to do with the word 'Democrat' your against. Or 'Liberal'. Or 'Liberalis' the Latin word 'Liberal' is based from (do you even know what that word means?). And the word is 'Americans', not americans. People use 'americans' when they don't respect Americans. An since the spell checker picks up on the difference with a little red squiggly line, you did it on purpose!.
|