What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Everytime I think about taking Flaggy off the ignore list, someone quotes him and reminds me why I put him on there in the first place. Only in his warped little head is "dying on the streets" a "fancy lawyer term."
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

unofan said:
Everytime I think about taking Flaggy off the ignore list, someone quotes him and reminds me why I put him on there in the first place. Only in his warped little head is "dying on the streets" a "fancy lawyer term."
Click to expand...

Actually, I think he was confused by the term "umbrage".
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

FreshFish said:
government...is terrible at implementing technology and keeping it current, military excepted.
Click to expand...
I'd remove that exception if I were you. SNAFU is a military term, remember? Military tech only works as well as it does because of the enormous $$$ that gets pumped into it - easily less than 5% efficient in terms of the "bang for the buck" that comes out the other side. Throw enough money at the filter that is bureaucracy, and some useful ideas will eventually leak out despite their best efforts!
 
LynahFan said:
I'd remove that exception if I were you. SNAFU is a military term, remember? Military tech only works as well as it does because of the enormous $$$ that gets pumped into it - easily less than 5% efficient in terms of the "bang for the buck" that comes out the other side. Throw enough money at the filter that is bureaucracy, and some useful ideas will eventually leak out despite their best efforts!
Click to expand...

Well it looks like somebody wants the terrorists to win. :mad: ;)
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

There can be no doubt now that PPACA as written is seriously suppressing job growth. There is abundant evidence that employers are both capping their full-time payrolls at 49, and also are capping hours for "part-time" workers at 29 / week, specifically to avoid the trigger points of the law.

I'm a bit surprised however to find an adamantly-worded objection from private sector unions that is so much on point:

three top union leaders [warn] that the program will "shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class."

Last week's open letter comes from James Hoffa (the Teamsters), Joseph Hansen (United Food and Commercial Workers International) and Donald Taylor (Unite-Here, a hotel and other services union). All three, who together represent three million workers, acknowledge they were once "strong supporters" of the Affordable Care Act but now lament the law's "perverse incentives" that "are already creating nightmare scenarios."

The law "will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans," they note....

The first union grievance is that the employer mandate is leading business to hold worker hours below 30 hours a week to comply with the Administration's regulatory definition. Despite the one-year suspension of the mandate, many businesses that must provide insurance or pay a penalty are shifting to part-time labor, and the union chiefs explain that "fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.

This union remonstrance is on the heels of the 22,000-member United Union of Roofers call in April "for repeal or complete reform" of ObamaCare.
Click to expand...


I've noticed that no one can rebut these charges: it's hard to dispute facts! Instead, the responses are always one of the following:
- "the people who wrote the law meant well" (while ignoring the deletorious effects of misguided good intentions!)
- "anyone who cricitizes the law is heartless and uncaring"
- "i have to blindly defend the law out of partisan loyalty no matter what I might think of it privately"
- "even though PPACA and Massachusetts are vastly different, let's pretend that they are the same even though they aren't so we can talk about how the latter works instead of bemoan how badly the former is now operating in practice."
 
Last edited:
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

FlagDUDE08 said:
There's now claims that people will quit their jobs altogether in order to go on welfare: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/study-obamacare-may-cause-low-income-workers-to-seek-welfare/

I called it back when this was first implemented.
Click to expand...

Duh.

In what appears to have been a gesture of goodwill gone haywire, McDonald's recently teamed up with Visa to create a financial planning site for its low-pay workforce. Unfortunately, whoever wrote the thing seems to have been literally incapable of imagining of how a fast food employee could survive on a minimum wage income.
Click to expand...

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...w-its-workers-survive-on-minimum-wage/277845/
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

FlagDUDE08 said:
You do understand that most of those minimum wage workers are part-time, and assuming they work less than 30 hours per week, are not subject to that regulation, yes?
Click to expand...

Health care: It’s possible, but unlikely, that an employer could offer an insurance policy with an employee contribution of $20 per month. But otherwise, $20 per month isn’t a realistic figure for health insurance.

Low-income individuals receive assistance from Medicaid, but an after-tax income of $24,720 would put Medicaid out of reach in most states. The same point will likely apply to the subsidies offered by Obamacare: An individual with an income of $17,000 in California will be able to get a basic health insurance plan at no cost, but an individual making $28,000 will have to pay at least $137 per month.

So even a young, healthy person will have to pay $100 or more for an individual health insurance policy in most circumstances. Perhaps McDonalds is tacitly admitting that many low-income workers, including McDonalds employees, can’t afford health insurance and simply make do without it.
Click to expand...

.
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Its a funny thing about knuckledragging. They always revert back to the same tactics. For example, some hypothetical knuck' might post something like "There can be no doubt now that PPACA as written is seriously suppressing job growth. There is abundant evidence that employers are both capping their full-time payrolls at 49, and also are capping hours for "part-time" workers at 29 / week, specifically to avoid the trigger points of the law" without posting any evidence as to why there can be no doubt of this ridiculous premise. In fact, the only people who have no doubt are those who are attracted to John Boehner (not that there's anything wrong with that :eek:).

But, when a factual event comes along, there's silence!

http://wonkwire.rollcall.com/2013/07/17/health-insurance-costs-to-plummet-in-new-york/

Read 'em and weep guys. :D
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Rover said:
Its a funny thing about knuckledragging. They always revert back to the same tactics. For example, some hypothetical knuck' might post something like "There can be no doubt now that PPACA as written is seriously suppressing job growth. There is abundant evidence that employers are both capping their full-time payrolls at 49, and also are capping hours for "part-time" workers at 29 / week, specifically to avoid the trigger points of the law" without posting any evidence as to why there can be no doubt of this ridiculous premise. In fact, the only people who have no doubt are those who are attracted to John Boehner (not that there's anything wrong with that :eek:).

But, when a factual event comes along, there's silence!

http://wonkwire.rollcall.com/2013/07/17/health-insurance-costs-to-plummet-in-new-york/

Read 'em and weep guys. :D
Click to expand...

Health insurance costs to plummet in NY?! THEY'RE THE HIGHEST IN THE COUNTRY AND COULDN'T GET ANY HIGHER!!! That's like saying the housing crash of 2007 didn't exist because real estate prices in Buffalo went up. Don't let those facts get in the way of your pandering, though.

So, you say that companies aren't capping their employment to circumvent legislation. Darden restaurants didn't recently make changes to employment style (owners of Olive Garden and Red Lobster), and Regal didn't just lay off a bunch of full-time workers. No, they just put those words out there to put a smile on the faces of those who supposedly have their lips securely affixed to the Speaker of the House's rear end. :rolleyes:
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

FreshFish said:
I've noticed that no one can rebut these charges: it's hard to dispute facts! Instead, the responses are always one of the following:
- "the people who wrote the law meant well" (while ignoring the deletorious effects of misguided good intentions!)
- "anyone who cricitizes the law is heartless and uncaring"
- "i have to blindly defend the law out of partisan loyalty no matter what I might think of it privately"
- "even though PPACA and Massachusetts are vastly different, let's pretend that they are the same even though they aren't so we can talk about how the latter works instead of bemoan how badly the former is now operating in practice."
Click to expand...

Rover said:
Its a funny thing about knuckledragging. They always revert back to the same tactics.
Click to expand...


hey, a two-fer! I guess I was wrong when I said the responses are always "one" of the following, eh?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top