We'll see a lot of it. This is not an issue of spite, it's economics.
Obamacare, explained.
- Thread starter larryselbows
- Start date
We'll see a lot of it. This is not an issue of spite, it's economics.
larryselbows
Banned
I know in the case of Darden, they currently offer all of their employees mini plans. That is, they offer insurance that covers minor issues. Doctors visits, flu shots, prescriptions... most of the day to day stuff that a majority of people deal with on a regular basis. Under Obamacare, these mini plans do not count, and as such, Darden is now faced with giving all of their employees full coverage which will be hundreds of millions of dollars to insure all of their employees. The way around this is to make all of your employees part time. Darden is going to drop all of their employees to part time status and limit them to 28 hours a week. So now, not only do the employees lose their basic insurance, they lose money due to reduced hours.
McDonald's has a very similar plan and is trying gain exempt status from Obamacare.
Another option that I am hearing about is an employer will hire you on as an independent contractor. As such, you do not work for the company, they are just paying you to do a specific job as a contractor. This absolves them of all benefits and it is up to the contractor to take care of themselves including health care and all taxes.
Businesses will find a way around such an onerous tax as Obamacare and in many cases to the detriment of the very people that Obama thought he was helping. Businesses are in business to make money, not to provide employees with health insurance.
larryselbows
Banned
This isn't completely true, only companies that have greater than 50 full time employees must give full coverage to each of their full-time employees - it doesn't apply to all businesses, particularly small businesses. The PPACA is unconcerned with the part-time or full-time status of workers when deciding if a company must give affordable health insurance options to their full-time employees. Rather, it counts the total amount of hours that a company must complete to continue operations. If these hours are equal to or more than the amount of work that would require 50 full-time workers to complete, then the healthcare requirement kicks in for full-time employees, regardless of if a company has 50 full time employees or 100 part-time employees doing the same amount of work. (Citation: https://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf#page=174)
You may be right on this and it sounds sensible to me from a business standpoint.
Edit: I realize that I should have been more sympathetic to those that work for large companies and may be affected by the healthcare plan and that you make a good point, Scat, in those instances.
Last edited:
You are one of the few Euros I've met here that would rather have our old system than your current one.
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
Sounds like a smart guy.
DutchJazzer
Banned
cus i'm not european.
i'm throwing money in a bottomless pit
and irresponsible drinkers smoekrs and obese fat ****s go to hosptial and i pay for their care.
and every godd dammed year the increase the amount i got to pay.
in univrsity i had this dorm made who drank his liver to **** he got hospitalized 7 times, and I have to pay for that crap.
while someone who decide to live healthy and lost a lot of weight. now has skin hanging and insurance wont pay for a skin tuck.
so you smoke drink eat a lot of **** if you get cancer diabetes liver condition hospital pays.
but you deice to live healthy and need a skin tuck they say screw you.
i live healthy gave 10.000 euros and get no reward for being in excelent phsyicial condition
Who pays for the people that show up to the ER with no insurance?
The same ones paying for Medicaid.
Do you see them as one in the same?
Are you asking in an always sense? No of course not. There are always exceptions. But I think a good portion of them are.
I don't think you understand what "utilitarian" means. My expectations that licensed professional will adhere to the standers of the profession in which they have been licensed has nothing with a cost-benefit analysis, and everything to do with notions of trust and vunerability.
With freedom comes responsibility. If the exercise of your freedom of religion means you can't responsibly be a doctor, don't be a doctor.
If your doctor converted to being a Christian Scientist, would if be okay with you if they refused to suggest medically indicated surgeries? What should be the burden on you to keep track of this?
I agree Obamacare is a poor way of handling healthcare. Hopefully, it will lead to something more efficient, such as removing healthcare from being the responsibility of employers.
It pains me to say, but if we're not going to go with a system where each person can buy their own health insurance for a reasonable rate and if the government is going to be involved anyway single payer makes the most sense.
Some of it is government coverage, some of it is built into the contracts the hospitals make with insurance companies.
Sometimes pain is good for you.
I still think the best option for our country would be something close to the German model. Government pays, but private insurance companies administrate, and people choose whihc private company ot use. Bonuses get awarded for good management of the population and for taking on people with chronic conditions. Employers don't have devote HR staff to insurance care.
Sometimes pain is good for you.
I still think the best option for our country would be something close to the German model. Government pays, but private insurance companies administrate, and people choose whihc private company ot use. Bonuses get awarded for good management of the population and for taking on people with chronic conditions. Employers don't have devote HR staff to insurance care.
I honestly hate that arrangement. The government giving guaranteed business to private enterprise and most likely effectively shutting the door on anyone trying to enter the market. The only thing worse is our privately run prison system that has incentive to increase our prisoner population and keeping their customers incarcerated.
I agree you would need significant start-up capital/connections to open a health insurance company within a state under those conditions, but that's already true today. I honestly thought you would be in favor of insurance companies competing with each other for direct customer choices. Prison is indeed different. Prisoners don't get to choose to which prison they are sent.
larryselbows
Banned
I fully understand what "utilitarian" means. I just think that you and I disagree - and that's okay.