U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-22-2015, 11:46 AM
 
Location: Washington State
15,591 posts, read 8,183,049 times
Reputation: 13314

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I can guarantee you that her old policy had problems with it because if it didn't, she could have stayed with it when the ACA became law. Most of these policies had annual and lifetime limits, exclusions for pre-existing conditions, or a very small pool of plan physicians and hospitals. The ACA doesn't allow those crap policies, so I understand why people who never read the terms of their old policy feel ripped off. But when you analyze them it's comparing apples with oranges. I would much prefer medicare for all, with the ability to buy extended policies for additional coverage as an option, but I don't think that will happen in my lifetime
Her previous policy was a million times better and cheaper than her Obamacare sux policy. my previous policy was also much much better than the obamacare sux policy I have now because my employer offered me a policy that was too good and Obamacare sux policy forced them to do away with it. My son's employer was forced to offer him a much worse policy as well. My son and I are fine just thousands poorer due to Obamacare sux but my daughter and her husband are put into a very serious and dangerous situation due to Obamacare sux policies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-22-2015, 11:47 AM
 
17,671 posts, read 15,043,523 times
Reputation: 33450
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
If the IRS didn't make that new ruling about 30 hours they could have had 32 hours and health insurance.

The point of Obamacare was to provide insurance to those that could not afford it.

30 hours being full time never came into the picture until after the law got passed.
But people weren't being provided with health insurance, don't you understand that? Millions of people in this country working even 2 and 3 part time jobs and none giving enough hours for benefits BEFORE the ACA, that was the REASON for the ACA. I have a friend who worked in a casino for 25 years before she got laid off 10 years ago, she's been working retail jobs part-time since then 2 a day and did not have the ability to get benefits until ACA.

It's nice to say they "could have" but they were not getting it. Do you understand that the reason they are cutting hours is because they now have to provide benefits for more than 25 hours, and before they did not even at 32 hours??

Like anything else, any change is going to help some people and others will be worse off. But many many more people now have health insurance than they did before, which saves ALL of us money.

I love how no one blames corporate greed. A great many Walmart and other retail workers got Medicaid before ACA...you think it's better for the taxpayers to pay for insurance so greedy rich companies don't have to?

Also I doubt Staples employees would be getting 32 hours regardless of ACA...they are in serious financial trouble and under pressure to cut hours and lay off employees not due to ACA but due to inability to compete with Amazon and other online retailers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2015, 11:52 AM
 
Location: la la land
27,601 posts, read 11,619,170 times
Reputation: 19511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Traveler View Post
Her previous policy was a million times better and cheaper than her Obamacare sux policy. my previous policy was also much much better than the obamacare sux policy I have now because my employer offered me a policy that was too good and Obamacare sux policy forced them to do away with it. My son's employer was forced to offer him a much worse policy as well. My son and I are fine just thousands poorer due to Obamacare sux but my daughter and her husband are put into a very serious and dangerous situation due to Obamacare sux policies.
Somehow I have the feeling that your health insurance would not be half as bad if it were called "Romney-care" or "McCain care"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2015, 11:54 AM
 
Location: la la land
27,601 posts, read 11,619,170 times
Reputation: 19511
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl View Post
But people weren't being provided with health insurance, don't you understand that? Millions of people in this country working even 2 and 3 part time jobs and none giving enough hours for benefits BEFORE the ACA, that was the REASON for the ACA. I have a friend who worked in a casino for 25 years before she got laid off 10 years ago, she's been working retail jobs part-time since then 2 a day and did not have the ability to get benefits until ACA.

It's nice to say they "could have" but they were not getting it. Do you understand that the reason they are cutting hours is because they now have to provide benefits for more than 25 hours, and before they did not even at 32 hours??

Like anything else, any change is going to help some people and others will be worse off. But many many more people now have health insurance than they did before, which saves ALL of us money.

I love how no one blames corporate greed. A great many Walmart and other retail workers got Medicaid before ACA...you think it's better for the taxpayers to pay for insurance so greedy rich companies don't have to?

Also I doubt Staples employees would be getting 32 hours regardless of ACA...they are in serious financial trouble and under pressure to cut hours and lay off employees not due to ACA but due to inability to compete with Amazon and other online retailers.
well said and you're right about Staples, as I said earlier in the thread, Staples was limiting hourly non supervisory employees to 25 hours a week over 15 years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2015, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 70,305,517 times
Reputation: 27525
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl View Post
But people weren't being provided with health insurance, don't you understand that? Millions of people in this country working even 2 and 3 part time jobs and none giving enough hours for benefits BEFORE the ACA, that was the REASON for the ACA. I have a friend who worked in a casino for 25 years before she got laid off 10 years ago, she's been working retail jobs part-time since then 2 a day and did not have the ability to get benefits until ACA.

It's nice to say they "could have" but they were not getting it. Do you understand that the reason they are cutting hours is because they now have to provide benefits for more than 25 hours, and before they did not even at 32 hours??

Like anything else, any change is going to help some people and others will be worse off. But many many more people now have health insurance than they did before, which saves ALL of us money.

I love how no one blames corporate greed. A great many Walmart and other retail workers got Medicaid before ACA...you think it's better for the taxpayers to pay for insurance so greedy rich companies don't have to?

Also I doubt Staples employees would be getting 32 hours regardless of ACA...they are in serious financial trouble and under pressure to cut hours and lay off employees not due to ACA but due to inability to compete with Amazon and other online retailers.
Don't be fixated on just Staples. Other job hours got cut.
Sub teachers are now only working 3 days a week so as not to hit 30 hours.
Most have gone to an online system where they can set up restrictions.

This law pulled in jobs that never offered health insurance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2015, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Washington State
15,591 posts, read 8,183,049 times
Reputation: 13314
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Somehow I have the feeling that your health insurance would not be half as bad if it were called "Romney-care" or "McCain care"
Probably would have been better. I'm about $10K poorer compared to where I would be if I still had my company's pre Obamacare sux policy and my son also has a much worse policy. But as I said, my daughter and her husband are really suffering due to Obamacare sux policies...and they supported that insanity until they found out its effect to them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2015, 12:22 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
19,189 posts, read 9,043,175 times
Reputation: 18581
Tall Traveler, you need to put the blame where it belongs -- with your old employer.

Since Obamacare came in, my employer changed health care companies, but the coverage was pretty much equal...slightly better is some aspects, slightly worse in other aspects...overall, no substantive change. And, the % rate increases each year have been the smallest of my 33 year work history.

So, your old company didn't do right by you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2015, 12:25 PM
 
17,671 posts, read 15,043,523 times
Reputation: 33450
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Don't be fixated on just Staples. Other job hours got cut.
Sub teachers are now only working 3 days a week so as not to hit 30 hours.
Most have gone to an online system where they can set up restrictions.

This law pulled in jobs that never offered health insurance.
So how were those people supposed to get health care? The ER as family doc that we all pay for?? Most corporate profits are way, way up they can afford to insure their workers, they just don't want to. This is yet another example of trickle down not being allowed to trickle anymore, they grab onto and keep every cent. The ACA was a way to get more people insured. Companies used to do this, they broke the covenant and are still breaking it, and everyone sides with them. I don't get it. So again, what in your opinion should the solution have been? The uninsured rate is down and keeps going down thanks to the ACA, people who were never able to get insurance due to pre-existing conditions now have insurance...so again, what do you propose?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2015, 12:31 PM
 
Location: Washington State
15,591 posts, read 8,183,049 times
Reputation: 13314
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
Tall Traveler, you need to put the blame where it belongs -- with your old employer.

Since Obamacare came in, my employer changed health care companies, but the coverage was pretty much equal...slightly better is some aspects, slightly worse in other aspects...overall, no substantive change. And, the % rate increases each year have been the smallest of my 33 year work history.

So, your old company didn't do right by you.
I disagree because I've stayed at the same company but with the passing of ObamaI don'tcare, my policy was deemed to good for me by the Obamites and they forced my company to offer me a much worse policy or pay a tax on that policy. My son's company did the same due to Obama sux policy. But as I said, my son and I work in tech and engineering so we just pay the greatly increased cost to us and we are just fine with less money in our pocket due to Obama care sux. But my daughter's health and her husband are at serious risk now that they've been screwed over by the President and policies they thought they supported but have since changed their minds about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2015, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 70,305,517 times
Reputation: 27525
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl View Post
So how were those people supposed to get health care? The ER as family doc that we all pay for?? Most corporate profits are way, way up they can afford to insure their workers, they just don't want to. This is yet another example of trickle down not being allowed to trickle anymore, they grab onto and keep every cent. The ACA was a way to get more people insured. Companies used to do this, they broke the covenant and are still breaking it, and everyone sides with them. I don't get it. So again, what in your opinion should the solution have been? The uninsured rate is down and keeps going down thanks to the ACA, people who were never able to get insurance due to pre-existing conditions now have insurance...so again, what do you propose?
They never were. Being a sub teacher is not by any means a full time career type job.
It's a variable hour job. You could go weeks at the beginning of school with no calls.

Most do it for extra money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top