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.
That isn't the case though. People do not work the same amount of time, at the same level of responsibility, etc... While I won't speak in absolutes (there may be "some" people who work excessive amounts of time with little return), the fact is most people who "earned" their wealth did so by working extreme hours. It is a myth created by class wars that attempts to compare the two as equally contributing.
I know many successful business people, execs, etc... and I can promise you the "average" worker wouldn't want to spend a day in their shoes. It is grueling and stressful work that requires extreme hours and responsibility.
As for healthcare, everyone has the same access. You are arguing for price fixing for people who may not or choose not to afford it. You would be surprised at how many people "can" afford it, but do not wish to make the sacrifices in other areas to do so. That is the problem here, people do not put in equal effort and so someone is going to get the short end of the stick when you "fix" the market.
Maybe you should look a bit closer at government involvement in the system. Each time government gets involved, prices go up. That is the nature of bureaucracies.
In bolded, that just sounds like propaganda to me. Countries like Canada have far less expensive healthcare systems and far more government involvement.
And yes, there are "some" who work and slave their whole lives away and are still poor. My grandmother was a maid who worked over 100 hours a week for a 20 years to support her 8 kids (she didn't have to work until the dad became a deadbeat). She currently lives off of medicare and social security.
As for the price fixing, something as necessary for all as healthcare should be "price fixed" if you wish to word it that way. If the rich don't like it, they can kiss my ass. There is no reason why a CEO should get better than a day laborer or entry level cubicle robot like me if we all have the same illness.
And what would you have people sacrifice for healthcare? Their phones (which come no where near the cost of healthcare)? Their cars? Their homes? What other vital thing should they give up so that they can buy into such a discriminating healthcare system?
I get a significant subsidy based upon my income. It might even cost less than what my employer provides.
If you are between 20-30 (probably goes up beyond 30 as well before costs start to really increase with age, but, didn't look at those numbers so can't say for sure), and you make 25k or more, you are being hurt more by the age-based medical underwriting rule than being helped by the subsidies.
Quote:
Also, "Unless you define insurance that has an expected value of only a small fraction of the premium as "affordable,", how would you know what the expected value of insurance would be? That is why we have insurance, because we don't know what catastrophic things might happen to us down the road.
Expected value is the value of a probabilistic even, like, say getting sick. For an example, if you flip a coin and get $1 on heads and nothing on tails, the expected value of that coin flip is 50 cents.
While the exact things that will happen to a given individual are very hard to predict with any accuracy, but putting an expected value on the probability of such a thing happening is on the other hand quite doable. Which is of course why insurance is even possible: because the expected value of a policy can be quantified and a price set on it.
The theoretical point of insurance (although in the American system the applicability of this statement to health insurance in specific is very debatable) is to trade a certain small loss for protection against the possibility of a big loss, but, when the 'price' of doing so - which is basically the gap between the ratio of the expected value of your policy and the cost of it - rises to half or more of the cost of the policy that isn't affordable, it doesn't make sense, and people are far better of going without insurance and keeping a rainy day fund in that scenario.
A year and a half after the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, bureaucrats at the IRS and Health and Human Services issued an 18-page report outlining new regulations that will dramatically increase health care costs for small and large businesses alike.
The regulations, written by an IRS attorney, arbitrarily redefine "full time employee" as someone who works 30 hours a week for a business. Traditionally, most private businesses have defined "full time employee" as someone who works 40 hours a week. With this new regulation, the federal government is now removing the right of businesses to define "full time employee" as they deem appropriate for their unique conditions.
Section 4980H applies to “applicable large employers†(generally, employers who employed at least 50 full-time employees, including full-time equivalent employees, on business days during the preceding calendar year).
...
Section 4980H(c)(4) provides that a full-time employee with respect to any month is an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week. (or 130 hours per month, per the footnote)
And don't try to make a quick change to an employee's schedule to make them part time...
Under the look-back/stability period safe harbor method, an employer would determine each employee’s full-time status by looking back at a defined period of not less than three but not more than 12 consecutive calendar months, as chosen by the employer (the measurement period), to determine whether during the measurement period the employee averaged at least 30 hours of service per week.
The IRS writing Health Care legislation. What could be more American than that?
This isn't new. I worked for a company that classified anything over 32 hours per week full-time, and that was five years ago.
Dumbos don't realize that you can give everyone Walmart healthcare.
But dumbos and lawyers expect everyone to get Neiman Marcus healthcare.
You know who made that analogy to me once? A Canadian doctor. Says Canadians are ok with Walmart healthcare. So their system works. He said derms (he is a derm) get quarter pay caps...so they work 2 months and then take a month off. So people wait and wait for derm.
We can't do that here. Just the litigation alone...
Meanwhile, Canadian government using attrition (people dying before their procedures are available) as a way to cut costs. Brilliant.
This isn't new. I worked for a company that classified anything over 32 hours per week full-time, and that was five years ago.
I consider this a very good thing.
Yes this is new. Companies set what hours determine full time status, not the FedGov.
But now they will.
You think Walmart (34 hours is full time status) is going to reclassify all their part time workers (30-33 hours) to full time and give them full time benefits or do you think Walmart will reduce their hours to 29 max to keep them at part time ?
I fail to see how full work-time being lowered to 30 hours a week from 40 hours is a bad thing. Does that not give people more time to spend with their families and more leisure time?
Oh right. Obama is a liberal. That means that everything he does is bad by default. How silly of me to forget.
You think Walmart (34 hours is full time status) is going to reclassify all their part time workers (30-33 hours) to full time and give them full time benefits or do you think Walmart will reduce their hours to 29 max to keep them at part time ?
I think many places are in a race to the bottom when it comes to what they offer employees. Unfortunately it usually has to get beyond ridiculous for anything to happen because many people usually will cling to their 14 hours a week minimum wage jobs if it's the only thing available to them while companies, who have no interest in a healthy economy or healthy society, play it for all it's worth. It's sad when society becomes desperate and sadder when big American businesses are the ones causing the desperation.
Wow..a kid is still a kid until 26 and full time work is now 30 hours a week.
Those poor employers with part time people are so screwed.
This administration has changed a lot of rules on us.
So now instead of employers keeping people to under 40 hours a week they are going to change tactics and keep people under 30 hours a week.
This will bode well for the economy and people's paychecks. The employers can still do it now though..they do have a 12 month leeway here.
Can't even begin to tell you how much this pisses me off. Getting 32 hours a week as a part time is just barely cutting it and now this clown shoe wants to f*** with everything and call full time, "30 hours" a week.
THANKS *******! Now I get less work hours, less pay and have to get yet another job! Who the hell ****ing voted in this useless prick?
Can't even begin to tell you how much this pisses me off. Getting 32 hours a week as a part time is just barely cutting it and now this clown shoe wants to f*** with everything and call full time, "30 hours" a week.
THANKS *******! Now I get less work hours, less pay and have to get yet another job! Who the hell ****ing voted in this useless prick?
What exactly is so bad about changing full-time to thirty hours a week? Doesn't that give workers more free-time?
I think many places are in a race to the bottom when it comes to what they offer employees. Unfortunately it usually has to get beyond ridiculous for anything to happen because many people usually will cling to their 14 hours a week minimum wage jobs if it's the only thing available to them while companies, who have no interest in a healthy economy or healthy society, play it for all it's worth. It's sad when society becomes desperate and sadder when big American businesses are the ones causing the desperation.
Wait a minute here. The Government just decided that 30 hours is considered full time.
How is business causing desperation here ?
Any business that used to have 40 hours as full time and anything under that as part time will soon have a boatload of new full time employees that will get full time benefits. This is over and above Obamacare.
Open you eyes..the FedGov just redefined what hours constitute a full time job. They took that decision away from business.
As you can see from the many posts here, companies decide what constitutes full time and they vary.
A previous poster is right...you are going to have part time workers having a lot more leisure time because their 33 hour part time job won't be considered part time anymore.
You think employers won't cut hours to maintain the balance of full time vs part time employees ?
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.
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.
