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.
I don't have to anymore since you so kindly showed me things that people were during while I was in high school.
Yeah it would be amazing...if I was a leftie that is. How many times do I have to say it? I'm Independent Moderate and no amount of you calling me something I'm not is going to change that. Better luck next time, buddy.
I'm not hinting at anything. Speak for yourself.
On your first point: I suggest you research before you ASSUME something!
"Poor Obama! No President has EVER been treated like him!"
On your last point: You know darn well what you were hinting at.......But you cant go there because I just showed you that Bush was treated the same (if not WORSE) than Barack!
But all things being equal, if you raise the cost of something then less of it will be purchased or used. Obamacare raises the cost of employment. It necessarily has an enduring, negative impact on jobs.
The answer is to sever the link between employment and healthcare, which is mainly a historical accident anyway. Health care reform is screaming for reform. Too bad the most energetic Republicans are on a path to nowhere, the Democrats are afraid to fix the obvious mistakes, and people are lining up to defend one side or the other instead of demanding progress on the common ground.
Actually, having employees who don't avoid medical care are more healthy than those who avoid going to doctors. As such, they take less time off and are more productive.
Enlightened employers provide preventative care too, which helps both the employee and employer.
Cottage industries always crop up after the passage of major legislation, and the 2010 Affordable Care Act is no exception, notwithstanding GOP predictions that it will be a job-killer. Businesses are hiring lawyers to interpret new rules, consultants to advise them on how to adapt to new regulations, and even dinosaurs to tromp around drugstores.
...
Despite the GOP’s rhetoric about the Affordable Care Act being a ruthless job-wrecker (“It’s the biggest job-killer in this country, and it is hurting Americans, millions of Americans, who are losing their jobs,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said in a recent and typical statement), the law is unlikely to push the nation’s 7.3 percent unemployment rate very far in either direction. That’s because of a tension in the ACA’s provisions, according to a 2011 paper by Urban Institute economists John Holahan and Bowen Garrett. On one hand, the tax penalties facing businesses with 50 or more full-time employees if they fail to provide coverage for the people on their payrolls who work over 30 hours each week could reduce demand for labor. The penalties could prompt employers to drop their workers’ hours under that 30-hour threshold, reduce wages or other benefits to compensate for the new coverage requirements, or employ fewer workers altogether. The law’s reduction in Medicare spending could also lower demand for employees in the health care sector.
On the other hand, the expansion of coverage through a larger Medicaid program and subsidies for Americans to buy insurance through the online exchanges will likely increase demand in the health sector for providers to treat the millions of Americans the Congressional Budget Office predicts will gain health insurance. “Whether slightly positive or slightly negative, the ACA should not have a significant impact on overall employment,” Holahan and Garrett wrote. Holahan and other Urban Institute colleagues revisited the question of whether the ACA was a job-killer in a paper last October that drew the same conclusion—it wasn’t and would have “little impact” on overall employment—based on the experience of Massachusetts after the state passed its 2006 health care law.
Companies have been cutting back on hours for years to avoid paying health care, now suddenly Obama care is to blame. Health care costs have been growing at around 4-5%, government, companies are having a difficult time covering the escalating costs. If Obama care went away tomorrow these companies would still be cutting back.
Before Obamacare, employers could and did shift the burden of healthcare costs to the employee. Now under Obamacare the employer is required to pay.
Using the formula: R/N(S+B)=P
where:
R=Revenue
N=Number of employees
S=Avg salary
B=Cost per employee of benefits
P=Profit
What happens to P when you increase B? If P is already low, either R has to increase or you have to reduce N or S. Cutting hours reduces S, but also effects productivity in most cases. That can lower R. If you cut enough hours(under Obamacare) you reduce S and B, and can increase N to offset the productivity issue. This may be the primary reason for any increase in employment
Consider the balance between S and B. In companies where B is more significant relative to S, the cost of benefits is more significant to profitability. Therefore, in companies that employ a lot of people with lower incomes, it will make more sense to either cut their hours to avoid the cost or hire less, even if it means they have to lay off some in the beginning. Who gets hurt the most?
I am lucky that I work in an industry theat tends to have a higher than average S. The increase in B will have minimal effect, except for the results in the overall economy, such as higher prices for things as well as higher taxes.
Nobody wins except the idiots that the other idiots keep voting into office. They get to keep their high paying jobs, don't they?
Last edited by Cruzincat; 09-27-2013 at 08:56 AM..
Pretty much. I don't remember Bush getting this much hate and vitriol thrown at him during the 8 years he was in office. Why is it all of a sudden different now that Barrack Obama is in?
I wonder.
Didn't you say this? "I don't see it happening because I don't pay attention". Maybe you just weren't paying attention?
But you sure are now, when you've decided that the wolf whistle has been blown.
Didn't you say this? "I don't see it happening because I don't pay attention". Maybe you just weren't paying attention?
Yes I did say that. I also said "I was in high school" during the first term of Bush and in the military for his last three years in office. I didn't exactly have the luxury of paying attention to him and the vitriol sent his way when I was busy serving in the Navy.
Quote:
But you sure are now, when you've decided that the wolf whistle has been blown.
What are you talking about? I raised a question about Bush and it was answered. Why are we even still talking about this? What does this have to do with the topic at hand?
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.
