Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
 
Old 10-29-2013, 07:35 AM
 
Location: State of Being
35,879 posts, read 77,519,093 times
Reputation: 22753

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Ah, well it is good to know you are advising companies to screw over their own employers. I doubt you are advising your own company to drop your health care as well.
It is better to make adjustments to cash flow in order to stay in business, keep folks employed, be able to offer raises, than succumb to having to lay folks off and withhold raises to stay in business.

Go all proletariat if you wish. I believe in doing the greatest good and sometimes, the best you can do is move the money around in order to keep folks employed.

I don't expect people who have never been involved with operations and stategic planning to understand this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-29-2013, 07:37 AM
 
Location: State of Being
35,879 posts, read 77,519,093 times
Reputation: 22753
SO yes, I WANT MY OLD POLICY BACK!!!! It was affordable for my employer and for me, as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 07:46 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,198,674 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821 View Post
It is better to make adjustments to cash flow in order to stay in business, keep folks employed, be able to offer raises, than succumb to having to lay folks off and withhold raises to stay in business.

Go all proletariat if you wish. I believe in doing the greatest good and sometimes, the best you can do is move the money around in order to keep folks employed.

I don't expect people who have never been involved with operations and stategic planning to understand this.
So it is better to screw over employees than it is to reduce CEO profits to make sure their own employees have health benefits. Good to know the heads of corporations will be able to look after the well being of their wallets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 07:47 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,198,674 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821 View Post
SO yes, I WANT MY OLD POLICY BACK!!!! It was affordable for my employer and for me, as well.
Maybe you should have thought of that before advising your employer to ********* over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 07:48 AM
 
10,793 posts, read 13,550,376 times
Reputation: 6189
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristineVA View Post
I never heard that offer. I think only stupid people thought that.
Well, its NOT affordable either.............he DID say THAT.............
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 08:02 AM
 
Location: State of Being
35,879 posts, read 77,519,093 times
Reputation: 22753
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Maybe you should have thought of that before advising your employer to ********* over.
Here's the thing, my friend. The same policy would have cost my employer AND ME thousands of additional dollars a year!!!! If it were not for ACA, this would not have occurred! I do not think you are paying attention here . . . we have had the same insurance for years and the premium has remained fairly steady. But with the changes that ACA mandates, the policy was going to skyrocket in cost. None of the employees felt that was the right thing to do . . . for everyone to have to pay THOUSANDS more a year to hang onto the policy. So instead, we will have a much less robust policy that has things in it that NONE OF US NEED COVERAGE FOR - because it is mandated!!!! - and it will still cost us more - and it won't provide the coverage we have had. There wasn't really a decision to be made. NO ONE WANTS TO PAY THOUSANDS MORE A YEAR - it makes no sense - when the THOUSANDS has been tagged on b/c of mandated provisions in the policy. If you don't understand this, that's okay. But it has nothing to do with CEOs who are greedy or low paid employees. None of our employees makes under $60K a year and none makes over $200K at the top. So stop with the communist manifesto. No one is getting screwed in the company - other than by THIS CURRENT WHITE HOUSE ADMINISTRATION.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 08:09 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,198,674 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821 View Post
Here's the thing, my friend. The same policy would have cost my employer AND ME thousands of additional dollars a year!!!! If it were not for ACA, this would not have occurred! I do not think you are paying attention here . . . we have had the same insurance for years and the premium has remained fairly steady. But with the changes that ACA mandates, the policy was going to skyrocket in cost. None of the employees felt that was the right thing to do . . . for everyone to have to pay THOUSANDS more a year to hang onto the policy. So instead, we will have a much less robust policy that has things in it that NONE OF US NEED COVERAGE FOR - because it is mandated!!!! - and it will still cost us more - and it won't provide the coverage we have had. There wasn't really a decision to be made. NO ONE WANTS TO PAY THOUSANDS MORE A YEAR - it makes no sense - when the THOUSANDS has been tagged on b/c of mandated provisions in the policy. If you don't understand this, that's okay. But it has nothing to do with CEOs who are greedy or low paid employees. None of our employees makes under $60K a year and none makes over $200K at the top. So stop with the communist manifesto. No one is getting screwed in the company - other than by THIS CURRENT WHITE HOUSE ADMINISTRATION.
So you would rather go without healthcare? Yeah, I am not buying it. You can rationalize your employer taking advantage of you all you want if that helps you justify not trying to find a better job that doesn't try to take advantage of their employees.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 08:16 AM
 
Location: State of Being
35,879 posts, read 77,519,093 times
Reputation: 22753
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
So you would rather go without healthcare? Yeah, I am not buying it. You can rationalize your employer taking advantage of you all you want if that helps you justify not trying to find a better job that doesn't try to take advantage of their employees.
I am sorry. What you are saying is nonsensical. No one is going without healthcare insurance. Have you not noticed? We will all be under a single provider soon, anyway. That is where this is all leading! Please explain to me how it is of benefit to employees to charge them $9000 more a year in order to keep an insurance policy? Plus the employer has to pay additional premiums on that side, as well. No one wants to do that! At least this way, employees are freed up to use the exchanges to individually get whatever policy best suits their budgets and with the least offensive coverage. That still doesn't mean I do not WANT MY OLD POLICY BACK. MY OLD POLICY WILL NO LONGER BE OFFERED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY!!!!! Are folks just not connecting the dots, or what??????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 09:20 AM
 
Location: London, U.K.
3,006 posts, read 3,872,289 times
Reputation: 1750
There's no such thing as free healthcare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 09:23 AM
 
Location: London, U.K.
3,006 posts, read 3,872,289 times
Reputation: 1750
Insurance companies are run on a conflict of interest basis. The whole idea of funding healthcare via a for profit insurance model is beyond stupid.

You should have moved to single payer imo, or at least a non profit insurance system (eg. Germany, Switzerland) and kept the private insurance system running alongside it.
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:44 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top