Employers Cutting Workers to 29 1/2 Hours to Avoid ObamaCare

Here we go again:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/09/04/afl-cio-president-trumka-employers-restructuring-workforce-29-12-hour#ixzz2dwtDWx9o

During a recent interview, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said employers are "restructuring their workforce to give workers 29 and a half hours so they don't have to provide them healthcare."


Lefties still believe in Obamacare?

Do they add advertising costs when the CBO comes up with its numbers?

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/obamacare-ad-buy-96339.html

$12M for in extra costs for nothing, nice.

Originally posted by Eladar
Here we go again:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/09/04/afl-cio-president-trumka-employers-restructuring-workforce-29-12-hour#ixzz2dwtDWx9o

[b]During a recent interview, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said employers are "restructuring their workforce to give workers 29 and a half hours so they don't have to provide them healthcare."


Lefties still believe in Obamacare?[/b]

Well why not?? The employers are entitled to their company yachts, jets, corporate retreats, spa's, busty secretaries, 7 and 8 figure incomes, massive bonuses, golden parachutes, and (of course) the right to ship lots and lots of jobs overseas. Employers can't be concerned with the sordid affairs of the lower classes. Let the common folks eat their 29.5 hour work weeks. We can always blame everything on that LIBERAL President. What are you...some kind of commie?😠😠😠

Leave the country to the right wingers and the streets of U.S. cities will soon look like those in Bombay and Calcutta.

Originally posted by Phranny
Leave the country to the right wingers and the streets of U.S. cities will soon look like those in Bombay and Calcutta.

Who is that female talking head on Fox Business news that defines poverty as having less than 250k?

Originally posted by bill718
Well why not?? The employers are entitled to their company yachts, jets, corporate retreats, spa's, busty secretaries, 7 and 8 figure incomes, massive bonuses, golden parachutes, and (of course) the right to ship lots and lots of jobs overseas. Employers can't be concerned with the sordid affairs of the lower classes. Let the common folks eat their 29.5 hour ...[text shortened]... n always blame everything on that LIBERAL President. What are you...some kind of commie?😠😠😠

It's all fine and good to blame the execs, but that doesn't solve the real life problems. People are going to try to do what's best for their bottom lines. The question is how to reconcile that reality with policies that improve the lots of the largest numbers of people.

The ACA required employers to buy good health insurance for full time employees or pay a penalty. The obvious hole in this require is that employers who can work their ways around this by hiring part time people will do so. If the administration didn't see this coming, they're idiots.

Oh, and this is not about big corporate CEOs with their jets and yachts. Big companies probably can't work around the ACA's requirement anyway. This phenomenon of companies decreasing full time workforce will play out mostly with medium sized companies led by entrepreneurs who are not necessarily rich at all.

The employer mandate (sometimes known as "pay or play" ) was ill conceived and probably does more harm than good. Personally, I think a robust public option would have been a better idea, but that's a different issue.

I don't really get the employer mandate either. Why not simply leave it at an individual mandate, provide subsidies for people who cannot afford an individual plan (e.g. make it free of charge for people making less than 200% of minimum wage and then scale up the premium as income increases) and leave it up to companies whether they want to offer a collective plan for their employees?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I don't really get the employer mandate either. Why not simply leave it at an individual mandate, provide subsidies for people who cannot afford an individual plan (e.g. make it free of charge for people making less than 200% of minimum wage and then scale up the premium as income increases) and leave it up to companies whether they want to offer a collective plan for their employees?

Why have a mandate at all? Why not just allow freedom of choice and letting people suffer the consequences for bad decisions? Let people enjoy the consequences of wise decisions!

Mandates don't work, other than using the power of the government to force people to buy products provided by private businesses.

Btw, nothing is for free. Everything has a cost. The government can't wave its arms and say "you get it for free".

Originally posted by Eladar
Why have a mandate at all? Why not just allow freedom of choice and letting people suffer the consequences for bad decisions? Let people enjoy the consequences of wise decisions!

Mandates don't work, other than using the power of the government to force people to buy products provided by private businesses.

Btw, nothing is for free. Everything has a cost. The government can't wave its arms and say "you get it for free".

Because a) letting people suffer the consequences for "bad decisions" can be disadvantageous to others and society in general and b) it's both inefficient from an economic perspective and cruel from a moral perspective to let children suffer because of the mistakes or unfortune of their parents.

Originally posted by Eladar
Why have a mandate at all? Why not just allow freedom of choice and letting people suffer the consequences for bad decisions? Let people enjoy the consequences of wise decisions!

Mandates don't work, other than using the power of the government to force people to buy products provided by private businesses.

Btw, nothing is for free. Everything has a cost. The government can't wave its arms and say "you get it for free".

I agree with KN.

Healthcare is not the same as other markets. As a society, it's immoral to let people die that could be saved because of a lack of money. Once that's established as a principle and we can't let people suffer the consequences of their decisions, as manner must be sought to most efficiently provide health benefits while sharing the cost in the most sensible way.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Because a) letting people suffer the consequences for "bad decisions" can be disadvantageous to others and society in general and b) it's both inefficient from an economic perspective and cruel from a moral perspective to let children suffer because of the mistakes or unfortune of their parents.

Kids suffer from bad parents in all sorts of ways, in fact in worse ways than having no health insurance. Perhaps you should have the government raise our kids for us since so many parents do a bad job of it.

Originally posted by Phranny
Leave the country to the right wingers and the streets of U.S. cities will soon look like those in Bombay and Calcutta.

Been to Detroit lately? Forty years in the control of left wingers, and Bombay and Calcutta are looking like great places to vacation compared to Detroit. For perspective try reading "Devil's Night and other True Tales of Detroit" by Zev Chalets.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I don't really get the employer mandate either. Why not simply leave it at an individual mandate, provide subsidies for people who cannot afford an individual plan (e.g. make it free of charge for people making less than 200% of minimum wage and then scale up the premium as income increases) and leave it up to companies whether they want to offer a collective plan for their employees?

Providing subsidies, or giving stuff away free always has a component of moral hazard, where people stop trying to provide for themselves.

Originally posted by Eladar
Kids suffer from bad parents in all sorts of ways, in fact in worse ways than having no health insurance. Perhaps you should have the government raise our kids for us since so many parents do a bad job of it.

Kids suffer from bad parents in all sorts of ways, in fact in worse ways than having no health insurance.

False dilemma.

Perhaps you should have the government raise our kids for us since so many parents do a bad job of it.

Non sequitur.

Originally posted by normbenign
Providing subsidies, or giving stuff away free always has a component of moral hazard, where people stop trying to provide for themselves.

Most industrialized nations provide free or very cheap health care to the poor, and there is no empirical evidence suggesting this makes them stop working or stop seeking work. A country like Norway, with very generous benefits, has roughly ten percentage points more of the working age population actually working than the US does.