Your thoughts about the ruling in Obamacare that makes working 30 hours equal fu

1. 71

   The Frog Princeposted 11 years ago

   Your thoughts about the ruling in Obamacare that makes working 30 hours equal full time employment?
   
   A business must provide insurance if it has 50 or more employees working an average of just 30 hours per week, which is 10 hours per week fewer than the traditional 40-hour work week. Do you see how this can have other far reaching implications such as the smoke and mirrors routine we see performed by the BLS to give you a warm fuzzy about the unemployment figures?  What other implications can you see as a citizen of this nation now with this "new rule?"
   
   

   replyreport
2. 79

   Chris Nealposted 11 years ago

   For one thing, it was completely predictable. If it hadn't been Obama, it would have been somebody else. And I wouldn't be so quick to think that if the president had been more conservative, this would not have happened. Nixon and GW Bush, two of the more conservative presidents in memory, both did things that could hardly be called free-market capitalist. And it's a vicious circle. The more America becomes a service economy, the more our memory of ourselves as a rich and powerful nation will drive us to want to take care of people. The more money we spend taking care of people, the more we become a service economy nation, failing to generate the jobs, let alone industries, that allow us to maintain our position as world leaders. It's only a matter of time before we become a job market not unlike France, where the difficulty in firing people (meant to protect jobs so that workers couldn't be treated like interchangeable parts) had the unintended effect of making it almost impossible to get hired (leading many educated French people to go abroad for work, while those who stay home take a series of unpaid internships, hoping to eventually get hired but living off the government in the meantime.)
   Which is not to say that unrestricted capitalism is necessarily the answer. America is not the only country with a history of the rich oppressing the poor when the doors are wide open. Some protections need to be in place. But once the government literally becomes the nanny state, which is where we are going, the worth of the worker is just as much of an ideal with no application in the real world as it is when the 1 percent actually do suppress the 99 (which is not quite what's happening now.)

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Lions Den Mediaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I've never considered either Bush a true free market capitalist. Both expanded government. Yes - unrestricted free market capitalism is the answer. Read Milton Friedman.

      replyreport
   2. 79

      Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'm hardly a hardcore socialist but unrestricted free market capitalism inevitably will result in unrestricted exploitation. Yes, there will always be winners and losers but they didn't call the Guilded Age the Age of the Robber Barons for nothing.

      replyreport
   3. 71

      The Frog Princeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Chris - The federal government has no business in the health care industry to the extent that Obamacare allows.  Wrong approach.

      replyreport
   4. 60

      Lions Den Mediaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Chris - is it not gov regs that provide unfair competitive advantages  actually the cause of "exploitation"? America was built on unrestricted free market capitalism. US decline has occurred with ever increasing gov intervention.

      replyreport
   5. 79

      Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Frog Prince - I don't disagree with you. I wrote a pair of hubs a while back that examine the issue. It doesn't take sides, but it looks at the whole thing. Gov shouldn't be nanny state.

      replyreport
3. 0

   Old Poolmanposted 11 years ago

   This goes right along with redistribution of wealth.  Why should anyone have a 40 hour per week job when their neighbor has no job.  This way they can both work 20 hours per week and starve to death about the same time.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      The Frog Princeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Now that's funny Mike but it really isn't.  What is our nation coming to?

      replyreport
   2. 67

      tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      That is the liberal idea of equality. Being anti-capitalist they have no way to  bring everyone's standard up to be equal with those better off so they have to bring the affluent down. The result is everybody is equal, equaly miserable,.

      replyreport
   3. 71

      The Frog Princeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Again you're confusing the two issues.  Do some research and you'll see the difference rather than keep saying the same thing.  They are different.

      replyreport
   4. 71

      The Frog Princeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You are misreading the question and need to some research.  HINT, HINT, HINT

      replyreport
   5. 60

      Lions Den Mediaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      fundraise - let it go, Obamacare is forcing a reduction in hrs worked because of the "tax" Obamacare imposes on all workers working over 30 hrs. This is NEW.

      replyreport
4. 60

   Lions Den Mediaposted 11 years ago

   Hello TFP - I must admit I started laughing immediately upon seeing your photo illustrating Obama Care. Don't let Chris Matthews see this photo, he will have an apoplectic fit.
   
   Obamacare is already having a disastrous impact on job creation. For example the CEO of one of the big fast food chains is hiring 2 part-time employees to fill 1 full time position simply to avoid the compliance issues with Obama care.
   
   These types of unintended consequences created by Obamacare were foreseeable, however the warnings were ignored in order to move forward on a political agenda, as opposed to implementing solutions which solve problems that increase America's competitiveness and enhance economic security.
   
   The primary outcome from Obamacare is a distortion of the number of jobs created. This policy increases the ranks of the "uninsured". Third, Obama care reduces income which makes it impossible for individuals to afford the  healthcare TAX. Fourth, Obamacare effectively reduces the number of people saving or participating in a 401k or IRA retirement plan because part-time employees do not receive these types of benefits. Fifth, Obamacare incentivizes offshoring American jobs, as well as limiting expansion and growth plans of existing US companies.
   
   From an capital deployment perspective, Obamacare has private investors sitting on the sidelines waiting to see if Obama is going to be reelected. Investors ask what implementation of Obamacare will have on the bottom line and there is truly no known answer, because there are far too many unknowns. However, none of the scenarios are good.
   
   I've been attempting to raise $50 million for a biomass energy manufacturing company since Obama took office and it has been brutal. Corporations are sitting on $2 trillion in overseas capital. Hedge fund and private equity are sitting on a trillion dollars of capital. Investment Capital deployment is down 30 percent. Start-up funding is down substantially from 5 years ago.
   
   Furthermore, the continued intrusion by Obama in investing in private companies has distorted the market and created unrealistic expectations by private investors for federal and state funding participation.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      The Frog Princeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Chrissy would definitely get to tingling LDM.

      replyreport
   2. 81

      Wayne Brownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      True...32 hours has been the norm in the cut off.  I believe the point on Brinker was not one of how the person is paid per hour as it is a way to get out of Obamacare.  Brinker has hundreds of employees nationwide in restaurants. ~WB

      replyreport
5. 60

   JON EWALLposted 11 years ago

   Before my retirement, I once figured that i worked 3 days for the government( all taxes paid to my state,local governent and the us government). The remaining days pay, paid for expenses to live, not much if anything left that i could save. Now Obama thinks i can handle being paid for 30 hrs. and survive, wake this guy up.President Barak Obama where are the jobs?  Just wondering how one can live on 30 hours?
   http://hubpages.com/hubtool/edit/2314694

   replyreport
   1. 71

      The Frog Princeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Your link didn't take me anywhere Jon.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      JON EWALLposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      TRY IT AGAIN
      here's the title President Barak Obama where are the jobs? if it don't work it may be again censored?

      replyreport
6. 81

   Wayne Brownposted 11 years ago

   No doubt it does and it also complicates things for companies (such as restaurant chains) that have looked at dropping back to part-time help to avoid the Obama-Care issue (i.e. Brinker International).  This guy is toxic in everyway....a waterboy for the Ayers family and George Soros....both socialist to the bone.  It also forces overtime to kick in for any business that requires a 40 hour work week to accomplish its needs.  That amounts to a hefty raise in the payroll or it equates to less production in the operation....either one is a blow to the business.  This stuff is about breaking the back of the economy, loading the unemployment rolls which eventually translates to loading the welfare and food stamp rolls creating a greater and greater financial burden on the federal government until the rubber band finally pops and "change" arrives....which in the terminology of Stalin and Marx would be revolution.  "Hope" is that false crap this guy has been pedaling since he first campaigned and it is lined with nothing but undefined empty promises.  Obama makes the insinuation and the people's imagination runs with it any way they see...."Obama's gonna pay for my cell phone!"  Obama's gonna buy my gas!" and on and on.  Obama is not buying anything...the American taxpayers are footing the bill while being submersed in overwheliming debt at the same time and Obama could care less because it all plays to the grand plan to bring America to its knees.  And so, the American public is really shouldering up their part of the effort.  It is absolutely amazing how ignorance and apathy can be so horribly manipulated.  The fun part for Obama is that it makes him feel powerful and intelligent all at the same time.  He will have his legacy all right....Obama, the elected leader of some of the stupidest people in the world. ~WB

   replyreport
7. 90

   cam8510posted 11 years ago

   My employer has considered 32 hours full time in terms of benefits for years.  I think it will be a significant change for small businesses though.  Like the rest of the bill, it should be repealed and the subject revisited immediately.  If it is repealed and conservatives do what they have always done and ignore the issue, then they will be the next to pay a political price.

   replyreport
8. 77

   flacoinohioposted 11 years ago

   My thought is that the 30 hours were the least amount of hours required for an employee to be eligible for health care benefits.  This does not make a part time employee a full time employee, as benefits and pay may be different between full and part time status.  It simply sets a minimum hour limit to 30 hours for part time employees to be eligible for health benefits.  Most employers only or mostly hire part time employees for this reason, to avoid having to worry about health care costs for every employee.  So what will happen now is, employers will reduce hours of employees below 30 hours and hire more part time employees to maintain employee ranks with out having to pay for health insurance.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      The Frog Princeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So taking what you said into consideration, if you were the one making the calls for a business, what decisions would you make?  There are companies presently already making those decisions.  Think about it.  The other aspect is the "tax."

      replyreport
   2. 90

      cam8510posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      They've been doing that for years.  I am not in favor of Obamacare.  It has enough bad in it without blaming it for what has been already happening.  Also, my employer (5000+employees) does not have different payscales for part/fulltime employees.

      replyreport
   3. 77

      flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I guess it would depend on how well my business is doing.  The more employees I have the less I would be able to pay them above minimum wage. If business doing well I would hire more full time staff and reduce part time staff who would work

      replyreport
   4. 60

      Lions Den Mediaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Cam - the issue is NOT the pay scale. The issue is part-time versus full-time which is essentially a pay cut if a company hires 2 employees to fill one full time position. It may have been common practice -  but it is dramatically accelerating.

      replyreport
9. 61

   KT Banksposted 11 years ago

   I asked a question on facebook yesterday that was, "What do you think is more important to people, The Economy, or Human Rights? Most answered The Economy. However, I thought the most brilliant answer was, "If people were Treated Right, there wouldn't be a problem with the Economy."
   
   Wasn't there a time when companies treated their employees right, and with respect? And in return, people worked hard and loyally for those companies. They took pride in their jobs and were proud to tell people who they worked for.
   
   Now, companies take life insurance out on their peasants...Oh! I mean employees, and it's The Company that collects the most when that employee dies. (I'm referring to Walmart)
   
   Okay...I have my shield up - let the stone throwing begin.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      The Frog Princeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hi KT. Yes, there are companies that treat their employees right.  There was also a time when the federal government wasn't over regulating everything and intruding into areas where they have no business intruding.  I believe in the US Constitution.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      KT - Your correct.  Many towns had companies that made you proud to wear the jacket or cap with their name and Logo boldly displayed.  What happened?

      replyreport
10. 72

    rfmoranposted 11 years ago

    Keeping average hours down will now become a basic component of any consultant or CPA's advice. Central planners always begin with the assumption that those in the free marketplace are stupid and can't be left on their own, lest they do damage. What we will see as a result of this part of Obamacare is that employers will opt for hiring more part time help. This will not improve the unemployment picture. What BLA has a hard time calculating is "underemployment," that is, people who have to settle for part time jobs because they cant find full time work.

    replyreport
11. 77

    Charluposted 11 years ago

    It boils down to this. It won't help, because unfortunately huge companies like Walmart, and numerous others that just care about the "all mighty dollar" will just cut their employees back to less than 30 hours so they don't have to pay. Leading to employees having to get another job to survive.
    
    Companies do it all the time, so those that are the "root of the business" and bust their butts for peanuts suffer because they can't afford benefits.  It's sad to think that one family member who becomes ill can literally lead to disastrous results such as homelessness, and children that suffer every day.
    
    What really sickens me the most is watching people suffer who are sick, literally going to the emergency room, only to be sent home and told to make a check up with their doctor which will never happen because they can't afford it. 
    
    We "the people" have allowed it to get this far and I wish all those that just care about the money could see or experience the results they bring.  It won't help it will just keep the stat counters busy changing policies so they can make more money.
    
    What people don't realize is we pay more for hospital ER visits of the uninsured than it would cost to insure them.
    
    Here's some food for thought Walk into a hospital and tell them you want to have a procedure done and need to know the cost.  First tell them you have insurance and then find out what the cost would be if you paid cash.  Then you can pick your mouth up off of the floor when you hear the difference.  It is an outrage that they are allowed to charge two totally different amounts for the same procedure, same aspirin, etc. Watch them keep someone with insurance for a week when they came in knowing their illness only to run up a $160,000 bill for someone who without insurance would have been sent home. Then the insurance gets canceled and again back to disaster.
    
    So at this point there is but only one solution for health care and I think if we all sat back and thought about it we know the answer

    replyreport
    1. 71

       The Frog Princeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Most hospitals give discount for paying cash.  It's rather common and has been for years.  There is a difference in perspective from being an owner and being a nine-to-fiver.  One is there to make a profit, the other a living.

       replyreport
    2. 79

       Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       It is nonetheless true that those with insurance wind up paying for us uninsured. And a recent study suggests that illness causes poverty, not the other way around.

       replyreport
12. 85

    tamarawilhiteposted 11 years ago

    A lot of people are going to see their hours cut to get out of having to pay the fine though they'll now be stuck paying for expensive government mandated health insurance. And those who remain full time will see a push for more over-time, because it is cheaper to work 3 people harder than hire a fourth person.

    replyreport
13. 65

    SEXYLADYDEEposted 11 years ago

    Why are we pretending that hiring 2 pt workers is due to Obamacare? Walmart & many other larger corporations have been doing it for years. In NY greater than 40% of their employees are pt & as a result qualify for food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing. Except for the few who make about $20,000 & have a family of 3.  They tend to use the emergency room for their medical care. At which point they are much sicker, require more care which is more expensive. We the taxpayers, pay these bills. Why shouldn't businesses pay their fair share? Only a business owner would have reason to whine about paying a living, decent wage instead of lining their pockets. We give subsidies to gas companies that make billions in profits when some must choose between gas to get to work & food on the table.
    
    Let's call it what it really is.  GREED! How much is enough? How about helping your fellow man/woman/ child? Why is is more important for the Walmart daughter to outbid museums for masterpieces than it is to force her to pay a living wage. So she can't live on $10 mil in profits instead of 12?
    
    It's time to start remembering that the "needs of the many" outweigh the "desires of the " selfish, self centered, cold hearted FEW!
    Dee (apologies for misspellings auto correct sucks too). (-;

    replyreport