<p>No, half of them would be laid off instead. Again, how is that better?</p>
<p>
Because some believe basic economics to be right up there with voodoo. Want higher wages? legislate them. Same for more employees or fewer, more hours or less worked, ditto.</p>
<p>Health insurance premiums ought to be easy peasey.</p>
<p>^You don’t know that is what would happen. </p>
<p>When the business, because of ACA, reduced all their employees to under 30 hours a week - did they rush out and hire more workers? </p>
<p>At some point if a business reduces the number of employees they have working for them their business suffers. Poor service cause business to lose money as does less productivity. </p>
<p>Do you like shopping in a store which doesn’t have enough employees to assist you? How about a restaurant that doesn’t have enough wait staff? If you are a business owner do you like when a manufacturer cannot supply you with the product you need in a timely fashion? </p>
<p>I cannot figure out what those opposed to ACA want. It seems to me they want health insurance decoupled from employment, because when it is not employees lose jobs or get their hours cut so the business can avoid giving them health insurance. But, they are opposed to all the other options which decouple heath insurance from employment. </p>
<p>Plus, you all complain when the worker with reduced hours now qualifies for medicaid or a tax payer subsidized health insurance plan (and other gov’t benefits like food stamps/WIC/AFDC. </p>
<p>Economic policies that cause more people to be on government poverty programs are bad. How is this hard to understand? I don’t see it as complaining, though. It really should be a simple fact.</p>
<p>^ I am not going to respond because I don’t want the thread to be locked again but I assume you can figure out the counter argument to your statement. </p>
<p>" I’m not. I said all businesses must provide health insurance to all employees, regardless of how many hours a week they work. "</p>
<p>Wow, that is a blanket statement. Perhaps you should ask a struggling small business owner how that works out ? My husband and I fit into your characteristic , but I have posted because we cannot afford our OWN insurance once it is set to renew. Many of us small business owners are in the same boat. And the reality is, those of us who are facing tremendous rate increases have to give up other things…things we need and also things we want , which effects other businesses ( i.e. giving up hobbies, dinners out , gym memberships, Susie’s dance, Johny’s karate )…and all of this trickles down to decline in revenue for the very people being hurt the most by this law…so when you see your favorite restaurant close their doors , your neighbor’s house in a short sale you might try to understand that THIS is a reality for many, many people in our country. Although it likely doesn’t affect your ability to stay insured , it really does for millions of others who have become casualties of this law.</p>
<p>I can’t understand why people who hold your point of view can be so blind to that ?</p>
<p>Moderator’s note:</p>
<p>NO
How you plan to vote and/or whether the law needs to rolled back - POLITICS
How some other country works and whether the law needs to be changed to reflect that - POLITICS
Asking States to expand medicaid - POLITICS</p>
<p>Trashing each other - Against TOS</p>
<p>YES</p>
<p>Questions and concerns related to coverage, premiums
Future directions of insurance in each State for 2015
Any expected Changes to the law being discussed by Feds or State (NOT your wishlist)</p>
<p>I close the thread when I see 70 posts in a day which has not added a bit to the discussion but people just seem to be attacking each other. </p>
<p>A study done by Avalere Health indicates that consumers who need specialty drugs will face higher costs (if they can get the drugs), and that low income subscribers below the 250% of poverty who qualify for cost sharing reductions will pay more for tier 4 drugs and physician visits than higher income consumers because the insurance companies have considerable leeway in how they target the cost sharing reductions. </p>
<p><a href=“http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/198846-analysis-warns-of-higher-drug-costs-in-o-care”>http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/198846-analysis-warns-of-higher-drug-costs-in-o-care</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.avalere.com/expertise/managed-care/insights/avalere-analysis-cost-sharing-reductions-unevenly-applied-across-services-i”>http://www.avalere.com/expertise/managed-care/insights/avalere-analysis-cost-sharing-reductions-unevenly-applied-across-services-i</a></p>
<p>There are 2.9 million unprocessed Medicaid applications out of 5 million who enrolled between Oct 1 and April 19 still waiting to be acted on by various states.</p>
<p><a href=“How Website Woes Foiled Obamacare a Second Time - Roll Call”>How Website Woes Foiled Obamacare a Second Time - Roll Call;
<p>A study done by Professor Parente and Ramlet estimates the number of uninsured will increase under Obamacare from 36.5 million in 2015 to 40.5 million in 2025. It further estimates that the average cost of an ObamaCare Silver plan will increase by over $4,000 in five years.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2014/05/ParenteAnalysis.pdf”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2014/05/ParenteAnalysis.pdf</a></p>
<p>If a household spends ten percent or more of income on health care, it is said to be “underinsured” by the Commonwealth Fund or the Kaiser Family Foundation. According to that standard, ObamaCare fails miserably at insuring low-income households.</p>
<p>“In Washington, one in four individuals in households earning less than 250% of the poverty level signed up for a bronze plan with a deductible of $5,000-$6,350 per person and $10,000-$12,700 per family. Even after premiums, these households could face medical costs ranging from 17% to 40% of income before ObamaCare’s non-preventative-care benefits kick in.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/052214-701812-obamacare-bronze-plans-deductibles-unaffordable.htm”>Error - Investors.com;
<p>How many of the 8 million Obamacare enrollees are actually in the system? How come the Obama Administration has stopped reporting these numbers?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-21/where-did-the-obamacare-data-go”>http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-21/where-did-the-obamacare-data-go</a></p>
<p>Sorry, tex. I was one of the ones who contributed to the thread being closed a couple of weeks ago. I took a two-week break from CC because this thread was giving me high blood pressure, but I seem to be addicted to it and can’t stay away. </p>
<p>Clarification, though, please. I thought blogs were not allowed under TOS. I see a blog link several posts above this one.</p>
<p>I also see 6 consecutive posts above this one with links. Is the poster responding to something in particular?</p>
<p>NPR article on how employers are looking to move the sickest workers to the exchanges.</p>
<p><a href=“Employers Eye Moving Sickest Workers To Insurance Exchanges : Shots - Health News : NPR”>Employers Eye Moving Sickest Workers To Insurance Exchanges : Shots - Health News : NPR;
<p>“I see a blog link several posts above this one”</p>
<p>There are no blog posts.</p>
<p>“I also see 6 consecutive posts above this one with links.”</p>
<p>All the links are to well-known media outlets and newspapers. Everything posted is related to coverage, premiums and future direction of the law.</p>
<p>I fund it hard to have a “discussion” when one poster puts up a tsunami of links on so many subtopics. All within 90 minutes. TOS? </p>
<p>Why don’t you try responding to all the factual and well-sourced information regarding the impact and direction of Obamacare on premiums and coverage rather than trying to censor me?</p>
<p>GP is building such a strong case for single-payer in his links that he might ironically get the thread shut down for his liberalism :)</p>
<p>^^^ Huh? The data showing the upward trending premiums and costs are directly due to a new system conceived and implemented by a central entity leads you to conclude the solution is a greater and more powerful centrally controlled system. Logic much?</p>