Need help with discussion with co-worker re: ACA (ObamaCare)

[PearliePoo2]

He says businesses have cut back hours on employees or laid them off so they won't have to participate in the program. He claims it has cost people their jobs.
Does anyone know if this has actually happened or is it Re-Thug spin and scare tactics?
(I seem to recall some fast food joints threatened to do it but I don't know if they actually did)

Thanks for any info!

[JaneyVee]

1. Here's your reply:

CEOs are GREEDY SOCIOPATHS

[PearliePoo2]

8. Right there in black and white.

In all its heartless glory.

[immoderate]

2. Dunno, but it's his claim. Burden of proof is on him.

Ask for the data.

--imm

[meaculpa2011]

3. My son's hours have been capped at 28.

It's major department store chain with a fairly good reputation.

My family plan has gone from under $13,000 per year for a family four to more than $19,000 with higher deductibles and co-pays.

I've been in the individual market since 1982 without any problems.

Not trying to start an argument here, but there are gonna be unintended consequences that affect people's lives.

[PearliePoo2]

6. Whoaa...that's quite the hike. (13,000 to $19,000)

So it IS happening at certain businesses. This really sucks.
Greedy, heartless bastards. We need single payer...NOW.

[leftynyc]

17. That's weird

I have a very good friend here in NYC who has been retired since he's 47 (he's 52 now) so he's been getting his own insurance. Had dinner with him the other night and he says (and he's a wall street republican) that he's saving $3000 on his premiums under the ACA. My brother in law runs a small law firm and says he's saving at least $14,000 on premiums. Now both these people are in the upper income brackets so I really don't understand how you're losing money and they're not.

[mn9driver]

30. Not new, and not due to the ACA.

I've had sons in the entry level job market for the past seven years and this has been standard policy at all the places they've worked, all that time. To get more hours, they both needed to get second jobs, which were also capped below full-time hours.

[1StrongBlackMan]

31. Have you visited Healthcare.gov? n/t

[meaculpa2011]

51. Yes. I was then linked automatically to the NYS...

exchange website which gave me the numbers I cited.

We're giving serious thought to relocating. Costs of everything here in the NE are just not worth the price. Getting out of NYS will lower my insurance costs (across the board) by half and my property tax bill by 90%. The value of my home has declined dramatically in the past few years, yet my RE taxes have escalated to $14,000.

Plus, I hate the cold weather. My daughter just got her own place and is settled in a good job with benefits. My son is another story. He's 23 but acts like 12. Luckily, because of the ACA, he's still covered under my plan. Although he can get benefits from his job for about $80 per month. The problem is with his shortened work schedule he's only bringing home about $250 per week.

And my Dad is 91. He's healthy and active, but being far away will be a strain.

Still... IT'S 21 FRIGGIN' DEGREES THIS MORNING. I HATE IT!

[clffrdjk]

4. Well it cost me $3000 last summer.

But most here will put their heads in the sand and say it never happened.

[JoePhilly]

7. How could it cost you $3000 last summer before the law

actually took effect?

If you want to be taken seriously, you'll need to include more details.

[Yo_Mama]

10. The poster is correct - the rules state that the hours worked the previous year

are used to determine whether the worker is full-time for the purposes of ACA the current year.

Companies have the option to pick a shorter period, but for companies with swings in average work hours usually the whole year is best. So in 2013 many companies cut work weeks of employees to make sure that in 2014 they wouldn't be fined for not providing qualifying coverage.

Now it is true that in the summer the admin announced that the employer mandate would be suspended for 2014, but by then many companies had already gone to the new regime, and since the hours in 2014 will be used to determine coverage mandates for 2015, they aren't going to drop it and then reinstitute it in 2014.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. Not exactly ...

employers pick their measurement period (my employer is using Oct 1, 2013-September 30, 2014).

Bottomline ... those employers depressing hours are doing so for non-ACA reasons, and blaming the ACA.

[clffrdjk]

11. Right because a business would make no moves to comply with a law

before the law goes into effect and thus avoiding any possible penalties. Your logic needs work.

I have explained what happened to me before sorry you missed it, but if you can't grasp that a company would want to get something done before a deadline I don't think you would have been able to follow it.

[JoePhilly]

13. You didn't include any details in your post.

How can my logic be flawed if you provided no details whatsoever?

As for my missing your prior statements on this ... clearly you think everyone on DU reads your every post?

You have an overly high opinion of yourself.

[clffrdjk]

14. I have had one post hidden on DU

That post was the listing of all the details of my pay and last summer. It was hidden for being "rightwing talking points." I won't be posting it again, the ostriches are too plentiful here.

And you are still sticking with the idea that a business will never do anything ahead of time to a avoid a penalty really?

[JoePhilly]

15. So you expected me to have read a post that was hidden?

And so far, I have not said a word about what a business might do about anything, including as part of an effort to avoid a penalty.

From what little detail you posted, clearly the company you work for sucks. It sees its employees as little more than an expense to be managed down.

As such, it will always look for opportunities to screw its employees. You included.

The smart employees, initiative takers, who find themselves working for such a company should also be looking for employment somewhere better, and they should be ready to leave at the first opportunity.

The company has no loyalty to you, you should hold no loyalty to it.

[clffrdjk]

21. You deny posting this?

"7. How could it cost you $3000 last summer before the law

actually took effect?

If you want to be taken seriously, you'll need to include more details."


And no I didn't not expect you to have read that post or even remembered it if you had. That is why I said sorry you missed it.

Now the rest of this last post hell yea I agree.

[JoePhilly]

22. Where in that, do I claim that a company will never

try to avoid a penalty?

I don't.

[clffrdjk]

25. Let's try this once more.

"How could it cost you $3000 last summer before the law actually took effect? "
In that statement you make the assumption that the law (companies reaction to the law) will have zero effect on me or my paycheck until the penalties go into effect.

[JoePhilly]

41. Actually, that question makes no assumptions.

Read it again.

How could THE LAW be costing you money before the law took effect? Its a direct question asking HOW. Then you get to explain HOW. Or at least HOW you think it occurred.

Of course if we then go deeper .... we do find the accurate answer to my question,and that is ... "The law did not cost you money. The evil company you work for, however, decided to use the law as an excuse to screw you."

Your company cost you $3000 by cutting your hours. The law was not the cause, it was the excuse your company used.

Given the chance, your company would cut your hours to zero and ship your job to another state, or out of the country. And then probably blame the ACA or some regulation.

[clffrdjk]

43. So your saying ACA does not have line

Requiring businesses of more than 50 people to provide health insurance to those working more than 28 hr per week? And that said nonexistent line has absolutely zero to do with every part timer working for my employer being cut to a max of 24 (from 40) scheduled hours per week.

Do I hate my employer, yes
has ACA effected me negatively, yep

[JoePhilly]

44. The ACA did not require your employer to cut your hours.

The company made that decision.

Every time a law passes, businesses get to decide how they will respond.

The line in the law does not require employers to cut hours.

What your employer decided is that, as a business, they do not care about keeping their current employees. Not only will they not offer health coverage, they don't care about you enough to ensure you have meaningful hours.

They are daring you to go find something better.

[clffrdjk]

49. Had to go to work sorry for the delay

The law gave businesses a choice of three things

Keep the status quo and pay a small fine now that increases yearly (+$)
Pay a portion of my health insurance (++$)
Or cut my hours and find another person to take up the slack (=/-$)

It doesn't take a genius to figure out which one they are going to choose.

As for finding something better there is a reason why my losses stopped with the end of summer. 5 more months and I am done.

[leftyohiolib]

5. companies have been doing that long before the aca.

[PearliePoo2]

9. Yeah...true. They'll keep your hours just under 40 so the "bennies"

won't kick in.
It's like people are being held hostage since good jobs are so difficult to get.
bastards...

[Yo_Mama]

12. It has happened, and not just at businesses.

It's quite common among a lot of businesses with lower paid workers for whom it would be very expensive to provide qualifying insurance for 9.5% of wages or less. It's also being done at colleges and local government agencies.

Here's a recent list:
http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/110513-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm

The governments and colleges are more likely to admit it. The businesses just do it and try to keep it quiet. That's why you see so many governments on that list. I would say that the majority of larger companies revised employment policies due to ACA.

Edited to add: This has been a union issue all year:
http://shaynroby.com/2013/07/16/teamsters-union-letter-to-harry-reid-and-nancy-pelosi-obamacare-will-destroy-40-hour-work-week/

I know AFT has spent some considerable time and thought on it.

[PearliePoo2]

16. Thanks for doing the research

and for the links.
Something has to be done!
GO BERNIE! GO MCDERMOTT! May your bills get legs!

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. The definitive answer. Businesses added 215,000 jobs in November.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-04/companies-in-u-s-added-215-000-workers-in-november-adp-says.html

[PearliePoo2]

29. Good link and data.

There's quite a "lively" and interesting discussion going on over there!

[lumberjack_jeff]

32. The big picture is unambiguous. Obamacare helps the economy as well as most of the public. n/t

[spin]

19. I know two young people who work at the same fast food joint. One had her hours cut to 28 ...

but the other was designated as part of the "core team" and said he was working 60 to 70 hours a week. Neither is in management.

I have no idea if the the ACA is involved.

[Maeve]

27. This sort of thing happened long before ACA

At 40 hours full-time benefits click in, so some companies have cut their allowed hours, but this has been going on since the '90's (maybe before, but I know it was happening then). Not just insurance, vacation, sick leave, retirement plans...ACA is just the latest excuse for treating workers like widgets (if one breaks, throw it away, there's always another one).

My husband was told by one former employer that having worked the job for 7 years and being experienced just meant he was paid too much--they could fire him and hire a couple younger guys for half the pay to do the work. (We saw them try and they got what they paid for)

[spin]

33. Once we finally recover from the Great Recession and have jobs for all who wish to work ...

we will see employees treated far better and wages increase.

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. I suspect ...

the young people that you know are being taken for a ride ... How many fast food joints have enough FTE employees to be covered by the ACA?

[Egalitarian Thug]

20. It's true. It's the forecast and inevitable result of coercing an entire nation into subsidizing

a completely useless and parasitic industry that rakes 1/3 or every health care dollar spent in the country that spends far more than any other. In The Corporate States of America we are captive and are not allowed options, so we pay much more for far less because we have to supplement the parasites class and pay for our servitude.

[PearliePoo2]

23. So true! We've been so screwed.

Health Insurance companies should not exist.
They do NOTHING to aid me in my health care except OBSTRUCT.
They make money off of our frailty and erect hurdle after hurdle, then cancel you and under the bus you go.
Fucking, money-grubbing, treasonous parasites is what they truly are.

[Egalitarian Thug]

24. ACA is better than nothing, but that doesn't make it good.

All of what has happened and a lot more that is still coming was predicted by the very people that were shut out of the "debate".

[EC]

26. Corps have been doing this for the last

20 years at least. It was a "Right to Work" thing. I remember way back when, I used to work for a boss that got the newsletters from Right to Work and from Kipplingler Newsletter, both would recommend this so they didn't have to give benefits (insurance) to employees. When I was in retail management this was a religion...no full-time hours and any asst. that was listed as full-time couldn't have more than 30-32 hours a week. The only ones that had benefits and worked more hours were the managers that got salary...so of course we worked 60-70 hr. a week.

This isn't new because of the ACA, it's business as usual.

[Maeve]

28. Cool--we posted the same sort of thing at the same time! eom

[justanaverageguy]

35. I'm a small business owner that offers insurance to my employees

The health plan we offer is not great, but it's all we can afford without having to withhold a ton of money out of paychecks. I'm pretty sure the plan as is will not meet the minimum standards of the ACA. We (my business partner and I) are not specifically planning on canceling our group insurance, however, we recognize that it wouldn't take much of an increase to put the cost out of reach for us. We could realistically be faced with a decision to make concerning our health coverage for our employees.

[cbdo2007]

38. I like how all the contrarian posts here are from people with < 300 posts

[justanaverageguy]

46. That's funny, I've been a member of the DU longer than you have.

Also, my post is not contrarian. The op asked a question and I gave an answer based on my on actual experience. I neither professed to support or oppose the ACA. I simply stated a FACT that as it sits right now I recognize that if our insurance premiums go up we simply may not be able to afford to keep the company supplied health insurance. That's not contrarian that's just the world I live in.

Yes I have less than 300 post. I have a job, I have kids, I have a girlfriend and many other things that do not allow me the time to have nearly 7000 post in a 4 1/2 years. That would take like 4 + post a day every day. Glad you have that much free time to sit in front of a computer. I do not.

[Sgent]

40. Talk to your insurance agent and accountant

If your eligible for the SHOP marketplace, your premiums will probably be less / comparable, but you'll be eligible for a 50% refundable tax credit on premiums paid by the employer.

[justanaverageguy]

45. we will of course do just that.

given that we still have some time before we are faced with that potential decision we just haven't made it a priority.

[Sgent]

47. To take full benefit

Your new policy from shop must be in place by jan 1

[justanaverageguy]

48. Thank you. I will be calling my insurance agent tomorrow !!

[Gothmog]

37. Here are some facts-there has been no effect on jobs due to the ACA

First, the fact checkers have looked at this claim have rejected this claim http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/obamacare-myths/

◾Republicans have made the overblown claim that the law is a job-killer, but experts predict a small impact on mainly low-wage jobs. The Republican National Committee says 8.2 million part-timers can’t find full-time work “partly” due to the law. That’s the total number of part-time workers who want full-time jobs, and there’s no evidence from official jobs figures that the law has had an impact.

Here is another set of reports that show no loss in jobs http://nation.time.com/2013/10/22/obamacare-hasnt-put-americans-out-of-work/

Writing in Business Insider in July, investment banker Daniel Alpert noted that the growth of part-time jobs has happened in sectors where most work is already part-time, as opposed to rising in sectors where it has traditionally been full-time. Alpert concluded:

Anecdotal Obamacare-scare stories abound, but they seem pretty specious at best….There is no empirical evidence that hiring practices relate to concerns over benefits, and a heck of a lot of evidence that the people being hired for new jobs are earning less than workers already employed and that the jobs that a significant proportion of jobs being created are not full time because of the sectors they are in. If the Obamacare hiring meme were accurate, the tendency game the law would be to game the system by hiring people to work just under the 30 hour “full time” cut off under the act. But that does not appear to be the case either.

The September jobs report is further evidence to support the case that Obamacare has not caused a national shift toward part-time work. But there was no shortage of examples before the latest numbers, so don’t expect such claims to disappear. Read more: Jobs Report Shows No Obamacare Effect on Employment | TIME.com http://nation.time.com/2013/10/22/obamacare-hasnt-put-americans-out-of-work/#ixzz2n6aRdbBd

No one should pay any attention to this GOP talking point

[PearliePoo2]

39. Nice!

Off to read your links.
Thanks!