Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
GOP Talking Point Goes Down In Flames: Obamacare NOT Harming Workers
Friday, July 26, 2013 3:08 PM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:Once again reality has taken over from the Republicans, as a new study finds that only a small minority of businesses affected have made any significant changes in the number of hours their employees work. According to a 2012 report by the Kaiser Family Foundation ( http://kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2012-section-2/), 98 percent of large firms (those that employ 200 or more workers), and 94 percent of medium-sized firms (those with 50 to 199 employees) offer health care coverage to their employees. It is counterintuitive to believe that any company that offered health coverage when it was not required would drop that coverage or reduce employee hours to avoid the requirement that they provide coverage now, although this is another claim prominent in Republican conversations. That leaves only about 10,000 companies that would be affected by the mandate to provide insurance to full-time employees that are not currently doing so. A new report from the Center For Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) looks at two claims made by Republican politicians and some corporate heads: that firms are deliberately keeping their workforce below the 50 employee threshold where they would be required to offer health coverage or face a penalty, and that firms are reducing employee hours below the minimum of the 30 hours per week that would require the company to offer health coverage to those employees. The CEPR report observes:Quote:…most of these firms [those with 50 or more employees] would already be providing health care insurance for their employees and therefore need not be concerned about the sanctions in the ACA. If some number of firms actually are limiting or reducing employment to stay below the 50 worker cutoff then the impact would be too small to be noticed in the economy as a whole. http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/aca-job-killer-2013-07.pdf] In other words, while there may be some mid-sized companies that attempt to reduce their workforce to stay below the 50 employee threshold, they are so few in number that the economic impact is negligible. In regard to the claim that businesses have reduced or plan to reduce employee hours, the CEPR report says:Quote:The alternative course of evading ACA penalties, reducing average hours of work below 30 per week, could at least plausibly have an impact on employment patterns. In fact, several large employers have claimed that they would deliberately keep workers’ hours below 30 hours per week in order to avoid having them count toward the number for whom they would have a $2,000 penalty. (Same) Fortunately, it is possible to test whether employers are actually reducing hours below the 30-hour threshold. The Current Population Survey (CPS) provides monthly data on workers usual weekly hours. We used the CPS to compare the first four months of 2013 with the first four months of 2012. We looked at the numbers and percent of workers who reported working 26-29 hours a week. We considered this range a reasonable cutoff for an ACA effect. Presumably if an employer would have a worker put in more than 30 hours a week in the absence of ACA penalties, they would require a worker to put in close to, but less than, 30 hours in order to avoid the penalties. The results of the CEPR analysis are as follows: --Only about 0.6 percent of the U.S. workforce typically works between 26 and 29 hours per week. The report also observes that some workers choose to work less than full-time; more than two-thirds of part-time workers say they chose to work part-time. --The number of workers who worked between 26 and 29 hours per week declined slightly in the first four months of 2013 compared to 2012. While the change is statistically insignificant, it is not what should be expected from a law forecast to be a “job killer.” http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/aca-job-killer-2013-07.pdf
Quote:…most of these firms [those with 50 or more employees] would already be providing health care insurance for their employees and therefore need not be concerned about the sanctions in the ACA. If some number of firms actually are limiting or reducing employment to stay below the 50 worker cutoff then the impact would be too small to be noticed in the economy as a whole. http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/aca-job-killer-2013-07.pdf]
Quote:The alternative course of evading ACA penalties, reducing average hours of work below 30 per week, could at least plausibly have an impact on employment patterns. In fact, several large employers have claimed that they would deliberately keep workers’ hours below 30 hours per week in order to avoid having them count toward the number for whom they would have a $2,000 penalty. (Same)
Friday, July 26, 2013 4:19 PM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Friday, July 26, 2013 4:25 PM
REAVERFAN
Friday, July 26, 2013 4:37 PM
MAL4PREZ
Quote:Originally posted by reaverfan: Ignore the troll.
Friday, July 26, 2013 4:58 PM
Friday, July 26, 2013 5:13 PM
Quote:The Affordable Care Act Is Being Implemented And Working Yesterday I received a rebate check from my insurance company. This rebate came about because of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that specifically forces health insurance companies to spend no more than 20% on expenses not attributable to healthcare. No longer are they allowed to take your premiums and convert it to profits for shareholders, salaries for executives, and the purchase of politicians. The Republican Party has been successful in misinforming and lying about Obamacare. This is likely one of the most immoral actions giving that slowing implementation and in the case of many Republican governors not accepting full implementation, is tantamount to the murder of American citizens with the weapon of knowing neglect. Yesterday morning MSNBC Chuck Todd assessed that the Obama Presidency using the Republican moniker of Obamacare for the Affordable Care Act while cute was stupid. Todd vastly underestimates the success of the Republicans in promoting that name so much so that most Americans immediately identify with the Obamacare as opposed to the Affordable Care Act. Just before the elections in 2012 I interviewed two intelligent upwardly mobile middle class women in Austin Texas. When asked about the Affordable Care Act they were completely oblivious to it. When told it was Obamacare they immediately knew what I was talking about and said they did not know it by that name. Check out that video here. It is probative. The Obama administration has done a poor job of promoting the Affordable Care Act. The media has failed to effectively call out the lies on the Republican side thus given these lies plausibility and mental metastases. There is a lot of good news in states where politicians have made the concerted effort to support its citizens. As people get rebates from insurance overcharges, as exchanges open that afford individuals affordable rates, and as states that have the best interests of their citizens expand Medicaid, many will see the benefits of having a healthier, humane, and moral healthcare system. It is incumbent upon those on the right side of history to not allow those who would put corporate interest and greed over humanity to go unpunished for the sabotage they have effected on the wellbeing of the poor and the working middle class.
Quote:One Way Obamacare May Already Be Working There was a time when all anyone in Washington wanted to talk about was “bending the health-care cost curve.” Forget covering the uninsured -- the ultimate test of the Affordable Care Act would be the trajectory of health-care costs. But Washington has a short memory. That whole “curve” thing was years ago. Meanwhile, we’ve turned our attention to other things, like “Fast & Furious 6.” Yet quietly, the cost curve has begun to bend. “National health spending grew by 3.9 percent each year from 2009 to 2011, the lowest rate of growth since the federal government began keeping such statistics in 1960,” reports the Kaiser Family Foundation. Early data suggest that the numbers held into 2012. So the curve hasn’t just bent; it has bent more than ever. In a new paper, Harvard University scholars David Cutler and Nikhil Sahni calculate that if those numbers hold over the next decade, the government will save up to $770 billion, employers will save up to $430 annually on each covered worker and households will spend up to $290 less on annual health costs. “Slow health care spending growth might thus bring much-needed relief throughout the economy,” they write. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-29/one-way-obamacare-may-already-be-working.html]
Friday, July 26, 2013 5:16 PM
Friday, July 26, 2013 5:24 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Along those lines:Quote:The Affordable Care Act Is Being Implemented And Working
Quote:The Affordable Care Act Is Being Implemented And Working
Saturday, July 27, 2013 3:52 AM
Quote:Voter approval with the job done by Congress reached an all-time low today in a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that shows Americans are increasingly unhappy with their lawmakers. The poll found only 12 percent of Americans approve of the job done by Congress -- tied for the lowest standing in the history of the poll. The poll also showed 83 percent of Americans disapprove of the job done by Congress, an all-time high for the poll. When asked about the leadership in Washington, voters disapproved of the job done by House Speaker John Boehner by a 2-to-1 margin. When U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., was asked about sinking approval ratings for Congress during an editorial board meeting Monday with syracuse.com and The Post-Standard, he said, "It can't get much lower. You're getting down to relatives and employees and other people like that." A separate McClatchy-Marist poll made public Monday also found the job approval ratings for Congress continue to sink. http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/07/today_in_washington_job_approval_for_congress_drops_to_new_low.html]
Quote:Majority Of Republicans Disapprove Of Congressional GOP Republicans in Congress are much less popular than their Democratic counterparts, according to a poll released Thursday, with even a majority of GOP voters nationwide disapproving of their party's leadership on Capitol Hill. The poll from Quinnipiac University found that 71 percent of voters nationwide, including 53 percent of Republican voters, disapprove of the job the congressional GOP is doing while only 20 percent of voters overall and 38 percent of Republicans approve. Democrats in Congress rate low too, but they are more popular than Republicans and in much better standing among their rank-and-file. Thirty-two percent of voters overall said they approve of the job congressional Democrats are doing while 60 percent disapprove. But 64 percent of Democratic voters said they approve of the job their party's leaders in Congress are doing. Congressional approval ratings have been consistently low for a long time, but the PollTracker Average provides an instructive contrast in the public's differing attitudes toward the two parties. Charts at http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-majority-of-republicans-disapprove-of-congressional-gop
Saturday, July 27, 2013 5:23 AM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Saturday, July 27, 2013 5:29 AM
WHOZIT
Saturday, July 27, 2013 8:01 AM
STORYMARK
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: It's a job killer and it's hurting PEOPLE and FAMILIES. We're not " workers ", you communist pig.
Saturday, July 27, 2013 8:07 AM
Quote:The issue here is how the law deals with multiemployer health plans, which cover as many as 26 million Americans, and are especially popular with unions whose members frequently work irregular hours for multiple customers. ObamaCare requires these plans to comply with a number of regulations that are likely to drive up costs, but it doesn’t allow employers who provide benefits through multiemployer plans access to subsidies or tax credits. The only way for many of those union members currently covered by multiemployer plans to get subsidies would be for the unions to stop offering those plans. So as the law stands now, a lot of unions that rely on multiemployer plans will end up having big incentives to drop health benefits and instead let members buy subsidized insurance through the law’s exchanges. The potential cost savings aren't trivial: Last year, a representative from a multiemployer plan organization told a labor issues news site that the difference could easily be as much as $5,000 per employee annually. With savings like that on the table, it's going to be very hard to justify continuing to pay for health benefits if union members can get health insurance elsewhere. But here’s the thing: Labor unions don’t want to drop health benefits for their workers, in no small part because providing health benefits is a big part of what they exist to do. If they don’t offer benefits, it’s harder to attract and retain union members. The Obama administration isn’t quite giving the unions an outright no at this point. But it’s not saying yes either. As Adamy and Trottman note, acceding to union demands here would not only result in the law costing more due to the increased availability of the subsidies, it would make it harder for the administration to say no to other groups who might expect similar treatment. Going forward, the politics of this particular subissue will be interesting to watch, because the Obama administration will have to decide between helping an ally and trying to hold down costs. http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/31/will-obamacare-undermine-union-membershi
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL