http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/business/smallbusiness/a-bakery-with-95-employees-confronts-the-new-health-care-law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Essentially small businesses are required to give their employees healthcare under federal law come 2014. But what this essentially fails to take into consideration is the fact that in order for the business to save money, it can and most likely will, let people go off the job. This results in an a rise of unemployment and thus a negative to the overall improvement of the economy. |

Even if small businesses did not let their employees go, there still remains the increase in cost of the company.

This is one of the reasons why I found Obamacare to be incredibly lacking on the provision of healthcare. I would much rather see the state or states create a state sponsored system. But nope, people must settle for half-assed instead of perfection. It's why our country is suffering.

Like it's Obama's fault he had to cut a half-assed deal with the Repuglies.. ...he took the deal he could get from the idjits.....don't blame the messenger and stop listening to rightwingding news

Macdoc wrote:Like it's Obama's fault he had to cut a half-assed deal with the Repuglies.. ...he took the deal he could get from the idjits.....don't blame the messenger and stop listening to rightwingding news

When the deal is not that much better than not having it at all, and in fact creates a handful of other problems...

I don't listen to rightwing news. This is from Ny Times.

It's definitely one of the drawbacks of the plan. But, as the business owner at the end of the article points out, a lot of the people who are offered the insurance won't take it, whether they're covered by their parents, covered by their spouse, or simply choose not to. As the healthcare law takes effect and companies start to the feel the effects of this requirement, insurance companies will likely offer them more options to meet it.

Nice try Will......

HERE is the title of the article

Questions Abound in Learning to Adjust to Health Care Overhaul

Now whose editorial comments are in your post titles??

Obamacare and Small Business

Why Obamacare hurts the little people.

That's YOU inserting your anti-Obama right wing spin .......NOT the New York Times which covering "adjustment" to the new rules.

It says in the article that if the businesses don't offer their employees health insurance then the business has to pay money to the government.

While I'm here two other points:

1. "Obamacare" is a fucking stupid name.

2. Healthcare is not going to be what increases unemployment and destroys the economy; it'll be the robots: http://robotswillstealyourjob.com/read

Macdoc wrote:Nice try Will......

HERE is the title of the article

Questions Abound in Learning to Adjust to Health Care Overhaul

Now whose editorial comments are in your post titles??

Obamacare and Small Business

Why Obamacare hurts the little people.

That's YOU inserting your anti-Obama right wing spin .......NOT the New York Times which covering "adjustment" to the new rules.

No. Demonstrate how it is a right wing spin? You are placing a position I have not taken. So you are wrong.

All I said was that it can have a detrimental effect on employment and/or businesses cutting back wages to accommodate for the healthcare. Both of which are facts the NY Times article said. Now of course, I chose a different title, which is neither false, because it can hurt the little people (and if you actually had something positive to contribute you could actually, well, you know, demonstrate that it will not) nor misleading, because as you see I also cite the actual article. I made a conclusion based off of the article. Other people are entitled to make different conclusions and then we discuss those conclusions. But people do not accuse others of spreading right wing spins.

That is neither a right wing or a left wing spin. It is a observance of facts. Now instead of accusing me of something of which I am not, you can, as Salinger has done, actually contribute some facts instead of false accusations.

Reeve wrote:It says in the article that if the businesses don't offer their employees health insurance then the business has to pay money to the government.

Right, and when they pay money to the government, and they realize they want to keep the same proportion of revenue they made before 2014, they can very easily let people off of work. This is not France, where it is damn near impossible to fire an employee.

While I'm here two other points:

1. "Obamacare" is a fucking stupid name.

subjective and meaningless. Obamacare is its colloquial name that even the left as started using. I do not mean it as a slander towards Obama, or do the program; I use it because it is easier to remember than Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

2. Healthcare is not going to be what increases unemployment and destroys the economy; it'll be the robots: http://robotswillstealyourjob.com/read

Why did you think I was criticising you, willhud9, for using the name "obamacare"? I wasn't. I was just making the general comment that the name is fucking stupid! (By the way, I don't care whether or not "even the left" like it or not; I still think it's stupid. I don't care about the "left" or the "right" so I'm not going to be impressed by either of them.)

Reeve wrote:Why did you think I was criticising you, willhud9, for using the name "obamacare"? I wasn't. I was just making the general comment that the name is fucking stupid!

Iunno, I am tired and have a headache. I probably really shouldnt be on the computer and I should just go take a nap

willhud9 wrote:

Right, and when they pay money to the government, and they realize they want to keep the same proportion of revenue they made before 2014, they can very easily let people off of work...

...and replace them with a robot.

Option One is to provide the insurance. According to the law, Ms. Shein will have to offer health insurance or, most likely, pay a penalty, and she estimates the insurance will cost up to $108,000 a year for 90 employees (managers have insurance already).

God forbid you insure 90 hard working eployees for $100k! What a horrible idea.

Look, at a glance the idea of everyone's insurance being run through their employer doesn't seem entirely efficient or smart. But it appears in the US people most who object to it have even crazier solutions that make even less sense.

willhud9 wrote:

Macdoc wrote:Like it's Obama's fault he had to cut a half-assed deal with the Repuglies.. ...he took the deal he could get from the idjits.....don't blame the messenger and stop listening to rightwingding news

When the deal is not that much better than not having it at all, and in fact creates a handful of other problems...

So how much longer were we supposed to wait for a better solution? It's not like healthcare was some issue that Obama made up while first running for office. This has been an issue for decades and the Republicans have done everything in their power to make sure it didn't get addressed - AT ALL. Even if it hurts some at first we'll adjust and it will get better. That's better then simply passing the buck from one generation to the next while 10s of millions suffer now.

willhud9 wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/business/smallbusiness/a-bakery-with-95-employees-confronts-the-new-health-care-law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Essentially small businesses are required to give their employees healthcare under federal law come 2014. But what this essentially fails to take into consideration is the fact that in order for the business to save money, it can and most likely will, let people go off the job. This results in an a rise of unemployment and thus a negative to the overall improvement of the economy. |

Even if small businesses did not let their employees go, there still remains the increase in cost of the company.

This is one of the reasons why I found Obamacare to be incredibly lacking on the provision of healthcare. I would much rather see the state or states create a state sponsored system. But nope, people must settle for half-assed instead of perfection. It's why our country is suffering.

You could well be right in the short term, in the longer term unemployment will be dominated by other factors, as can be observed in all the other countries which have taxpayer funded universal health care.

This will be/have been equally true for all employee benefits that cost the employer as well, such as pensions, sick pay, maternity pay, mandatory breaks, annual leave. All of them raise employer costs and thus an employer could argue that it is putting people out of jobs, but in each and every case ordinary people have ended up benefiting from improved conditions and unemployment has in the long term gone back to its normal economic cycles. The market will adjust and employees will be better off.

If a small business has the demand for work why would it lay people off to save money? That's not how businesses that are successful operate.

I run a small business and when my costs increase I raise my prices, I don't stop working.

The answer to the problem is a simple one - UHC through general taxation. Introduce a National Insurance scheme where everyone pays in through tax.

I know, it's rampant communism and will be the end of the world as we know it and in a minute the Chinese and Cubans will have taken over the country along with the homosexuals and liberals and the powers of the anti-christ and ...

Linking your job to getting treatment for cancer or a heart attack , pretty close to slavery. I need a job to have a good quality of life but I don't need a job to actually survive.

Technology in the end will risk based health insurance in the end anyway, anyone with a genome that indicates bad health will be uninsurable and those with a good 'genome' probably will take out far less insurance

willhud9 wrote:

Macdoc wrote:Like it's Obama's fault he had to cut a half-assed deal with the Repuglies.. ...he took the deal he could get from the idjits.....don't blame the messenger and stop listening to rightwingding news

When the deal is not that much better than not having it at all, and in fact creates a handful of other problems...

I don't listen to rightwing news. This is from Ny Times.

The NY times is establishment media, establishment media is owned by large private corportations. It's not so much "right wing" as it's skewed towards making profits for banks, share holders and business leaders. And no, this money doesn't "tricle down". It goes into bankaccounts to make more money and be gambled away in gigantic financial schemes and frauds.

The little man at the bottom never sees a dime.

Rumraket wrote:The NY times is establishment media, establishment media is owned by large private corportations. It's not so much "right wing" as it's skewed towards making profits for banks, share holders and business leaders. And no, this money doesn't "tricle down". It goes into bankaccounts to make more money and be gambled away in gigantic financial schemes and frauds.

The little man at the bottom never sees a dime.

The NY Times company is listed on the NYSE. Pension companies are huge investors in such stocks and as such the little man at the bottom almost certainly enjoys a significant fraction of these dimes.

E.g. For UK shares the percentage owned by pension funds is around 13% according to BBC news. This exceeds the proportion owned by rich individuals, at 10%. To the best of my knowledge (although a quick google search failed to confirm or deny this) the situation in the USA is similar.

In other words : more financial schemes, trying to make money multiply itself on nothing at all, by essentially gambling.

And here I thought you paid for your pension with your salary. Stupid me.