[mikemike]

Subsistence consumers beware, your about to feel the brunt of the bite of Obamacare and its taxes as your hours get cut and you get forced to hand over a big chunk of your smaller paycheck to an insurance company.

Several restaurants, hotels and retailers have started or are preparing to limit schedules of hourly workers to less than 30 hours a week. That is the threshold at which large employers in 2014 would have to offer workers a minimum level of insurance or pay a penalty starting at $2,000 for each worker.

Health Law Spurs Shift in Hours - Yahoo! Finance

Near poor people who vote for Obama tomorrow should beware what they are asking for.

[GeneV]

Nice propaganda and threats, but that was happening because of insurance hikes anyway. I pay 100% of the premiums, and my employees have had their raises go to the insurance company for years.

[GDRoth]

The "near poor" should be terrified of a President Romney and his lacky boy Ryan

[Parallax]

Several restaurants, hotels and retailers have started or are preparing to limit schedules of hourly workers to less than 30 hours a week. That is the threshold at which large employers in 2014 would have to offer workers a minimum level of insurance or pay a penalty starting at $2,000 for each worker.

This is no surprise and think this will be even more prevalent than what is being predicted. Looking at it strictly from the employers point of view; why wouldn't they? Presented with two options to get the job done, one more costly than the other, why wouldn't they choose the one that maximizes profits?
I am certain that this was foreseen, and quite probably hoped for. It will be a lot easier to get support for single payer healthcare if everything else that's tried makes the overall situation worse instead of better.

Nice propaganda, but that was happening because of insurance hikes anyway.

Gene, with all due respect, yes; it was going that way already, but a "he had terminal cancer" isn't a defense to murder if you push somebody off a cliff.

[GeneV]

This is no surprise and think this will be even more prevalent than what is being predicted. Looking at it strictly from the employers point of view; why wouldn't they? Presented with two options to get the job done, one more costly than the other, why wouldn't they choose the one that maximizes profits?
I am certain that this was foreseen, and quite probably hoped for. It will be a lot easier to get support for single payer healthcare if everything else that's tried makes the overall situation worse instead of better.

Gene, with all due respect, yes; it was going that way already, but a "he had terminal cancer" isn't a defense to murder if you push somebody off a cliff.

What cliff is there? There are dozens of things right now which you avoid by having part time workers, or fewer workes, etc. This kind of threat was made every time.

[kenafein]

Companies have been doing this for years. They have a bulk of their employees work less than a certain number of hours per week to avoid their full time benefit programs. The affected end up working two jobs. Sounds like, instead of rolling back the change, we need to go further and stop this scenario entirely.

[mikemike]

Companies have been doing this for years. They have a bulk of their employees work less than a certain number of hours per week to avoid their full time benefit programs. The affected end up working two jobs. Sounds like, instead of rolling back the change, we need to go further and stop this scenario entirely.

Given the number of people out of work, it should be illegal to work two jobs. Job hogs need to be stopped so that we can put more people to work.

[Parallax]

What cliff is there? There are dozens of things right now which you avoid by having part time workers, or fewer workes, etc. This kind of threat was made every time.

Okay, maybe not the best metaphor, and yes, this has always gone on, but it's going to happen more now than it would have otherwise. I'm not arguing whether it's good or bad in the long run because that will depend on the outcome. Certainly it's bad, regardless, for those workers directly affected. The big picture though may be quit different. If it hastens a single payer system by making enough people mad enough, then maybe it's not all bad.

[mikemike]

I am certain that this was foreseen, and quite probably hoped for. It will be a lot easier to get support for single payer healthcare if everything else that's tried makes the overall situation worse instead of better.

That certainly fits government logic: if at first you fail miserably, fail, fail again.

[Parallax]

.................Sounds like, instead of rolling back the change, we need to go further and stop this scenario entirely.

I can only see two ways to do that. One would be to require employers to provide insurance for all employees. That Just isn't reasonable. The other is to eliminate health insurance as we know it.

[jeffkrol]

Okay, maybe not the best metaphor, and yes, this has always gone on, but it's going to happen more now than it would have otherwise. I'm not arguing whether it's good or bad in the long run because that will depend on the outcome. Certainly it's bad, regardless, for those workers directly affected. The big picture though may be quit different. If it hastens a single payer system by making enough people mad enough, then maybe it's not all bad.

My main reason for backing Obama.. something needed to be "done" Nobody has been doing it for at least 2 generations... Something WAS done.. now we need to "fix" it.. not roll it back to the dark ages....

"Medicare for all" and as you all know.. the politicla organization the prints the money is the one that can AFFORD to bankroll it... not "save it" for another war...........

Though WW# would get us out of this slow climb...

Whistleblower: 6 Ways Romney's Healthcare Proposals Enrich Insurance Companies and Sicken Americans | Alternet

Whistleblower: 6 Ways Romney's Healthcare Proposals Enrich Insurance Companies and Sicken Americans
Romney's plan is a prescription for boosting insurance industry profits at the expense of the public's well-being.



Potter, a senior healthcare analyst at the Center for Public Integrity, lays bare six of the myths -- some of which he once helped to disseminate -- behind Romney's claims that his plan would increase competition, lower costs and improve quality of care for all Americans.

1. "I'll Cover Preexisting Conditions" ..........ect.................

[kenafein]

Given the number of people out of work, it should be illegal to work two jobs. Job hogs need to be stopped so that we can put more people to work.

I realize you think you're being clever, but I don't think you really understand the plight of the exploited underclass. Many work 60-80 hours in a combination of several jobs(legitimate or under the table). I'd be all for state controlled hours of 35/week maximum, providing a living wage and with health insurance provided by the state. If we were a sensible society, it could work. Though I know that might induce a brain aneurysm for one of your libertarian sensibilities.

[GeneV]

Okay, maybe not the best metaphor, and yes, this has always gone on, but it's going to happen more now than it would have otherwise. I'm not arguing whether it's good or bad in the long run because that will depend on the outcome. Certainly it's bad, regardless, for those workers directly affected. The big picture though may be quit different. If it hastens a single payer system by making enough people mad enough, then maybe it's not all bad.

It really is too bad that this is the response of some employers. For a large employer, doubling the size of your workforce has costs, too.

[kenafein]

I can only see two ways to do that. One would be to require employers to provide insurance for all employees. That Just isn't reasonable. The other is to eliminate health insurance as we know it.

I'd be all for eliminating health insurance as we know it. It really only needs to exist as a premium on top of a single payer system, to allow those who can afford it, to pay for premium care. If we'd simply constructed a good system from the beginning, rather than a compromise system that makes nobody happy, this wouldn't be a problem now.

[Parallax]

to allow those who can afford it, to pay for premium care

How would that be any different than what we have now? Your level of care is now determined by your financial situation. I thought that's what we're trying to get away from.

If we'd simply constructed a good system from the beginning, rather than a compromise system that makes nobody happy, this wouldn't be a problem now.

Exactly. If we're going to do it, we need to do it all at once.