Forty-one percent of the businesses surveyed have frozen hiring because of the health-care law known as Obamacare. And almost one-fifth—19 percent— answered "yes" when asked if they had "reduced the number of employees you have in your business as a specific result of the Affordable Care Act."...
"We were startled because we know that employers were concerned about the Affordable Care Act and the effects it would have on their business, but we didn't realize the extent they were concerned, or that the businesses were being proactive to make sure the effects of the ACA actually were minimized," said attorney Steven Friedman of Littler Mendelson. His firm, which specializes in employment law, commissioned the Gallup poll...
Another 38 percent of the small business owners said they "have pulled back on their plans to grow their business" because of Obamacare.
Those are "some pretty startling answers," Friedman said....
Just 9 percent of the small employers surveyed agreed that Obamacare would be "good for your business," while another 39 percent saw "no impact."
The prevalent pessimism tracks other answers in the poll, which showed that 55 percent of small business owners believe that the ACA will lead to higher health-care costs. By contrast, about 5 percent said the law would lead to lower costs.
And more than half—52 percent—said they expected a reduction in the quality of health care under Obamacare, while just 13 percent expected an improvement....
In addition to restricting hiring or cutting jobs, small companies are considering other ways to mitigate the expected financial fallout. Twenty-four percent are weighing whether to drop insurance coverage, while 18 percent have "reduced the hours of employees to part-time" in anticipation of the ACA's effects, the poll found.....
Yup. And if we were to pass the ACA again, why we'd create another 400,000 jobs. Who knew it would be so easy?If only somebody had seen this coming!
If only somebody had seen this coming!
Straw man massacre.
Liberals wanted Medicare For All.
Not all did...
Not all did...
Straw man massacre.
Liberals wanted Medicare For All.
Straw man massacre.
Liberals wanted Medicare For All.
Lol...and they wanted to tax " the rich " to pay for it.
Because they equate constructed narratives used to divide for the purpose of winning elections to actual currency.
Sorry, Obama-Care was pushed along with a variety of out right lies and low Life Democrat Politicians telling them.
Instead, because of ObamaCare we got 5 years of economic stagnation, MASSIVE new spending, 4 TRILLION in QE and a variety of new Narratives from people like you.
Each and everyone more irrelevent than the one before it.
Instead of offering up a honest and objective analysis we get this "eat the rich" nonsense, wealth disparty and a " evil SkyNet Robot revolution " that asserts this " new " technology upon becoming self aware has just decided to steal our jobs instead of turning us into Super-Heated plasma via Thermo-Nuclear annihilation.
The excuses are retarded and we DID warn you people.
WHAT did you expect ? You elected a Jr Senator with radical ties and NO proof of exceptional intelligence or qualifications.
Of-course this experiment was going to fail.
The Canadians use such a system and spend fewer tax dollars per capita than we do. Medicare for all would let you lower taxes.
That is correct. The cost for not providing care is roughly the expense of the paperwork to deny it. You can save a lot of money through rationing that way. Also by pawning off many of your medial needs to a wealthy country to your south that has a somewhat more market-based system.
So.... you think Mexico is going to be able to subsidize us?
The Canadians use such a system and spend fewer tax dollars per capita than we do. [/b]Medicare for all would let you lower taxes.[/b]
the benefits paid to the worker greatly exceed the taxes paid by the worker (and pose a financial burden on the system)
Upon what do you base this "fact"? Medicare, like Social Security, is currently paying out more in benefits than its dedicated taxation generates. Any program that has workers paying into it for decades (with no benefits) but may only draw those benefits upon retirement (at age 65) or upon disability is nearly an impossible model to apply to all.
Above quote taken from: Medicare (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes, but keep in mind this program has been suffering from massive growth in spending costs and it also covers the highest risk group of the population, the elderly and disabled. It wouldn't cost the same per person to cover the rest of the population. As long as there is some progressive sharing, I think it would be much more efficient than our current system. Health-care is an example of something which I don't believe a free market can work for because the consumer base doesn't have the education to make informed decisions (they must rely on the advice of the people they are paying) and because the cost of and demand for the "product" is unpredictable. Maybe for the elective surgery market, it could work..but you can't shop around when you are having a heart attack.
That argument, or the bulk of it anyway, could be made for car repair as well. The key problem with most medical care insurance plans is that they are being warpped into the only means of paying for any and all medical care. Insurance is for the rare, unexpected and expensive - not for routine maintanence like oil changes, tune-ups and replacing worn out tires. Many wish to transform all U.S. medical care costs into some fixed budget amount (2% of AGI?) that is heavily subsidized by "progressive" payment schemes and requires no additional individual out of pocket expense. If I could get unlimitted new tires free then I would never bother to propery inflate them, keep the front end aligned or stick to driving on reasonably safe surfaces.
I'll wait until 2014 to decide what I think of Romneycare .... I mean HeritageFoundationCare ... I'm sorry, Obamacare ... whew! my bad ...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?