• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The unintended consequences of ObamaCare

cpwill said:
Wait. So are folks challenging the idea that if you raise the cost of fully employing people, that fewer people will be fully employed?
Click to expand...

Nobody knows for sure whether it will significantly raise the cost of fully employing people. That is speculative at this point.
 
CriticalThought said:
Nobody knows for sure whether it will significantly raise the cost of fully employing people. That is speculative at this point.
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem the concern is baseless, and firms have announced such changes already in response to the ACA. So it's clearly a reasonable point of discussion
 
winston53660 said:
So where do these estimates come from and where can we see how they came to these estimates?
Click to expand...

the cbo website has some totals info but they do not detail their assumptions
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
It doesn't seem the concern is baseless, and firms have announced such changes already in response to the ACA. So it's clearly a reasonable point of discussion
Click to expand...

No, firms have announced such changes in order to draw media attention in order to push the political agenda on this matter. It is little more than posturing by a handful of businesses.

I know a man who had to fire two of his full time employees because he couldn't afford them, but he blamed it on Obamacare even though it had nothing to do with his decision. That kind of thing is going on all over the country.
 
Fisher said:
the cbo website has some totals info but they do not detail their assumptions
Click to expand...

They do have some good info about it. And as the situation changes in Congress they go back and crunch numbers again.
 
CriticalThought said:
If it didn't happen in Massachusetts with Romneycare, then why will it happen in the country with Obamacare? Once again, this is speculative.
Click to expand...

Economic conditions could be different, how the bill is actually written and enforced could be different, etc, etc, etc. So, yeah, simply dismissing any discussion of the topic seems rather premature
 
CriticalThought said:
If it didn't happen in Massachusetts with Romneycare, then why will it happen in the country with Obamacare? Once again, this is speculative.
Click to expand...

Probably because Romneycare was subsidized by the federal government moreso than the private payrolls.
 
CriticalThought said:
No, firms have announced such changes in order to draw media attention in order to push the political agenda on this matter. It is little more than posturing by a handful of businesses.
Click to expand...

there's an article I posted from MSNBC about university's cutting hours for adjunct professors in response to the ACA.

CriticalThought said:
I know a man who had to fire two of his full time employees because he couldn't afford them, but he blamed it on Obamacare even though it had nothing to do with his decision. That kind of thing is going on all over the country.
Click to expand...

While I am sure such will happen, I do question both logic and motive inn using one instance to define a number of others, from a diverse background
 
Companies have been switching from full-time employees to part-time employees for many years now.
 
sangha said:
Companies have been switching from full-time employees to part-time employees for many years now.
Click to expand...

and you're saying that this means the ACA couldn't influence this trend further. Because that's the only way it makes sense as a rebuttal, and really doesn't pass the smell test. Due to the fac a trend existing already doesn't mean new policy couldn't affect it further
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
and you're saying that this means the ACA couldn't influence this trend further. Because that's the only way it makes sense as a rebuttal, and really doesn't pass the smell test. Due to the fac a trend existing already doesn't mean new policy couldn't affect it further
Click to expand...

No, I"m not saying that and it's not the only way it makes sense.

WHat I'm saying is that just because a business moves more toward pt workers that doesn't mean it's because of Obamacare, even if that's what they say (because saying "We're looking to screw our employees in any way we can" isn't the best PR move)

Therefore, it will be difficult to assign any specific level of change to Obamacare, particularly in the short-term
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Economic conditions could be different, how the bill is actually written and enforced could be different, etc, etc, etc. So, yeah, simply dismissing any discussion of the topic seems rather premature
Click to expand...

I'm not dismissing the discussion, simply stating the obvious. Nobody knows what will happen. The assumption by some on the right is that it would be easier to just reduce the hours of employees, but it is far more likely that businesses would reduce the number of employees if costs did increase. There is also an assumption by those on the right that all this is occurring in a vacuum and is not affected by any other factors, such as a potential decrease in overall health care costs by the influx of more people with insurance or a desire by many companies to offer full time employment in order to attract the best employees.
 
Fisher said:
Probably because Romneycare was subsidized by the federal government moreso than the private payrolls.
Click to expand...

Um...help me out here. How was RomneyCare subsidized by the federal government?
 
winston53660 said:
They do have some good info about it. And as the situation changes in Congress they go back and crunch numbers again.
Click to expand...

There are still too many unknowns on the market side regardless of what Congress does or does not do. I have yet to hear anything about how it might impact self-insurance plans, for instance. Its effects will certainly not be uniform even if the national numbers can be dialed in some as huge companies will have different cost structures than a mom and pop 60 employee firm. My gut instinct is that it will overall be an economic benefit nationally, but it will be a huge burden on some that will go out of their way to avoid it. Unlike some who seem to think the rule that the ill pay the same as the healthy will lower costs--I think it will just get the healthy effectively rated to bridge the gap, thereby driving up costs. Time will tell I suppose but it is not going to be without negative consequences to the non-Wall Street world.
 
sangha said:
No, I"m not saying that and it's not the only way it makes sense.

WHat I'm saying is that just because a business moves more toward pt workers that doesn't mean it's because of Obamacare, even if that's what they say (because saying "We're looking to screw our employees in any way we can" isn't the best PR move)

Therefore, it will be difficult to assign any specific level of change to Obamacare, particularly in the short-term
Click to expand...

I agree that it will take time to get an accurate measurement of any change caused by the ACA, but am unsure why should just dismiss stories about employers changing their employment practices due to the bill.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
I agree that it will take time to get an accurate measurement of any change caused by the ACA, but am unsure why should just dismiss stories about employers changing their employment practices due to the bill.
Click to expand...

Ther's a difference between dismissing something and not believing it.
 
Fisher said:
There are still too many unknowns on the market side regardless of what Congress does or does not do. I have yet to hear anything about how it might impact self-insurance plans, for instance. Its effects will certainly not be uniform even if the national numbers can be dialed in some as huge companies will have different cost structures than a mom and pop 60 employee firm. My gut instinct is that it will overall be an economic benefit nationally, but it will be a huge burden on some that will go out of their way to avoid it. Unlike some who seem to think the rule that the ill pay the same as the healthy will lower costs--I think it will just get the healthy effectively rated to bridge the gap, thereby driving up costs. Time will tell I suppose but it is not going to be without negative consequences to the non-Wall Street world.
Click to expand...

Yeah, in mass small businesses got hammered when their market was polled with individuals.
 
CriticalThought said:
Um...help me out here. How was RomneyCare subsidized by the federal government?
Click to expand...

My understanding was that it was part of the medicaid compliance in order to continue to receive those funds as they were about to lose them completely, but it is not something I have studied closely--just read about in passing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom