Will Obamacare destroy jobs?

[Jack Hays]

Health reform and employment

Will Obamacare destroy jobs?

[h=2]Health reform and employment[/h] [h=3]Will Obamacare destroy jobs?[/h] [h=1]Health reform may make Americans work less[/h] Aug 24th 2013 | NEW YORK |From the print edition

Opinions are furiously divided as to whether the unintended harm caused by health reform will outweigh its benefits. Republicans, who have always hated the whole package, howl that it will destroy jobs. Nonsense, say Democrats; it will promote growth and boost employment. Since the law has so many moving parts, it is hard to predict who is right. But there is a risk that a lot of workers will be hurt.

eace

 

[Arbo]

It already is hurting jobs, and it will get worse. Much worse.

 

[sangha]

Health reform and employment
Opinions are furiously divided as to whether the unintended harm caused by health reform will outweigh its benefits. Republicans, who have always hated the whole package, howl that it will destroy jobs. Nonsense, say Democrats; it will promote growth and boost employment. Since the law has so many moving parts, it is hard to predict who is right. But there is a risk that a lot of workers will be hurt.

eace

I'll ask a question I doubt the OP will ever answer:

What do you think, and why?

 

[lolabird]

It already is hurting jobs, and it will get worse. Much worse.

Allowing all Americans to have access to health insurance is a killer.

 

[greengirl77]

Didnt we go through this fearmonger a couple of years back? Oh yeah well I guess we are doing it again!! Let the boogeymen come out of the wood work! Well if companies want to play that game it is gonna be a loser. Check me if I am wrong here but if a company doesnt want a healthy workforce then one they should'nt be in business,and two why would anyone want to work for them.

 

[Arbo]

Allowing all Americans to have access to health insurance is a killer.

This is a left wing myth. All Americans had access to health care, they could also get insurance.

Disnt we go through this fearmonger a couple of years back? Oh yeah well I guess we are doing it again!! Let the boogeymen come out of the wood work!

Don't let the facts of the numbers deter you from beating the drum of support.

 

[lolabird]

This is a left wing myth. All Americans had access to health care, they could also get insurance.



Don't let the facts of the numbers deter you from beating the drum of support.

Tell your sob story to the single mother living in the ghetto who is working 3 jobs just to keep a roof over her kids heads and food in their bellies. Oh, and she has pre-existing condition; one that will only cost her a buzillion dollars in her world.

 

[The Man]

Tell your sob story to the single mother living in the ghetto who is working 3 jobs just to keep a roof over her kids heads and food in their bellies. Oh, and she has pre-existing condition; one that will only cost her a buzillion dollars in her world.

Perhaps she should have kept her legs closed and not had kids? Or if she couldn't help herself, give those kids up for adoption or abort them?

 

[VanceMack]

Depends on who you ask.

Ask those that are actually responsible for job creation...of course.

Ask those that just by damn want their Obamacare...no of course not!

Who you believe probably depends on what outcome you want to see.

 

[VanceMack]

Allowing all Americans to have access to health insurance is a killer.

"Allowing"? As in, someone is currently stopping them?

 

[VanceMack]

Tell your sob story to the single mother living in the ghetto who is working 3 jobs just to keep a roof over her kids heads and food in their bellies. Oh, and she has pre-existing condition; one that will only cost her a buzillion dollars in her world.

You know...if you wreck your car and didnt bother to carry insurance on it, wouldnt it be sweet if the government FORCED an insurance company to cover you and fix your car with its "preexisting condition", regardless of the fact that you were irresponsible about not already carrying insurance? Of course...that sucks for the insurance company and by proxy, investors and all those actually carrying insurance since their rates are going to go up to cover your irresponsibility...but hey...who cares?

I think it is a GOOD thing for states to create or hone their already existing health care programs. a federal program? Yeah....that 17 trillion dollar debt we are sitting at and the current unemployment rates...we are going to look back on these days and reminisce about "the good old days". There is a REASON why the administration is trying desperately to put it off til AFTER the 2014 elections.

 

[ttwtt78640]

How is any gov't mandate that raises the cost of labor, yet does not also increase worker productivity, not hurt the employer? The employer has two choices A) raise the price of goods/services or B) reduce your labor costs in other ways.

Why do you think Obama decided to "delay" that wonderful part of PPACA known as the employer mandate?

Many employers are deciding to use more part-time workers to help avoid the PPACA requirement to offer them insurance benefits and it may have a side surprise side benefit of the employee suffering less fatigue by working fewer/shorter shifts. The reason that I say may is that some employees (those without dependents mostly) will simply have to work two part-time jobs to make ends meet. On the other hand, if the employee both has a job and still yet qualifies for social "safety net" help (has dependents) they may opt for that route to get extra cash (or in kind "help", like no added commuting costs and SNAP) instead of taking on another "on the books" part-time job (leaving time for doing cash only "odd jobs").

Other options, for reducing PPACA mandated labor cost increases, are to automate, subdivide the company or to outsource part (or all) of the labor required.

Automation may be as simple as using self-check out machines or adding "discount" bag your own grocery aisles.

Subdividing may allow simply turning your current 80 employee operation into two, legally seperate, 40 employee operations that happen to work together under a cooperative agreement.

Outsourcing part (or all) of a company's operations may have been slightly more expensive or even a wash before PPACA, but now avoiding the cost of providing madated employee medical insurance may tip the scales in favor of that option.

 

[Arbo]

Tell your sob story to the single mother living in the ghetto who is working 3 jobs just to keep a roof over her kids heads and food in their bellies. Oh, and she has pre-existing condition; one that will only cost her a buzillion dollars in her world.

Why is she a single mother? Why is she living in the ghetto? Why do you find it necessary for others to pay for her medical insurance for an expensive condition?

Your response is pure emotion. Emotion does not make for an argument.

 

[cpwill]

Tell your sob story to the single mother living in the ghetto who is working 3 jobs just to keep a roof over her kids heads and food in their bellies. Oh, and she has pre-existing condition; one that will only cost her a buzillion dollars in her world.

She's on Medicaid.

 

[lolabird]

She's on Medicaid.

She doesn't qualify for Medicaid in her state because she earns more than 24% of poverty; i.e., $4395 for a family of three.

 

[lolabird]

Why is she a single mother? Why is she living in the ghetto? Why do you find it necessary for others to pay for her medical insurance for an expensive condition?

Your response is pure emotion. Emotion does not make for an argument.

Incest in the family.
She's to be admired for not aborting her children and working each and every day to take care of them.
Indeed, why would anyone want to contribute to her health needs?

 

[lolabird]

How is any gov't mandate that raises the cost of labor, yet does not also increase worker productivity, not hurt the employer? The employer has two choices A) raise the price of goods/services or B) reduce your labor costs in other ways.

Why do you think Obama decided to "delay" that wonderful part of PPACA known as the employer mandate?

Many employers are deciding to use more part-time workers to help avoid the PPACA requirement to offer them insurance benefits and it may have a side surprise side benefit of the employee suffering less fatigue by working fewer/shorter shifts. The reason that I say may is that some employees (those without dependents mostly) will simply have to work two part-time jobs to make ends meet. On the other hand, if the employee both has a job and still yet qualifies for social "safety net" help (has dependents) they may opt for that route to get extra cash (or in kind "help", like no added commuting costs and SNAP) instead of taking on another "on the books" part-time job (leaving time for doing cash only "odd jobs").

Other options, for reducing PPACA mandated labor cost increases, are to automate, subdivide the company or to outsource part (or all) of the labor required.

Automation may be as simple as using self-check out machines or adding "discount" bag your own grocery aisles.

Subdividing may allow simply turning your current 80 employee operation into two, legally seperate, 40 employee operations that happen to work together under a cooperative agreement.

Outsourcing part (or all) of a company's operations may have been slightly more expensive or even a wash before PPACA, but now avoiding the cost of providing madated employee medical insurance may tip the scales in favor of that option.

I feel so sorry for John Schnatter’s 6 million Papa John’s because shares have gained $47.2 million in value. When markets opened on Friday morning, Schnatter’s Papa John’s stake was worth $293.2 million.

 

[GottaGo]

Tell your sob story to the single mother living in the ghetto who is working 3 jobs just to keep a roof over her kids heads and food in their bellies. Oh, and she has pre-existing condition; one that will only cost her a buzillion dollars in her world.

You are the one telling the 'sob story'. But you forgot to mention the dog got run over by a train. :wink:

Picking one example of many different circumstances does not create a true picture of the situation.

A good portion of the 'uninsured' are young adults who ARE earning above the poverty line, who have chosen to not spend any part of their income on insurance individually or through and employer's program.

 

[lolabird]

You know...if you wreck your car and didnt bother to carry insurance on it, wouldnt it be sweet if the government FORCED an insurance company to cover you and fix your car with its "preexisting condition", regardless of the fact that you were irresponsible about not already carrying insurance? Of course...that sucks for the insurance company and by proxy, investors and all those actually carrying insurance since their rates are going to go up to cover your irresponsibility...but hey...who cares?

I think it is a GOOD thing for states to create or hone their already existing health care programs. a federal program? Yeah....that 17 trillion dollar debt we are sitting at and the current unemployment rates...we are going to look back on these days and reminisce about "the good old days". There is a REASON why the administration is trying desperately to put it off til AFTER the 2014 elections.

Not everyone can afford to drive a car; therefore, they are left to utilize public transportation or else foot it.
It's really more than fair when an insurance company raises their rates in a particular state because of bad drivers. It's always good to make the good rivers suffer a bit. God bless those insurance companies and their Golden Parachutes.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I feel so sorry for John Schnatter’s 6 million Papa John’s because shares have gained $47.2 million in value. When markets opened on Friday morning, Schnatter’s Papa John’s stake was worth $293.2 million.

Are you asserting that because PPACA, not yet fully implemented, did not already cause one particualar business some harm that the points to which you replied are not valid? Perhaps you think that by simply changing the subject, that you are a clever debater.

How do you relate the profitability of Papa John's to PPACA?

 

[lolabird]

You are the one telling the 'sob story'. But you forgot to mention the dog got run over by a train. :wink:

Picking one example of many different circumstances does not create a true picture of the situation.

A good portion of the 'uninsured' are young adults who ARE earning above the poverty line, who have chosen to not spend any part of their income on insurance individually or through and employer's program.

Wolf Blitzer put a terrific question to Rep. Ron Paul at last night's CNN/Tea Party Express Republican debate in Tampa, Fla. What should happen, the moderator asked hypothetically, if a healthy 30-year-old man who can afford insurance chooses not to buy it—and then becomes catastrophically ill and needs intensive care for six months? When Dr. Paul ducked, fondly recalling the good old days before Medicare and saying that we should all take responsibility for ourselves, Blitzer pressed the point. "But, Congressman, are you saying the society should just let him die?" At that point, the rabble erupted in cheers and whoops of "Yeah!"

 

[VanceMack]

Not everyone can afford to drive a car; therefore, they are left to utilize public transportation or else foot it.
It's really more than fair when an insurance company raises their rates in a particular state because of bad drivers. It's always good to make the good rivers suffer a bit. God bless those insurance companies and their Golden Parachutes.

Really? You think its 'fair' that insurance companies raise their rates because they have to provide for irresponsible people that didnt bother to get themselves covered until AFTER they had a problem?

Wow. Im SO not shocked.

 

[GottaGo]

Wolf Blitzer put a terrific question to Rep. Ron Paul at last night's CNN/Tea Party Express Republican debate in Tampa, Fla. What should happen, the moderator asked hypothetically, if a healthy 30-year-old man who can afford insurance chooses not to buy it—and then becomes catastrophically ill and needs intensive care for six months? When Dr. Paul ducked, fondly recalling the good old days before Medicare and saying that we should all take responsibility for ourselves, Blitzer pressed the point. "But, Congressman, are you saying the society should just let him die?" At that point, the rabble erupted in cheers and whoops of "Yeah!"

He should receive the care. And the bill. He's the one who took the gamble, and lost. No one did that on his behalf, therefore they should not have to bear the cost.

I also do not think medical bills should be allowed under bankruptcy.

 

[lolabird]

Are you asserting that because PPACA, not yet fully implemented, did not already cause one particualar business some harm that the points to which you replied are not valid? Perhaps you think that by simply changing the subject, that you are a clever debater.

How do you relate the profitability of Papa John's to PPACA?

John Schnatter has said he will cut employee's hours in order to avoid having to pay their insurance coverage. Now that's the definition of altruism.

 

[lolabird]

He should receive the care. And the bill. He's the one who took the gamble, and lost. No one did that on his behalf, therefore they should not have to bear the cost.

I also do not think medical bills should be allowed under bankruptcy.

But you do believe that people are forced into bankruptcy because of medical bills?