Um, no. They will have lower income because their hours and been cut and every shred of evidence is that insurance costs are rising rapidly.kalm wrote:2) Those people will still be able to get healthcare and perhaps cheaper than under their employer plan.ASUG8 wrote:
No, there are probably zero companies cutting people's hours below 30/week to avoid coverage under ACA.
I guess the insurance industry lobbyists have more pull than the guys in the government doing the regulating.houndawg wrote:The insurance companies will still find a way to take their 20% off the top and keep the seven-figure bonuses and Roman lifestyles for their parasitic executives.kalm wrote:
I was being somewhat sarcastic, but according to the insurance broker I just met with regarding starting a company plan and my own private plan, group discounts have really been gone for quite some time now. I remember back in the 90's, my private plan premiums were less than my company plan and less than my bil's school district group plan.
As I've said before, Obamacare was written by insurance companies...FOR insurance companies. A **** ton of the high expenses involved in healthcare costs are wrapped up in unneccessary profit margins for insurance companies and inefficiencies of an overly complicated multi-payer system.
Insurance benefits should be a choice for employers, not a mandate.
Always have, always will...ASUG8 wrote:I guess the insurance industry lobbyists have more pull than the guys in the government doing the regulating.houndawg wrote:
The insurance companies will still find a way to take their 20% off the top and keep the seven-figure bonuses and Roman lifestyles for their parasitic executives.
They literally wrote the fucking legislation.houndawg wrote:Always have, always will...ASUG8 wrote:
I guess the insurance industry lobbyists have more pull than the guys in the government doing the regulating.
You're making my point except their insurance costs will be subsidized, lower, and therefore insurance company profits will be subsidized. Comprende?CitadelGrad wrote:Um, no. They will have lower income because their hours and been cut and every shred of evidence is that insurance costs are rising rapidly.kalm wrote:
2) Those people will still be able to get healthcare and perhaps cheaper than under their employer plan.
Your Subway sandwich artists ain't happy campers right now.
But how can that be? Obama said the impact of lobbyists would be diminished in his administration more than any other before him. He said it, so it had to be true, right?houndawg wrote:Always have, always will...ASUG8 wrote:
I guess the insurance industry lobbyists have more pull than the guys in the government doing the regulating.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0[/youtube]kalm wrote:Except nobody is really losing their coverage.
Subsidized by whom? There is no evidence that their costs will be lower even with subsidies. BTW, a subsidy is a cost to someone.kalm wrote:You're making my point except their insurance costs will be subsidized, lower, and therefore insurance company profits will be subsidized. Comprende?CitadelGrad wrote:
Um, no. They will have lower income because their hours and been cut and every shred of evidence is that insurance costs are rising rapidly.
Your Subway sandwich artists ain't happy campers right now.
Yep, conks are clearly confused about the definition of "losing".89Hen wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0[/youtube]kalm wrote:Except nobody is really losing their coverage.
I think if you take out the word "their" you may have a true statement.kalm wrote:Yep, conks are clearly confused about the definition of "losing".89Hen wrote: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0[/youtube]
