Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by PSGator66, Jan 24, 2014.
That's why I vote Tea Party.
The same tea party where their pols have no problem taking government subsidies when it suits them or the party which most in it oppose cuts to their benefits?
Both parties are great at giving lip service to cutting spending but they are too afraid of cutting the money supply off to their constituents. Thus it all amounts to a hill of beans usually. Of course the American public is much/mostly to blame too.
Agree. To some extent, I don't blame pols for this nor the public but capitalism and modernization. We have an embarrassment of riches because capitalism has been wildly successful in some ways. This has created both the want and the need because of how skewed distribution of those riches are (not a value comment, just an observation).
I think the main problem is that once people get used to government largess in any form it is extremely hard to get them to turn lose of it. I'm not just pointing the fingers at others because I recall when they were talking about closing bases several years ago there was one where my partner and I were going to put in some bids. I got all aggravated about it when I found out the bids were out the window. Reason being it affected yours truly. Real downsizing of the government would affect most everyone in the country in some manner. I'm not sure we are really ready for that.
Excellent points. Many say government policies don't affect job creation but they do, just not necessarily in the way we think. Base shut down is a great example, prison shut downs another. In fact we have a number of "complexes (military, criminal justice, medical) that prop up the economy and employment
I can understand why you'd be aggravated. I just don't see the want or need to be as mutually exclusive as we'd like to believe nor indicative of a negative entitlement mentality but one borne in large part out of necessity.
Nana, when a small business (which is the vast majority of businesses in the U.S.) hires people and provides health insurance, they factor the cost into their budget. Suddenly, the federal government comes along and mandates all policies must match certain criteria. Most of the companies policies don't meet those policies, since they don't pay for contraceptives, birth control, abortions, etc. So, the companies have to go out and shop for policies again.
One, this is unproductive time, so there is cost in that. Then, there is the higher costs associated with the provisions of contraceptives, birth control, abortion, etc. The new policies, since they will be providing more benefits, even if they are unwanted, will cost more. That is the law of supply, the more you get, the more it costs. Nobody can legitimately dispute that the extra benefits will increase the costs of the policies.
Now, the company has to decide whether to pass these costs on to the employee or subsidize them. Those costs eat into profits. Since most businesses in the U.S. are privately owned, it means that it is eating into the profit of a family or individual, in most cases.
There is no disputing the fact that when you have to increase benefits in a health insurance policy, the cost of said policy will increase. So, you stating that you are unsure it has been proven that Obamacare affects employment means you have not made an attempt to even look at the issues involved. Also, you state that most companies are dumping insurance and telling their employees to enroll in Obamacare. Where is your proof of this?
What you don't seem to understand that as a business owner, I am going to do what is best for me and my business. And secondly, I don't give a damn what anybody else thinks. I provide insurance for my employees, which is just me and my partner, but even when I was running a business that had 50 employees, I did what I wanted, not what some liberal thought I should do.
Any business owner, as long as they are following the law, who then cows down to pressure from outsiders deserves to have their business fail.
Well, he does, after all, have a pen.
Um, lower corporate tax rates, of course!!!
None of that will cause business to hire.
Jobs are an expense that won't be added to unless demand requires it.
But keep on fighting for the man!
I wasn't talking about middle or small size businesses necessarily.......it's large corporations/industries that organize to lobby for their best interests or write law as ALEC does which aren't in the best interests of the middle class.
Have read a number of articles recently where large companies are discontinuing medical coverage for lower or part-time employees.....openly referring them to Obamacare. Target was the latest company to do so. You can google the topic and find many articles along this line.
This thread title should be changed to:
The Middle Class Is Taking It Under The Chin Under Corporatocracy
Whether Dems or Pubs, it's the elite and special interests who are being served in this country, not the average Joe
And why? Because we have allowed a system of legal bribery known as campaign finance..
1% of tax payers are much more rich than the rest. You continue to blow the differences out of proportion.
Also give me a time in history that taking from the rich ever made the poor more money.
That is because very few of the part time workers "elected to pay for the healthcare coverage" due to the cost to them. When Obamacare was written with provisions for 'subsidies' from the rest of us who are already shouldering higher premium costs due to the new items our policies must cover, Target felt like more part time employees could go to the exchanges and get that free money (from us) to subsidize their coverage. (subsidies are only available through the exchanges). And of course under the typical bronze or silver plan, the deductable will be $3K-$6 K meaning the insurance will only kick in over that amount.
Obamacare has screwed all of us. Some just don't realize it yet...but will when the employer mandate begins being enforced.