America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 11 years ago by JadeRose. 47 replies replies.
Walmart's New Health Care Policy Shifts Burden To Medicaid, Obamacare
borndead1 Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
I tried to tell my lefty friends that sh*t like this was going to happen. Wal Mart was one of the biggest corporate supporters of Obamacare. Rule of thumb: If Wal Mart thinks it's a good idea, it's probably not a good idea.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/01/walmart-health-care-policy-medicaid-obamacare_n_2220152.html



Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer, plans to begin denying health insurance to newly hired employees who work fewer than 30 hours a week, according to a copy of the company’s policy obtained by The Huffington Post.

Under the policy, slated to take effect in January, Walmart also reserves the right to eliminate health care coverage for certain workers if their average workweek dips below 30 hours -- something that happens with regularity and at the direction of company managers.

Walmart declined to disclose how many of its roughly 1.4 million U.S. workers are vulnerable to losing medical insurance under its new policy. In an emailed statement, company spokesman David Tovar said Walmart had “made a business decision” not to respond to questions from The Huffington Post and accused the publication of unfair coverage.

Labor and health care experts portrayed Walmart’s decision to exclude workers from its medical plans as an attempt to limit costs while taking advantage of the national health care reform known as Obamacare. Among the key features of Obamacare is an expansion of Medicaid, the taxpayer-financed health insurance program for poor people. Many of the Walmart workers who might be dropped from the company’s health care plans earn so little that they would qualify for the expanded Medicaid program, these experts said.

“Walmart is effectively shifting the costs of paying for its employees onto the federal government with this new plan, which is one of the problems with the way the law is structured,” said Ken Jacobs, chairman of the Labor Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley.

For Walmart, this latest policy represents a step back in time. Almost seven years ago, as Walmart confronted public criticism that its employees couldn't afford its benefits, the company announced with much fanfare that it would expand health coverage for part-time workers.

But last year, the company eliminated coverage for some part-time workers -- those new hires working 24 hours a week or less. Now, Walmart is going further.

“Walmart likely thought it didn’t need to offer this part-time coverage anymore with Obamacare,” said Nelson Lichtenstein, director of the Center for the Study of Work, Labor and Democracy at the University of California, Santa Barbara. “This is another example of a tremendous government subsidy to Walmart via its workers.”

In pursuing lower health care costs, Walmart is following the same course as many other large employers. But given its unrivaled scale, Walmart’s policies tend to influence American working conditions more broadly. Tom Billet, a senior consultant at Towers Watson, a professional services firm that works with large companies to develop benefit plans, said other companies are also crafting policies that will exclude some part-time workers from medical coverage.

Billet portrayed the growing corporate interest in separating out part-time workers as a reaction to another aspect of Obamacare -- the new rules that require companies with at least 50 full-time workers to offer health coverage to all employees who work 30 or more hours a week or pay penalties.

Several employers in recent months, including Darden Restaurants, owner of Olive Garden and Red Lobster, and a New York-area Applebee’s franchise owner, said they are considering cutting employee hours to push more workers below the 30-hour threshold.

“In the past, firms were less careful about monitoring whether someone was full- or part-time,” Billet said, noting that some of his clients were planning to track workers’ hours more carefully. “I expect health plans like Walmart’s won’t be uncommon as firms adjust to this law.”

For Walmart employees, the new system raises the risk that they could lose their health coverage in large part because they have little control over their schedules. Walmart uses an advanced scheduling system to constantly alter workers’ shifts according to store traffic and sales figures.

The company has said the scheduling system improves flexibility and efficiency. But in recent interviews with The Huffington Post, several workers described their oft-changing schedules as a source of fear that they might earn too little to pay their bills. Many said they have begged managers to assign them additional hours only to see their shifts cut further as new workers were hired.

The new plan detailed in the 2013 "Associate’s Benefits Book" adds another element to that fear: the risk of losing health coverage. According to the plan, part-time workers hired in or after 2011 are now subject to an “Annual Benefits Eligibility Check” each August, during which managers will review the average number of hours per week that workers have logged over the past year.

If part-time workers hired after Feb. 1, 2012, fail to reach the 30-hour threshold, they will lose benefits the following January, according to the book. Part-time workers hired after Jan. 15, 2011, but before Feb. 1, 2012, must work at least 24 hours a week to retain coverage and will also be subject to an eligibility check each year. Those hired before 2011 aren’t subject to the minimum hours requirements or eligibility checks.

As for full-time workers under the plan, those who lose hours and slip to part-time at any point during the year will see their spouses’ health coverage dropped immediately. Those workers will also lose their dental and life insurance policies in the following pay period, according to the plan.

Some Walmart workers who are excluded from the company’s health care plans are likely to become eligible for Medicaid under the Obamacare expansion, which aims to replace a patchwork of standards now set by individual states with one minimum federal threshold -- income below 133 percent of the federal poverty line, which for an individual currently comes to $14,856. However, the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that the decision to expand the program is voluntary for the states. At least eight states, including Texas, have said they will not expand the program, which would leave Walmart workers there with one less option.

Part-time workers who lose their Walmart insurance but earn too much to qualify for Medicaid should be able to buy insurance through the health care exchanges to be established under Obamacare -- essentially, online marketplaces offering an array of health care plans.

For workers who do qualify for health coverage under Walmart's new policy, the latest package represents an upgrade over previous plans. Walmart’s health plans began covering 100 percent of spine and heart surgeries this year at select hospitals and medical centers. They also include a smattering of preventative care services required by Obamacare.

But the company’s plans still leave many workers facing significant financial distress in the event of major illness. Under the new policy, one major offering, the so-called Health Reimbursement Account Plan, costs nonsmoking workers $34.80 a month -- a seemingly affordable sum. Yet it comes with an annual deductible of $2,750, a hefty expense given that half of Walmart’s hourly workforce earns no more than $10 an hour.

While a shifting of Walmart employees to Medicaid rolls may increase the burden on American taxpayers, it is likely to be a better deal for the workers themselves.

“The packages Walmart is providing for low-income people aren’t offering very much coverage except for catastrophes,” said Linda Blumberg, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, a left-leaning think tank. “It’s likely they’ll be better off going with a government-sponsored plan.”
Abrignac Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,384
2 things come to mind:

Walmart has killed off numerous mom and pop businesses while treating their employees like ****. But, with the economy in the chit house people will continue working for them because it's one of few options available.

TANSTAAFL = there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Under what rock were the supporters of Obamacare sleeping to think that these costs would not be born by workers? Walmart will be a model of what's to come. Many more companies will do the same thing which will leave many former full time workers falling into the crack between expanded Medicaid and and making too much to qualify, yet unable to afford to purchase from the exchanges, if available.

So to those blue collar workers of the Labor movement that supported Obama, careful what you ask for.
HockeyDad Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,208
Walmart is doing exactly what was always expected. Obamacare was passed so it can be tweaked yearly until ultimately it becomes a single payer national health care system.

The more companies that dump insurance or cut hours to under 30/week, the better. It just accelerates the process. When complete we will have sub-standard Medicare for everyone cradle to grave and increased taxes on "the rich" and fees on "the middle class" to pay for it.

...and Congress will remain exempt from it.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,610
How could our lord and savior Owedumba let this happen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-MYwUuidLo
HockeyDad Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,208
DrMaddVibe wrote:
How could our lord and savior Owedumba let this happen?



Maybe He is on vacation or something.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,610
HockeyDad wrote:
Maybe He is on vacation or something.



Presidentin' be hard.
tailgater Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Anyone who is surprised by this was probably too busy calling the opposition racist.



This has been going on in Massachusetts since Romneycare took hold.

My wife is a teacher, and some of the preschool positions she's had limited her to below a certain number of hours so they wouldn't have to provide benefits. Now, for her it didn't matter because she's under my policy. But if she were single or otherwise not insured this would be a big deal.
Only a preschool in East Chug Massachusetts doesn't have the visibility of Sam Walton's enterprise.


This will absolutely become a single payer system just like the models that are failing in Canada and Europe.

ZRX1200 Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,682
Is it possible to agree with every post in a thread?
DrafterX Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,595
ZRX1200 wrote:
Is it possible to agree with every post in a thread?



to early to call..... and Victor hasn't posted anything yet.... Mellow
DrMaddVibe Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,610
ZRX1200 wrote:
Is it possible to agree with every post in a thread?



Yeah...when we can keep the Georgetown rubby out of them!Frying pan
Abrignac Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,384
ZRX1200 wrote:
Is it possible to agree with every post in a thread?



So far so good.

At first look one would wonder why our left of center brethern have yet to chime in. But, in short time one realizes why. It's unarguable. On second thought, there are some of us who will argue with a brick wall.


Brick wall

Brewha Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
Walmart wants the people to subsidize their labor. And they will get it. While the foolish blame healthcare reforms. Now ain't that America?
borndead1 Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
Brewha wrote:
Walmart wants the people to subsidize their labor. And they will get it. While the foolish blame healthcare reforms. Now ain't that America?



Yes, and Wal Mart is getting exactly what they wanted. The foolish ones are the people who actually support this.


And the ACA is NOT "healthcare reform". It is health insurance reform.
Abrignac Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,384
Brewha wrote:
Walmart wants the people to subsidize their labor. And they will get it. While the foolish blame healthcare reforms. Now ain't that America?



Sorry try again. Big guberment takeover followed by unintended results. Vast difference. Reform is where things that are broken become better. In this case, nothing was made better but, something was lost instead. Moral of the story: Be careful what you wish for.

As had been said before, Obamacare is a prelude to a full take over. Which then begs the question, "If Canada's single payor system is so good, why the PM come yo the states for treatment last year?"

I'm all for reform. I'll be the first to say we need it. But, that is not even close to Obamacare.

Reform is where ALL interested parties come together, put forth ideas which are debated and end ip with some sort of consensus. That didn't happen with Obamacare.

IIRC, very little if any input was solicited from those not on agreement, very little info was shared. Didn't Nancy Pelosi say that the members could read it AFTER it was voted on? Wasn't it passed not like most major though the deliberative process, but with the so-called nuclear option?

In essence Obamacare is a chitty piece of historic legislation encompassing some 55,000 pages that due to it's broad scope should have been scrutinized before it became law of the land in such a way as to forever alter our economy.

Obamacare is a piece of legislation passed with little forethought to it's consequences. I fear Walmart will certainly only be the beginning of a flood of full time workers moving to part time status. End result: Obamacare wil hurt those it's supposed to help.

Haste makes waste!
borndead1 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
Abrignac wrote:
Sorry try again. Big guberment takeover followed by unintended results.


Believe me, this is the intended result. Corporations off the hook for health insurance. Wal Mart is only the first of many who will follow suit.

My prediction for 2013: Republicans will push "tort reform" through as an amendment to Obamacare. You'll take your crappy health care and like it! ram27bat
rfenst Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459
No surprise here at all. It is a form of hourly rate of pay reduction. I have pretty much done the same thing, but not because of Obama-care. Instead, it simply was to decrease labor costs. It's simply the new reality in the current economy and labor market place, perhaps forever.
Abrignac Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,384
rfenst wrote:
No surprise here at all. It is a form of hourly rate of pay reduction. I have pretty much done the same thing, but not because of Obama-care. Instead, it simply was to decrease labor costs. It's simply the new reality in the current economy and labor market place, perhaps forever.



That's one way to rationalize it.
rfenst Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459
Abrignac wrote:
That's one way to rationalize it.


"Rationalize" as in allowing one's self to believe something is OK, when it really is not?

Or, "rationalize" like "rational" as used in economics?
Abrignac Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,384
rfenst wrote:
"Rationalize" as in allowing one's self to believe something is OK, when it really is not?

Or, "rationalize" like "rational" as used in economics?



: to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as
a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of

In other words, reduce to its least common denominator, or to over simplify.
rfenst Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459
Abrignac wrote:
: to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as
a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of

In other words, reduce to its least common denominator, or to over simplify.


Wow!
You think there is something wrong with general concept of a business decreasing labor cost solely to increase profit?
rfenst Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459
Abrignac wrote:
: to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as
a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of

In other words, reduce to its least common denominator, or to over simplify.


Wow!
You think there is something wrong with general concept of a business decreasing labor cost solely to increase profit?
Abrignac Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,384
No Sir, not at all. Before I shuttered my small business I did exactly that. But, that's not even close to what I said. My op in the thread was simply calling to attention that a hastily passed piece of major legislation is having very unintended results. As such, Walmart IMO has reacted to what could be potentially monumental increases in expenses by finding a loop hole and using it to its advantage. The end result being not the advertised result by those who championed the legislation.
rfenst Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459
Abrignac wrote:
No Sir, not at all. Before I shuttered my small business I did exactly that. But, that's not even close to what I said. My op in the thread was simply calling to attention that a hastily passed piece of major legislation is having very unintended results. As such, Walmart IMO has reacted to what could be potentially monumental increases in expenses by finding a loop hole and using it to its advantage. The end result being not the advertised result by those who championed the legislation.


See HD's post above.
frankj1 Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,273
Walmart has always done this stuff. No news.
rfenst Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459
frankj1 wrote:
Walmart has always done this stuff. No news.


Walmart actually used to attract employees with its self-insured benefit package. Now, it doesn't have to supply that because the relative demand for labor is low 9and even if Obama-care wasn't in the picture.
tailgater Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Abrignac wrote:
No Sir, not at all. Before I shuttered my small business I did exactly that. But, that's not even close to what I said. My op in the thread was simply calling to attention that a hastily passed piece of major legislation is having very unintended results. As such, Walmart IMO has reacted to what could be potentially monumental increases in expenses by finding a loop hole and using it to its advantage. The end result being not the advertised result by those who championed the legislation.


But is it really a "loop hole" when it was so blatantly obvious from the start?

This isn't taking advantage of a system. It's simply a hastened implementation.

Abrignac Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,384
I tend to think it's an unintended loop hole. However, whatever anyone wants to call it, it's contrary to the "stated" purpose for which so many shook pompoms in favor of. But then again, it should be no surprise when one considers G.E. which spends millions to reduce it's tax bite on it's billions in revenue. Why wouldn't a company seek to minimize expenses?

So how then can you grow the economy if companies actively pursue anti-tax strategies which reduce guberment's ability to inject more cash? Do we seek to encourage companies to expand? God forbid we don't. That would be relying on the dastardly trickle down approach.
tailgater Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Abrignac wrote:
I tend to think it's an unintended loop hole. However, whatever anyone wants to call it, it's contrary to the "stated" purpose for which so many shook pompoms in favor of. But then again, it should be no surprise when one considers G.E. which spends millions to reduce it's tax bite on it's billions in revenue. Why wouldn't a company seek to minimize expenses?

So how then can you grow the economy if companies actively pursue anti-tax strategies which reduce guberment's ability to inject more cash? Do we seek to encourage companies to expand? God forbid we don't. That would be relying on the dastardly trickle down approach.



You see what happened here?
The subject was obamacare and it quickly morphed into economic growth.

This is yet another reason why the government should not be in the health insurance business outside of the elderly and the infirm (medicare/aid).
It's good practice to never sh*t where you eat.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
ZRX1200 8

NO,BUT IT IS EASY TO DISAGREE WITH EVERY ONE OF THEM.
tailgater Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
RICKAMAVEN wrote:


NO,BUT IT IS EASY TO DISAGREE WITH EVERY ONE OF THEM.





"It's easy to disagree with every one of them. And if you can place blame, that's even better."
-B.H. Obama
HockeyDad Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,208
Obama Cone of Protection hint:


Companies large and small all across the country are trying to figure out the best way to deal with Obamacare. Before it ever passed there were estimates that easily 10% of all employees would see their companies drop medical benefits completely. Walmart's move to reduce employee hours to below 30/week was also predicted. These were not loopholes or oversights. This is encouraged behavior to slowly end the concept of healthcare being tied to employment as a perk and to create the shift to the concept that healthcare is a birthright funded through taxes and administered by the government.

Medical Benefits Consultant - get some Cone!
rfenst Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459

Darden backs off on some 'Obamacare' changes


December 5, 2012|By Sandra Pedicini, Orlando Sentinel


A day after warning its earnings had plummeted, Darden Restaurants on Wednesday said it would back off somewhat from a test limiting employee hours to avoid higher costs for Obamacare in 2014.

Darden told The Associated Press it would not convert any current full-time employees to part time to forgo the coming health-care changes. It remained unclear how the changes would affect new employees, particularly at new restaurants.

The Orlando-based company that owns Olive Garden, Red Lobster and other dining chains would not comment to the Orlando Sentinel. An official announcement is planned for Thursday morning.

In October, the Sentinel reported that Darden had begun testing a system to limit many employees to fewer than 30 hours per week, an experiment the company acknowledged was related to the health-care overhaul. Much of the test affected newly hired employees.

The national coverage that followed resulted in many people complaining and threatening boycotts.

Customers such as Gary and Jane Bradford of Kissimmee said they stopped visiting Olive Garden and Red Lobster once they heard about Darden's plans to cut worker hours.

"We decided we were no longer going to go to their place of business, if that's the way they're treating their employees," Gary Bradford said.

Under Obamacare, large companies must provide affordable health insurance to employees working an average of at least 30 hours per week. If they don't, they can face fines of up to $3,000 for each employee who then turns to an exchange — an online marketplace — for insurance.

The company said Tuesday that the negative publicity might be partly to blame for sinking sales. It projected that second-quarter profits would come in at 25 to 26 cents when it reports earnings Dec. 20. Analysts had expected much bigger numbers of 46 to 47 cents per share.

After Darden's test was revealed, other restaurant executives became more vocal about their opposition to the health-care overhaul. And those companies took a public-relations hit as well.

YouGov BrandIndex, which measures consumer perceptions, issued a report recently showing Papa John's and Applebee's saw their customer perceptions plunge during the past month. Both chains' leaders had spoken out against Obamacare.

One restaurant expert applauded the company's decision.

"I would think this is a way of saying that they need to at least think about the commitment to service, to their employees," said Chris Muller, a former UCF restaurant professor who's now dean of Boston University's hospitality school. "I think it was a public-relations nightmare."

But Matthew Snook, a partner with human-resources consulting company Mercer, said that even if Darden doesn't convert full-time employees, it's uncertain what that means for Darden's ratio of part-time to full-time workers. The restaurant industry generally has high turnover, and Darden open plans to open 100 new restaurants this year.

"The practical reality of what this is going to do is hard to determine," he said.

Bob McAdam, Darden's senior vice president of government and community affairs, told the AP that internal surveys showed both employee and customer satisfaction declined at restaurants where the tests took place.

"What that taught us is that our restaurants perform better when we have full-time hourly employees involved," he said.

It's unclear how far Darden has moved to rely more heavily on part-timers.

Employees in restaurants that opened recently in Hammond, La.; Stillwater, Okla., and Brunswick, Ga., said workers have been routinely limited to part-time status. Darden said the test had also taken place in Central Florida.

A test also was going on at an older Red Lobster in Tucson, Ariz., where bartender Bobby Schwindler said he was told he couldn't exceed 30 hours.

"I was cutting it really close, and the manager even came up to me and was like, 'You've got to be out of here by 10:30,' " he said about a conversation he had Sunday.

If Darden removes the limits, morale will likely improve, he said.

"You have people looking for jobs because they're losing money," he said. "If they get their hours back, they're more apt to stay."
Abrignac Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,384
Ever notice there seems to be a gas station or 4 at every large intersection? About as many fast food restaurants at every interstate exchange. Since these jobs require very little training watch how quick the ones that are full time become part time.

As far as Olive Garden and such, they rely on happy workers to upsale and create an environment such that people like me will want to come back. No surprise they reconsidered. Wouldn't want a bunch of pi$$ed off servers tampering with the food or talking about the chicken breast they picked up off the floor and put back on the plate.
rfenst Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459
Abrignac wrote:
Ever notice there seems to be a gas station or 4 at every large intersection? About as many fast food restaurants at every interstate exchange. Since these jobs require very little training watch how quick the ones that are full time become part time.

As far as Olive Garden and such, they rely on happy workers to upsale and create an environment such that people like me will want to come back. No surprise they reconsidered. Wouldn't want a bunch of pi$$ed off servers tampering with the food or talking about the chicken breast they picked up off the floor and put back on the plate.


Public Relations: Darden is merely going to take a slower pace and let others take the lead. I will bet that new hires will be told part-time only/no insurance. That is going to be the new normal- unless the demand for labor significantly increases and employers need to offer benefits to hire and retain employees. Otherwise, embrace it!
Abrignac Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,384
Sorry Robert, I'll never embrace this train wreck. There is a much simpler solution to achieve nearly the same results with as a regulator, not a proactive participant.
rfenst Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459
Abrignac wrote:
Sorry Robert, I'll never embrace this train wreck. There is a much simpler solution to achieve nearly the same results with as a regulator, not a proactive participant.


Huh? Explain what you mean...
DrMaddVibe Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,610
.



How could our lord and savior Barack Hussein Obama allow this?????
rfenst Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459
DrMaddVibe wrote:
.



How could our lord and savior Barack Hussein Obama allow this?????


He certainly can't avoid it...
I can hire legal secretaries/inexperienced paralegals for $10/hour with no benefits right now. Posted and ad this summer at UCF and on Craig's list and got over 50 resumes. Probably could have hired someone for minimum wage. More and more to come!
DrMaddVibe Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,610
rfenst wrote:
He certainly can't avoid it...
I can hire legal secretaries/inexperienced paralegals for $10/hour with no benefits right now. Posted and ad this summer at UCF and on Craig's list and got over 50 resumes. Probably could have hired someone for minimum wage. More and more to come!



He told us we could keep our same doctors and healthplans...over and over and over.
jpotts Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
rfenst wrote:
He certainly can't avoid it...
I can hire legal secretaries/inexperienced paralegals for $10/hour with no benefits right now. Posted and ad this summer at UCF and on Craig's list and got over 50 resumes. Probably could have hired someone for minimum wage. More and more to come!


Hummmm....


For someone who advocatesvirtually all of the liberal agenda, why don't you pay your people $20.00 an hour, make them full-time employees, and give them benefits?


Oh wait, I forgot: "what is good for thee is not good for me..."
jpotts Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
I think Obamacare is a great idea.

And I can't wait until all of the people who pushed it get it shoved down their throats.
tailgater Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
^^
December 7, 2012

Mark it in your calendar:
"the day jpotts posted twice in a row in 50 words or less"


jpotts Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
tailgater wrote:
^^
December 7, 2012

Mark it in your calendar:
"the day jpotts posted twice in a row in 50 words or less"





Ahhhh...I see, a challenge. Throwing down the gauntlet to old jpotts, eh?

Just remember, I got a whole bag of verbosity sittin' next to me with your name on it fella!
Abrignac Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,384
rfenst wrote:
Huh? Explain what you mean...



Model it like Medicare Supplement policies. Just as the NAIC created model policies which were then sold in the market place. You choose your level of care.

Create a market from which everyone can buy from either as a group or as an individual. Allow insurance companies to market policies through the exchange.

Get rid of family coverage. Each person becomes a covered entity. Each person pays premium based on what ever criteria is used to set the premium (age, gender, what ever). If you have 10 kids, you pay for each one of them, not get subsidized by one or two children families.

Prohibit exclusions for pre-existing conditions.

If the electorate wants to make it a requirement, then use fines to enforce coverage. Those fines can go back into the pool to reduce the costs born by those who pay.

Only allow mutual companies to participate in the pool. Warren Buffett can leech off someone else.
rfenst Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459
jpotts wrote:
Hummmm....


For someone who advocatesvirtually all of the liberal agenda, why don't you pay your people $20.00 an hour, make them full-time employees, and give them benefits?


Oh wait, I forgot: "what is good for thee is not good for me..."


One makes $25/hour and the other will be up to $15/hour by the end of 2013. They can leave anytime they don't like it. When I return to making real good money again, they will be offered the same health insurance I have.I put my money where my mouth is on this one.
rfenst Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459
jpotts wrote:
Hummmm....


For someone who advocatesvirtually all of the liberal agenda, why don't you pay your people $20.00 an hour, make them full-time employees, and give them benefits?


Oh wait, I forgot: "what is good for thee is not good for me..."


One makes $25/hour and the other will be up to $15/hour by the end of 2013. They can leave anytime they don't like it. When I return to making real good money again, they will be offered the same health insurance I have. My money and mouth on this are in the same place.

Now go back under the bridge and leave us decent people alone!
JadeRose Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
jpotts wrote:
Ahhhh...I see, a challenge. Throwing down the gauntlet to old jpotts, eh?

Just remember, I got a whole bag of verbosity sittin' next to me with your name on it fella!





Here's a challenge for you pottsy....say something smart....or interesting. Surprise us!!
Users browsing this topic
Guest