Evil Semp wrote:Scotty I don't think ObamaCare killed the 40 hour work week. At least in the retail segment it has been like that for years.
Would you say that the relevant rules of ObamaCare have been beneficial or deleterious to 40-hour work week jobs?
I think it definitely was a detriment to full time jobs. I think companies use the law as an excuse to cut full time jobs that were getting benefits to part time jobs.
Okay, then you're in general agreement here. I think the title of the thread is hyperbolic, but what'dya expect?
RE: companies' behaviors, let's think about it. There's other means for firing full-timers, and who knows what the relative costs and benefits are between full-time and part-time workers for each company. However, we do know that if a company lacks the political clout to get an exemption from the ObamaCare, then the costs of their full-time workers would raise. If these costs are high enough, then companies would be wise to cut such costs--otherwise, they'll go broke, lose profit--thus future expansion/production/hiring, lose customers to their competitors, and/or more.
So, from that angle, it makes sense to release more full-time employees. It's not merely an excuse when a law actually increases the costs of production. It's a fact..., so who's really to blame for this?
PLAYER57832 wrote:The problem is that today, profit for business has become a substitute for ethics and morality.
Never in the history of capitalism have ethics and morality been more important to business than profits. Corporations are incentivized to maximize profit - nothing more, nothing less. Anything is justified if it maximizes profits.
Even ethics and morality.
No, definitely NOT ethics and morality. unless you consider achieving profit to be a true morality.
Corporations are specifically designed to shield investors from almost all negative repercussions. By denying impact of most results it gives the pretense that profit is an apt measure of real value, including moral value. It begins with people saying "we cannot afford to [truly fix the damage we caused, admit to any wrongdoing... feed the hungry.. protect people around us] It winds up with all pretense of anything other than profit being thrown out the window.
In the past, several factors, most specifically a fairly universal culture, have mitigated the harm. Also, it takes time for the full impact to come to fruition. We are just beginning to see it, in the ease with which so many consider things like promised retirement, medical care and many other hard-won near necessities are just now being dismissed as superfluous, unaffordable, luxuries that need to be cut to balance budgets.
mordigan wrote:it just means that rather than doling out free health care, which is like an act of charity, the government doles out money, which people use to pay for their health care. this allows them to believe that they are providing for themselves and to feel a little more pride in their situation.
No, its really that when we have to buy insurance, it fills the pockets of those investing in insurance products. If the government is providing the care directly, there is no such profit gain for individuals supporting those in power.
it is still better than the system we had, but very far from good.
Evil Semp wrote:Scotty I don't think ObamaCare killed the 40 hour work week. At least in the retail segment it has been like that for years.
Would you say that the relevant rules of ObamaCare have been beneficial or deleterious to 40-hour work week jobs?
I think it definitely was a detriment to full time jobs. I think companies use the law as an excuse to cut full time jobs that were getting benefits to part time jobs.
Certainly, many will point to this.. but if it were not for the healthcare reform act, then it would be some other factor blamed. These are just excuses.
PLAYER57832 wrote:The problem is that today, profit for business has become a substitute for ethics and morality.
Never in the history of capitalism have ethics and morality been more important to business than profits. Corporations are incentivized to maximize profit - nothing more, nothing less. Anything is justified if it maximizes profits.
Even ethics and morality.
No, definitely NOT ethics and morality. unless you consider achieving profit to be a true morality.
Corporations are specifically designed to shield investors from almost all negative repercussions.
This isn't true because the potential for negative repercussions (i.e. risk) is sometimes willingly taken, and it varies! Obviously, x-amount of corporations are not designed to shield investors from "almost all negative repercussions" (whatever vagueness is entailed in that, only pLAYER knows). Some are more willing to risk more "negative repercussions." It simply depends, so it's not intelligent to place all corporations into one category--as player does.
PLAYER57832 wrote:By denying impact of most results it gives the pretense that profit is an apt measure of real value, including moral value. It begins with people saying "we cannot afford to [truly fix the damage we caused, admit to any wrongdoing... feed the hungry.. protect people around us] It winds up with all pretense of anything other than profit being thrown out the window.
So... who claims that profit is a "real value--which includes moral value"?
Profit exists, sure. Its value can be measured in various currencies or estimated non-monetarily (e.g. the profit one receives from exchanging $3.00 for a pint of their favorite ice cream). Measurements exist, as do non-monetary forms of measurement; therefore, there are real values for profit.
(god knows what PLAYER means and will mean when she says 'real').
But more importantly, who claims that profit is a "real value--which includes moral value"?
PLAYER57832 wrote:In the past, several factors, most specifically a fairly universal culture, have mitigated the harm. Also, it takes time for the full impact to come to fruition. We are just beginning to see it, in the ease with which so many consider things like promised retirement, medical care and many other hard-won near necessities are just now being dismissed as superfluous, unaffordable, luxuries that need to be cut to balance budgets.
What "fairly universal culture"?
How does one measure or even assess the cause of this "full impact"?
And how does one even know what to look for, exactly?
Currently, nothing in PLAYER's response has refuted GP's claim:
Evil Semp wrote:Scotty I don't think ObamaCare killed the 40 hour work week. At least in the retail segment it has been like that for years.
Would you say that the relevant rules of ObamaCare have been beneficial or deleterious to 40-hour work week jobs?
I think it definitely was a detriment to full time jobs. I think companies use the law as an excuse to cut full time jobs that were getting benefits to part time jobs.
Certainly, many will point to this.. but if it were not for the healthcare reform act, then it would be some other factor blamed. These are just excuses.
If it was less costly to hire more full-time employees, then would companies do so?
What are the relative benefits and costs between hiring full-time employees and part-time employees---for every company?
If you can answer the above, then your position would have merit.
Another day, another clause of Obamacare that the administration chooses to illegally ignore and push off. Why will they not follow the law they demanded be passed?
If by "free healthcare" you mean that you and me pay for someone else's healthcare out of our own pocket when a hospital has to give charity care, then you are correct, that is not what the Act is supporting.
With the individual mandate there shouldn't be the need for charity care (much) anymore, so the days of the not-for-profit hospitals are ending.
This is a logical provision of the Act from my position.
Right, it forces people who already can't afford to pay for their own insurance to now go and buy insurance that costs even more. And it makes it illegal for hospitals to give out free heath care to those who don't have health insurance. How does that improve health care and keep people from dying in the streets, which is the only progressive standard to whether a law is good?
This is the result of folks like you decrying the better models (ALL of them!) as "socialism". You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Or, in this case.. you cannot have full profit insurance and also fully free care for those who need it. Someone has to pay for the profits of the insurance companies.
If by "free healthcare" you mean that you and me pay for someone else's healthcare out of our own pocket when a hospital has to give charity care, then you are correct, that is not what the Act is supporting.
With the individual mandate there shouldn't be the need for charity care (much) anymore, so the days of the not-for-profit hospitals are ending.
This is a logical provision of the Act from my position.
Right, it forces people who already can't afford to pay for their own insurance to now go and buy insurance that costs even more. And it makes it illegal for hospitals to give out free heath care to those who don't have health insurance. How does that improve health care and keep people from dying in the streets, which is the only progressive standard to whether a law is good?
Not at all, you are way off base. Lower income individuals will receive subsidies, up to 400%FPL (about 89k a year for a family of four, for example). Paying for insurance will be much less costly for these individuals (and us, and the system) than racking hundreds of thousands in debt and going bankrupt when something bad DOES happen to them.
More people insured means more people get their age/gender preventive screenings, which means LESS people dying from preventable chronic illnesses, contrary to your baseless point.
So it's okay for the government to give people money (paid for by the rest of us) to buy health insurance in order to get health care, but it's not okay for the hospital to just give that health care to people for free directly? How does that even make sense? Why do we need to add 2 other middle-men, both siphoning off money, to do the exact same thing? See, that's why this entire law is patently absurd.
You can't compartmentalize like that. And yes, it is worse having the hospitals just providing free care when needed (old model), because it does absolutely nothing to improve OUTCOMES and the HEALTH of those seeking care. One of the pillars of this law is prevention and primary care, so people can become healthier and not need as many services done. It ends up SAVING the taxpayers money, giving these subsidies. For every heart attack, or stroke, or COPD, or late-stage cancer that is saved, that one instance pays for dozens if not hundreds of subsidies.
If by "free healthcare" you mean that you and me pay for someone else's healthcare out of our own pocket when a hospital has to give charity care, then you are correct, that is not what the Act is supporting.
With the individual mandate there shouldn't be the need for charity care (much) anymore, so the days of the not-for-profit hospitals are ending.
This is a logical provision of the Act from my position.
Right, it forces people who already can't afford to pay for their own insurance to now go and buy insurance that costs even more. And it makes it illegal for hospitals to give out free heath care to those who don't have health insurance. How does that improve health care and keep people from dying in the streets, which is the only progressive standard to whether a law is good?
This is the result of folks like you decrying the better models (ALL of them!) as "socialism". You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Or, in this case.. you cannot have full profit insurance and also fully free care for those who need it. Someone has to pay for the profits of the insurance companies.
What? "Someone has to pay for the profits of X."
How does that make sense?
Usually, it goes, "someone has to pay for the taxes which support/are given to others." lolwut
jj3044 wrote:With the individual mandate there shouldn't be the need for charity care (much) anymore, so the days of the not-for-profit hospitals are ending.
<scratches head> Getting rid of not-for-profit hospitals is a good way to lower health care costs? This is a good thing?
Is there something wrong with not-for-profit hospitals? Some might argue that making profit on other's misery and sickness is immoral (I don't know if it is or not, I'm not judging).
Assuming acceptable quality of care (as provided for by law)- If someone without insurance went to a for profit hospital to get a procedure or a not-for-profit hospital (are there any other types of hospitals?), which would be cheaper for the individual?
If someone with insurance went to a for profit hospital to get a procedure or a not-for-profit hospital, which would be cheaper for the insurance?
jj3044 wrote:With the individual mandate there shouldn't be the need for charity care (much) anymore, so the days of the not-for-profit hospitals are ending.
<scratches head> Getting rid of not-for-profit hospitals is a good way to lower health care costs? This is a good thing?
I'm not saying it is, or it isn't. Just stating the facts as illustrated by NS's post.
Is there something wrong with not-for-profit hospitals? Some might argue that making profit on other's misery and sickness is immoral (I don't know if it is or not, I'm not judging).
Nothing wrong with them at all.
Assuming acceptable quality of care (as provided for by law)- If someone without insurance went to a for profit hospital to get a procedure or a not-for-profit hospital (are there any other types of hospitals?), which would be cheaper for the individual?
That's the problem, it might be higher, it might be lower. It completely depends on what the hospital WANTS to charge. That is a good thing about insurance, the hospital negotiates a rate far lower than their "advertised rates", and the subscribers get the advantage of that lower rate.
If someone with insurance went to a for profit hospital to get a procedure or a not-for-profit hospital, which would be cheaper for the insurance?
If both hospitals are in the insurance network, they would cost the same to the member getting the procedure.
jj - Have there been any cost savings statistics released to date? I'm not talking about projections of cost savings, but actual cost savings. Have those cost savings taken into account lost hours, lost wages, lost jobs, and increase in health insurance costs per person?
If by "free healthcare" you mean that you and me pay for someone else's healthcare out of our own pocket when a hospital has to give charity care, then you are correct, that is not what the Act is supporting.
With the individual mandate there shouldn't be the need for charity care (much) anymore, so the days of the not-for-profit hospitals are ending.
This is a logical provision of the Act from my position.
Right, it forces people who already can't afford to pay for their own insurance to now go and buy insurance that costs even more. And it makes it illegal for hospitals to give out free heath care to those who don't have health insurance. How does that improve health care and keep people from dying in the streets, which is the only progressive standard to whether a law is good?
This is the result of folks like you decrying the better models (ALL of them!) as "socialism". You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Or, in this case.. you cannot have full profit insurance and also fully free care for those who need it. Someone has to pay for the profits of the insurance companies.
What? "Someone has to pay for the profits of X."
How does that make sense?
Usually, it goes, "someone has to pay for the taxes which support/are given to others." lolwut
Not much superficial difference.. if you consider all to be just mere exchanges of money. If, however, you consider what is acheived... taxes are supposed to go for things necessary, for the good of all. Profits are for individuals to spend as they wish. Pretty big difference, that!
Night Strike wrote:Profits are so evil! They've only been improving the human condition and allowing people to better themselves for hundreds of years.
Yeah, nothing about sharing or caring or protecting...
Profits that are true are fine, but when you insist its OK to hire people who cannot afford to take their kids to get basic medical exams on your "wages" without help from other taxpayers, its not profit, its greed.
thegreekdog wrote:jj - Have there been any cost savings statistics released to date? I'm not talking about projections of cost savings, but actual cost savings. Have those cost savings taken into account lost hours, lost wages, lost jobs, and increase in health insurance costs per person?
Funny...
You omit the places where we already ARE seeing savings, and coverage for people who had none -- my kids, for example, had to be covered by my husband's insurance despite having pre-existing conditions, thus directly saving Medicare dollars. Similarly, a lot of young adults have ALREADY been able to stay on their parents insurance, and many adults, myself included now have assurance that our bills will be covered under the insurance we pay for, rather than having to pay only to be denied because of a "pre-existing condition"... even a very, very minor one.
Then you leap into the assumption of lost wages, jobs and increase in cost of insurance (though in CA, one of the few states to have an exchange up and running, the costs are actually far LESS than projected).. all things that are just threatened, threatened by companies (like Walmart, McDonald's, etc.) that have long track records of cutting, cutting and cutting any time they can get away with it and placing the blame on any requirement they face..despite the fact that they continue to enjoy huge profits.
Night Strike wrote:Profits are so evil! They've only been improving the human condition and allowing people to better themselves for hundreds of years.
Yeah, nothing about sharing or caring or protecting...
Profits that are true are fine, but when you insist its OK to hire people who cannot afford to take their kids to get basic medical exams on your "wages" without help from other taxpayers, its not profit, its greed.
You mean the sharing, caring, and protecting that these hospitals were providing and are now being outlawed from providing by the government? Thanks government!
PLAYER57832 wrote:(though in CA, one of the few states to have an exchange up and running, the costs are actually far LESS than projected)
Only in government does a smaller increase than projected actually count as a spending cut.
thegreekdog wrote:jj - Have there been any cost savings statistics released to date? I'm not talking about projections of cost savings, but actual cost savings. Have those cost savings taken into account lost hours, lost wages, lost jobs, and increase in health insurance costs per person?
Funny...
You omit the places where we already ARE seeing savings, and coverage for people who had none -- my kids, for example, had to be covered by my husband's insurance despite having pre-existing conditions, thus directly saving Medicare dollars. Similarly, a lot of young adults have ALREADY been able to stay on their parents insurance, and many adults, myself included now have assurance that our bills will be covered under the insurance we pay for, rather than having to pay only to be denied because of a "pre-existing condition"... even a very, very minor one.
Then you leap into the assumption of lost wages, jobs and increase in cost of insurance (though in CA, one of the few states to have an exchange up and running, the costs are actually far LESS than projected).. all things that are just threatened, threatened by companies (like Walmart, McDonald's, etc.) that have long track records of cutting, cutting and cutting any time they can get away with it and placing the blame on any requirement they face..despite the fact that they continue to enjoy huge profits.
Yup.
In the 11 states HHS analyzed, the report said "that greater competition and greater transparency are driving down prices in the marketplace." The agency studied rates in California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. In six states, those costs are also 18% lower than small employers had paid in the past for similar plans. Some states may see individual rates go down as much as 50%
PLAYER57832 wrote:hire people who cannot afford to take their kids to get basic medical exams on your "wages" without help from other taxpayers, its not profit, its greed.
it's perfectly normal for the government to partially or entirely subsidize physical examinations for children. who cares if 'the taxpayer' is helping ensure that people's children are healthy? what, you're ashamed to have the government help you keep your children healthy but you're not too big to accept free education at the hand of the state?
it's worth bearing in mind that the value of some people's labor is not high enough to warrant a large pay packet, and certainly not a pay packet large enough to enable 100% self-sufficiency.
PLAYER57832 wrote:hire people who cannot afford to take their kids to get basic medical exams on your "wages" without help from other taxpayers, its not profit, its greed.
it's perfectly normal for the government to partially or entirely subsidize physical examinations for children. who cares if 'the taxpayer' is helping ensure that people's children are healthy? what, you're ashamed to have the government help you keep your children healthy but you're not too big to accept free education at the hand of the state?
it's worth bearing in mind that the value of some people's labor is not high enough to warrant a large pay packet, and certainly not a pay packet large enough to enable 100% self-sufficiency.
I'm confused as to which side you are arguing for, here.
Player is describing the situation pre-ACA. With the ACA having an individual mandate, premium subsidies for low income families required minimum standards for health insurance, and included preventive exams at zero cost for the individual, the government IS assisting those children in accessing preventive care.
player seems to be complaining that some people don't feel able to pay for their kids to have medical examinations, and is blaming those people's employers. i'm merely responding to that.
