Daily Obamacare Thread: Good and Bad

[esmith]

Well seems we have an ACA success thread but this grumpy ole man doesn't have any use for the law while others feel that it is the best thing since slice bread. So being the contrary ole fart that I am I am starting out with the "Bad".

North Dakota’s Largest Insurer Will Still Be Canceling Policies Thanks To Obamacare | Say Anything

UnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage cuts doctors

Rogers: WH Won't Even Give Classified Briefings on HealthCare.Gov Security Problems | National Review Online

Report: Obama Admin Using Honor System to Pay Insurance Companies | Fox News Insider

Audit: Health care subsidies vulnerable to fraud - Times-Gazette | Ashland & Ashland County, Ohio

 

[Revoltingest]

The Obamacare website still requires my son to be a smoker.
Apparently there's a procedure to change to non-smoker, but it hasn't worked yet.

 

[esmith]

The Obamacare website still requires my son to be a smoker.
Apparently there's a procedure to change to non-smoker, but it hasn't worked yet.

Just out of "blank" curiosity how did a stupid web page decided he was a smoker. Nah, you don't have to answer that. You are dealing with a bureaucracy that can not admit it made a mistake.

 

[esmith]

Are you a person or persons that own different business. Say a accounting firm, a payroll company, and a retail business. Your spouse owns a dairy farm and you are minority stakeholder in that business and help out with the bookkeeping. Do you realize that you fall under the 50 employee rule in Obamacare? Well, in actuality you do. Seems that it doesn't matter if the businesses you own are not related, you just happen to own them, then according to Obamacare they are treated as one business and if the number of employees go reach 50 or more you have to provide health insurance for all of the employees in all of the businesses. Guess what, do you think it would be an economical business decision to hire anymore employees and go over the limit, or if you are just at that limit maybe you should lay someone off?

Small Businesses Say ACA’s Aggregation Rules Unfair - Washington Wire - WSJ

 

[tytlyf]

Are you a person or persons that own different business. Say a accounting firm, a payroll company, and a retail business. Your spouse owns a dairy farm and you are minority stakeholder in that business and help out with the bookkeeping. Do you realize that you fall under the 50 employee rule in Obamacare? Well, in actuality you do. Seems that it doesn't matter if the businesses you own are not related, you just happen to own them, then according to Obamacare they are treated as one business and if the number of employees go reach 50 or more you have to provide health insurance for all of the employees in all of the businesses. Guess what, do you think it would be an economical business decision to hire anymore employees and go over the limit, or if you are just at that limit maybe you should lay someone off?

Small Businesses Say ACA’s Aggregation Rules Unfair - Washington Wire - WSJ

Good, this will keep businesses from attempting to 'skirt' the law as it was initially designed. Say you own a company with 10 different locations, 5 employees each. Do you really think this employer shouldn't fall at the 50 employee level?

 

[esmith]

Good, this will keep businesses from attempting to 'skirt' the law as it was initially designed. Say you own a company with 10 different locations, 5 employees each. Do you really think this employer shouldn't fall at the 50 employee level?

No, that isn't the issue here. It is not one company in 10 different locations. the issue is, as in this case, 4 different companies in one local.

 

[metis]

Why is it that so many on the right virtually either ignore or just pooh-pooh what the non-partisan CBO has calculated, instead relying on right-wing blogs, right-wing articles, and radio and t.v. "news" like the Fox Propaganda Channel? And why didn't they mention that Consumer's Reports has endorsed it and is now telling people that it's now time to sign up?

And what's even crazier yet (as in morally repugnant), is that some Republican politicians are telling people not to sign up, which is actually in violation of the law-- so much for the party that used to champion itself as being the "party of law & order". Both Lindsey Graham and Bobby Jindal have referred to their own party as being "the party of stupid", but now they should add that their party is also "the party of dishonesty".

 

[tytlyf]

No, that isn't the issue here. It is not one company in 10 different locations. the issue is, as in this case, 4 different companies in one local.

And aren't the companies owned by the same person?

The lady owns 3 businesses and is a shareholder in her husband's private company which = being an owner.

 

[esmith]

And aren't the companies owned by the same person?

The lady owns 3 businesses and is a shareholder in her husband's private company which = being an owner.

Yes, but the problem is that let say the owner of the accounting business wanted to increase the number of employees at only the accounting firm but didn't want to increase the number of employees at the other non-related business (they were not doing as good due to the bad economy). If she went over the limit then she would have to pay for health insurance for all. Do you not see that this stifles the job growth?

 

[tytlyf]

If she went over the limit then she would have to pay for health insurance for all. Do you not see that this stifles the job growth?

It's a fair policy. If you own multiple entities under 1 person, those are combined to prevent skirting and dropping employees.
Say you own a restaurant business with 50 employees and 1 location. What's to stop you from creating another business and naming it #2? Then comes #3, #4, all to keep under the limit. Doesn't sound like good business sense to begin with.

 

[esmith]

It's a fair policy. If you own multiple entities under 1 person, those are combined to prevent skirting and dropping employees.
Say you own a restaurant business with 50 employees and 1 location. What's to stop you from creating another business and naming it #2? Then comes #3, #4, all to keep under the limit. Doesn't sound like good business sense to begin with.

You do realize what you said do you not? Your statement condensed down is basically saying is that it would be bad business sense to expand your business by opening more businesses in different locations. Where in actuality it would make good business sense to do so except under the Obamacare rules that would force you to provide expensive healthcare to all employees when your combined businesses hit the 50 limit mark. Most businesses that expand into different areas lose money the first few years until they become established. Adding to your expenses under the Obamacare law makes it harder for businesses to expand. Yes, I know there are those that have no problems with this. However, it hurts small businesses that want to expand. I see no problem with helping employees cover their healthcare, but not to the magnitude that Obamacare requires.

 

[tytlyf]

The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't make good business sense to open a new location to separate your current employees. Sure there may be extra revenue opening in a new location, but the expenses to do that would outweigh the expense to keep their staff insured.

 

[esmith]

More problems with Obamacare as the DC Health Link plan is experiencing major difficulties. Full story here:
House asks for help as faulty DC website delays Obamacare enrollment for members, staff | WashingtonExaminer.com

In addition many states are experiencing problems with their state exchanges.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/obamacare-state-exchanges-technical-glitches-100757.html?hp=l3

Colorado's head of the states health care official is asking for a bonus and a raise even though enrollment numbers are not meeting expectations.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...fficial-seeks-bonus-despite-poor-performance/

 

[tytlyf]

More problems with Obamacare as the DC Health Link plan is experiencing major difficulties. Full story here:
House asks for help as faulty DC website delays Obamacare enrollment for members, staff | WashingtonExaminer.com

In addition many states are experiencing problems with their state exchanges.
State exchanges hitting data snags, too - Kyle Cheney and Jason Millman - POLITICO.com

You do realize that once the website is running as efficiently as possible you are going to have to come up with new stories? The positive influence of the ACA will dominate the 2014 midterms and you'll start to see this momentum shift once the website is resolved in it's entirety.
The time is soon when this goes from a negative to positive.

 

[esmith]

You do realize that once the website is running as efficiently as possible you are going to have to come up with new stories? The positive influence of the ACA will dominate the 2014 midterms and you'll start to see this momentum shift once the website is resolved in it's entirety.
The time is soon when this goes from a negative to positive.

I think the operative word here is when and if.

 

[esmith]

The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't make good business sense to open a new location to separate your current employees. Sure there may be extra revenue opening in a new location, but the expenses to do that would outweigh the expense to keep their staff insured.

So you agree that Obamacare is a lead blanket on economic expansion. Glad to see you have finally realized it.

 

[Awoon]

My neighbor signed up. Monthly insurance he pays now is $1000.00 with $8000.00 co-pay. ACA will be $700.00 with $2500.00 co-pay. Married with two children under 20 yrs old and owns his own business.

 

[tytlyf]

So you agree that Obamacare is a lead blanket on economic expansion. Glad to see you have finally realized it.

Doubt it. Most businesses don't have 50 employees so they won't be affected. And the ones that do, most likely already provide insurance. Now they'll be required to have insurance and get a cheaper price, boohoo.
The ACA is a good thing as much as you like to say it isn't. But I know that's only the barking of the puppets on the right.

 

[metis]

Doubt it. Most businesses don't have 50 employees so they won't be affected. And the ones that do, most likely already provide insurance. Now they'll be required to have insurance and get a cheaper price, boohoo.
The ACA is a good thing as much as you like to say it isn't. But I know that's only the barking of the puppets on the right.

BTW, the CBO and Consumers Reports both agree with you and not the sky-is-falling right-wing element.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes, but the problem is that let say the owner of the accounting business wanted to increase the number of employees at only the accounting firm but didn't want to increase the number of employees at the other non-related business (they were not doing as good due to the bad economy). If she went over the limit then she would have to pay for health insurance for all. Do you not see that this stifles the job growth?

What is to stop someone from simply owning 100 tiny buisnesses and dodging the law if we don't find some way to hinder this?