Obamacare to cost average of $20 Thousand per family

[Magpai]

I understand your passion, but can't go there with ya bud.

You're advocating that your personal freedom is worth the lives of fellow citizens, even you, if circumstances weren't in your favor.

Just wanted to post to confirm that yes, that's exactly what I'm advocating. I think a great deal of harm will come (has come) from governments who exercise authority over an increasing amount resources and liberty for the sake of preserving life.

I'm also advocating though (in this thread, not so much in your and my direct back and forth) that such government actions are financially unwise; if they're going to spend that kind of money, I'd much rather see it going to put food on the table for people whose "only" problem is hunger than to pay for complicated and expensive operations.

---------- Post added 2013-02-01 at 07:17 AM ----------

I'd quit if I were you. Employers were never, and have never been, required to provide health insurance to their employees. The fact that they're making you pay for avoidance of costs that they never had to incur in the first place, is appalling.

I'm sure it's in anticipation of future costs.

[Chonogo]

Just wanted to post to confirm that yes, that's exactly what I'm advocating. I think a great deal of harm will come (has come) from governments who exercise authority over an increasing amount resources and liberty for the sake of preserving life.

I'm also advocating though (in this thread, not so much in your and my direct back and forth) that such government actions are financially unwise; if they're going to spend that kind of money, I'd much rather see it going to put food on the table for people whose "only" problem is hunger than to pay for complicated and expensive operations.

At least you're honest. You're not advocating for a first-world country, though. I hope you understand that.

I'm sure it's in anticipation of future costs.

And I think it's shitty. They should just drop their employer-provided insurance. That would be more cost-effective. It's still retarded, they offer health insurance to be competitive with other companies in their market. They do not, and never will, offer health insurance that they pay for out of the goodness of their own heart.

[Magpai]

At least you're honest. You're not advocating for a first-world country, though. I hope you understand that.

My vision of "first world country" does not define it as one whose government implements by force the "good of society", which in turn is decided upon by a bunch of selfish idiot voters with no qualms about taking wealth from their neighbors using government force.

They do not, and never will, offer health insurance that they pay for out of the goodness of their own heart.

No company is obligated to do anything for anyone "out of the goodness of their own heart". They offer compensation, and you either agree to it or cease working there. Trying to attach all these moral judgments to a financial structure like a corporation is just childish and naive, if you'll pardon my inability to come up with a less insulting term.

There is no good and evil in the workplace. There are only agreements between employee and company, and company and customer. If a company refrains from violence, intimidation or fraud, they've satisfied all of their moral obligations.

[Lilfrier]

Even if these numbers are true - I'm not seeing a problem. People need to have health insurance - and it needs to be paid for.

The problem? It's an average of almost $1,700 per month. My stepmom, who works for the state of Illinois, says that if her insurance goes up to the expected price of $1,000 per month, it will be an unbearable price hike. So...an unbearable price hike, plus another 70%? I think that's the problem. Basically, at $1,700 per month, she'd probably be paying for about 6 families' health insurance, while my dad and stepmom do pretty well to live within their means as it is.

So, the problem is that these things are costing people paychecks (many low-level employees are getting hours cut so employers don't have to provide healthcare) and even families who are by NO MEANS wealthy are being financially wrecked by this.

[yurano]

There is no good and evil in the workplace.

There is good and evil in the workplace (eg. brown nosers getting more than they deserve), just not in the transaction you described.

even families who are by NO MEANS wealthy are being financially wrecked by this.

I would go even further to say "wrecked by policy that was 'supposed' to help them".

[Magpai]

There is good and evil in the workplace (eg. brown nosers getting more than they deserve), just not in the transaction you described.

Well, it's time to implement government regulations on brown-nosing then I guess!

Seriously though, your definition of "evil" is pretty wimpy.

[yurano]

Well, it's time to implement government regulations on brown-nosing then I guess!

Hard to catch, even in companies which have policies against it.

Seriously though, your definition of "evil" is pretty wimpy.

How about this case?

The court ruled 7-0 that bosses can fire employees they see as an "irresistible attraction," even if the employees have not engaged in flirtatious behavior or otherwise done anything wrong. Such firings may be unfair, but they are not unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because they are motivated by feelings and emotions, not gender, Justice Edward Mansfield wrote.

[Chonogo]

My vision of "first world country" does not define it as one whose government implements by force the "good of society", which in turn is decided upon by a bunch of selfish idiot voters with no qualms about taking wealth from their neighbors using government force.

That's an interesting viewpoint.

No company is obligated to do anything for anyone "out of the goodness of their own heart". They offer compensation, and you either agree to it or cease working there. Trying to attach all these moral judgments to a financial structure like a corporation is just childish and naive, if you'll pardon my inability to come up with a less insulting term.

There is no good and evil in the workplace. There are only agreements between employee and company, and company and customer. If a company refrains from violence, intimidation or fraud, they've satisfied all of their moral obligations.

This has nothing to do with the context of what you quoted. We're talking about an employer telling you they have to cut your hours because insurance costs too much. Insurance that they have no moral obligation to fulfill. You actually argued my point for me.

[Magpai]

How about this case?

This is unjust because it's blatantly discriminatory, not because there's not enough "goodness in the hearts" of the employers.

---------- Post added 2013-02-01 at 07:49 AM ----------

This has nothing to do with the context of what you quoted. We're talking about an employer telling you they have to cut your hours because insurance costs too much. Insurance that they have no moral obligation to fulfill. You actually argued my point for me.

The companies who have addressed this issue publicly have said it's because of future legal obligations, not current ones and not moral ones.

And honestly I don't give a damn why they're cutting hours as that has no bearing, since they shouldn't need anyone's permission, not government's and not employees', to cut hours if they feel they can manage with less labor costs, unless they're breaking prior agreements. Why would a company knowingly run with more labor than it needs?

[yurano]

This is unjust because it's blatantly discriminatory, not because there's not enough "goodness in the hearts" of the employers.

Discrimination is classified as 'immoral' even if its not to the extent of being 'evil'.

[Chonogo]

The companies who have addressed this issue publicly have said it's because of future legal obligations, not current ones and not moral ones.

You're missing my point. They're not required to provide insurance. They are then deciding to cut employee hours to skirt penalties for not offering insurance, and masquerading that they're doing it because of "legal obligations".

The proper recourse would be to stop providing insurance, but they want to have their cake and eat it, too. "We provide insurance, but only if you work 40 hours! Oh, by the way, we don't have any employees that get 40 hours. Sorry about your luck!"

And honestly I don't give a damn why they're cutting hours as that has no bearing, since they shouldn't need anyone's permission, not government's and not employees', to cut hours if they feel they can manage with less labor costs, unless they're breaking prior agreements. Why would a company knowingly run with more labor than it needs?

Because they're deciding that it's more cost-effective to have 2 30-hour workers that they don't have to provide insurance for, rather than one 40-hour worker they do have to provide insurance for.

It's a moral issue to me because they're shafting employees in regards to an employment perk that they're not even required to provide. I predict that most of the companies making these decisions will lose out on highly skilled workers when the new health care law starts taking a bigger effect.

[Felfury]

I think it's stupid that there's a "penalty" for not having insurance.

It's not, while I disagree with Americas healthcare system there definitely needs to be a fee if they go with the insurance method, if somebody is injured without insurance all of that money has to be acquired as debt and that takes other peoples time and money as well.

[Simca]

Yeah, if your goal with this thread was to get 20 pages of comments in 3 hours, congratulations - you win.

However, if your goal was to start a reasonable conversation about Obamacare, you picked a bad way to do it. The source you have linked is the only source of said news (and this in an era where every news site copies each other instantly) and it talks purely using example numbers. Without something more concrete, there is no reason for this thread to remain open.

I realize that many of you may want to continue to discuss this and other healthcare policies. I advise you to either search for a thread on it in the last week or two or create your own thread (based either off your own statements or a news story that is not pure speculation).

Closed.