Employers Beclown Obama(care)


Is this how it’s suppose to work?

Obamacare: Large Grocery Chain Drops Coverage for Part-time Workers

Wegmans? The Rochester-based grocer that has been continually lauded for providing health insurance to its part-time workers will no longer offer that benefit. Until recently, the company voluntarily offered health insurance to employees who worked 20 hours per week or more. Companies are required by law to offer health insurance only to full-time employees who work 30 hours or more per week. Several Wegmans employees confirmed part-time health benefits had been cut and said the company said the decision was related to changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act.

As it turns out, this can be better for the workers, in that they’ll now be eligible for the government subsidy and may get better coverage.  But, then, because the government is so incompetent in the rollout of this onerous law, anyone can claim the subsidy.

Well played, leftards.   In this case, we’ve managed to fix what wasn’t broken, just like we all said would happen.  Lunatics.

This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Employers Beclown Obama(care)

  1. David Appell says:

    The employer mandate should never have been included, and it’s likely it will fall by the wayside in a few short years except for very high-end jobs. Why should employers have to be involved in the health insurance market in the first place?

  2. philjourdan says:

    And the beat goes no. More people forced onto the government dole, and no money to pay for it. And the cost continues to skyrocket. With no increase in benefits.

    • David Appell says:

      Since restaurant workers’ employers won’t pay for their health insurance, and the workers themselves do not earn enough to buy insurance on the market, what do you propose as a solution?

      • philjourdan says:

        How about this – let the market decide.

        Seems we did not have that big of a problem before. 45m without insurance, of which all but 8 million was through choice (between jobs, maximizing income). The plan ONLY insures 15m of them, of which HALF are those that CHOSE not to be insured (the young that do not really need it). At a cost of (current CBO estimate) $2.8T. Which translates into $18,667/person/year. The government defines a “Cadillac” plan at anything over $10,500/person/year. And the plans these people are getting are not Cadillac in anything but cost.

        So they took a situation that was not bad and made it a disaster. WOW! The government does better than computers to eff things up!

      • David Appell says:

        Let what market decide?

        People who can’t afford health care don’t go without it — it is paid by insurance holders, though higher premiums and higher hospital bills.

        Do you like paying for others care?

        • copernicus34 says:

          the system you advocate for would result essentially in a plethora of lower paid General Practioners, with very few specialists left. Already know of a few who jusy up and quit as soon as Obama won the election. They were holding out hope that someone would get in there and dump Obamacare. What Hank was describing in the last thread will be become the new normal. You don’t realize when financial insentive is taken away then the doctors just won’t be doctors anymore. A case study is Austria. Way back when Austria had the best surgeons in the world and a free market system; whats happened? Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out. The free market system vanished along with the surgeons; where did the surgeons go you ask? Take a guess. Yes, the US, with a vast improvement in that type of care as a result of that influx of specialty doctors. Where does anybody in the world go when they need critical surgery? If they can make they come here. I’m not pissing on the other countries medical care, but I would rank the US as one of the most innovative and excellent health systems in the world. With inherant problems of course, with any system with this many people you’re going to have problems, but you certainly don’t trash it to fix it.

        • David Appell says:

          I notice you still didn’t provide an alternative idea.

          Let alone specify how everyone is supposed to pay for all the choices and options you want.

          The people who come to America for medical care are RICH people. The non-rich do not.

          And the US certainly does not have the best health care system in the world, as JAMA just (again) showed this past week:

        • philjourdan says:

          The choices and options for everyone far outstrip the resources of the country imbecile. Everyone here except you sees the alternative. That you keep having to ask the question merely demonstrates your stupidity imbecile.

        • kim2ooo says:

          “And the US certainly does not have the best health care system in the world, as JAMA just (again) showed this past week:”

          What stats are being used?

          Second, there are limitations related to the extent, quality, and consistency of some information used in the analyses and estimates in this study. The reporting of 95% uncertainty intervals that incorporate both sampling error and error from model estimation provides some information on the extent and quality of the information available for the United States. Uncertainty could be underestimated for a range of reasons, such as unrecognized bias in published studies. However, the nature of the estimation process both for causes of death and the prevalence of sequelae more generally exaggerate uncertainty intervals in a high-income country such as the United States. These wide uncertainty intervals limit the ability to determine whether a country is above or below the OECD mean for YLDs. Country ranks across age-standardized YLL rates could still be affected by differences in national death certification practice, although after careful and detailed examination of the cause-of-death data, we have not identified any reason to suspect that this is a major problem in the United States.30 However, some of the increase in Alzheimer disease from 1990 to 2010 may be related to changes in certification and coding.72 Concerns have been raised that in some countries, variable implementation of the World Health Organization’s definition of a live birth may affect comparisons of early neonatal death rates76 across countries; because early neonatal deaths account for only 0.5% of deaths and 2.6% of YLLs, these considerations are unlikely to affect the comparisons shown here. However, the same problems related to how countries define and count diseases, injuries, and risk factors could affect estimates of other diseases included in these analysis.

          I’d be careful about this study and claims until these UNKNOWNS were accounted.

        • philjourdan says:

          Nice bait and switch there imbecile. Obamacare does NOTHING for health care. EVERYONE had access to health care before Obamacare, and after Obamacare. Obamacare is all about Health INSURANCE.

          So your statement is not only imbecilic, but also false.

      • copernicus34 says:

        not ObamaCare….the worst legislation ever passed. Even the Dems (the ones that can actually think) know it.

        • David Appell says:

          not ObamaCare

          I notice you didn’t offer any alternatives.

        • philjourdan says:

          The alternative is to GO BACK to what WAS working.

          Obamacare is not a fix. It is an abortion. And as others have said, even the democrats know it. But not our imbecile.

        • suyts says:

          Oh, there were plenty of alternatives offered. They just weren’t draconian enough to be considered by the Dems.

          Real tort reform, interstate insurance competition, etc….. It probably isn’t worth rehashing here, because Obamacare is law…… well, sort of, depending upon how the administration feels about it when they wake up every day. Sometimes they feel like binding people to the rule of law….. other days, not so much.

        • David Appell says:

          Studies show that tort reform would have little impact on health care prices, reducing them only about 0.5%:

          “Limiting Tort Liability for Medical Malpractice,” CBO, Jan 8, 2004


          Also read Slate (July 11, 2006) “The Medical Malpractice Myth,” which discusses the evidence from other studies presented in Tom Baker’s book “The Medical Malpractice Myth.”

          Blaming health care expense problems on tort reform is a canard.

        • suyts says:

          LOL, some people will believe anything. 0.5%? And, yet, we didn’t try it, did we? Nope. It could have been a simple little effort with much less draconian measures. In 2009 alone malpractice litigation cost $30 billion and was increasing about about 10% a year. More to the point is that in efforts to prevent such litigation doctors often ordered unnecessary tests and treatments.

          There were, of course, many other papers stating the opposite, David. My point is, many alternatives were offered. And, a case can be made that simply by having insurance, it drives up the cost.

          David, when I was in the military, one of my duties was to staff a pediatric clinic. On base, health care is free to members of the military and family. Because there was no out of pocket costs to the families, many of them would make their visit to the clinic as part of a social event. As crazy as it sounds, that’s exactly what happened. On paydays, like clock work, we’d see the same moms and kids. Nothing was really wrong with them other than little johnny had a cold. But, they’d come anyway on their way to the grocery store (commissary) or on their way back. Doctors would be seen, tests orders, and antibiotics prescribed to appease mom. All unnecessary, but, incurred because the families saw little or no out of pocket expense. And, so it will be when everyone has a cool little govt issued insurance card. With costs still spiraling out of control, because, cost control was never the aim for team Obama.

        • philjourdan says:

          Then there should be no problem passing it. yet the democrats refused to even consider it as part of Obamacare. So who is the imbecile, imbecile?

        • David Appell says:

          LOL, some people will believe anything. 0.5%?

          Do you have a study that shows differently?
          No, you do not. This is becoming a routine with you — denying facts with nothing better.

        • philjourdan says:

          What’s the cost as a percent of revenues of Malpractice insurance imbecile?

        • David Appell says:

          There were, of course, many other papers stating the opposite,

          Then cite at least one.

        • suyts says:

          Really David? You don’t know how to use Google? http://www.nber.org/papers/w15371.pdf Or, are you pretending that you’ve never heard or seen anything contrary to what you cited? Or, is it more likely that you’re being childish, and contrarian?

          At any rate, estimated for immediate 2.3% cost savings, while increasing it’s impact as time increases.

          David, have you ever attempted a rational non-confrontational argument?

        • David Appell says:

          On base, health care is free to members of the military and family.

          False. That health care is part of the compensation package, offered by US taxpayers to man their military.

        • suyts says:

          David, are you compelled to make distinctions without a difference in challenging what I write? It isn’t false. Do you realize how silly you look when you do such things?

        • philjourdan says:

          You say false, and then agree with him. What an imbecile!

        • David Appell says:

          And, so it will be when everyone has a cool little govt issued insurance card.

          Completely, utterly, totally false. As proven by every other advanced health care system in the world, all of whom pay half or less than we do for *better* care.

          What do they do that America is incapable of doing?
          (Answer: providing *huge* profits to insurance companies and doctors.)

        • suyts says:

          And, so, the obvious solution was to mandate that everyone buy insurance. Brilliant! As to your other part of your comment, that’s prolly why we see Canadians coming across the border for procedures which they have to wait for in Canada.

        • philjourdan says:

          Did you investigate the other numbers imbecile? The other countries do not include cosmetic surgery as part of their costs. The US does. Dig into the numbers imbecile.

          And check out the wait times there for minor surgery imbecile.

        • David Appell says:

          I don’t give a crap if you think I look silly. I don’t respect you in the least, so why would I care about your opinion?

        • philjourdan says:

          And we do not respect an imbecile like you. But you do not look silly. You would have to improve 100% to get to just silly. You look and are imbecilic.

        • David Appell says:

          Who says Canadians come to the US for care in disproportinate numbers?
          How many Americans go abroad for care, aka “medical tourism.”

        • kim2ooo says:

          David Appell says:

          July 12, 2013 at 4:49 pm

          I don’t give a crap if you think I look silly.

          You obviously don’t care that you ARE silly.

          I don’t respect you in the least, so why would I care about your opinion?

          You must care – your posts are evidence…if you DIDN’T care you wouldn’t try to change our opinion.

  3. copernicus34 says:

    I offered an alterative in the other thread. You didn’t like that one, big surprise. In the absence of doing what I proposed in that thread, my solution is to do nothing; especially considering the fact that this country is broke.

    • David Appell says:

      What other thread?
      What solution?

      Nor is this country “broke,” nor can it become so as long as it controls its own currency.

      • copernicus34 says:


      • cdquarles says:

        The country isn’t broke, not yet. The government is, though. The government will sooner or later lose ‘control’ of the currency. You can make me ‘take’ it; but you can’t make me like it nor make me use it indefinitely. Wake up, man! Ever heard of ‘You pretend to pay me, I pretend to work?’ or similar proverbs? No?

      • philjourdan says:

        Yes, but it can and is making its currency worthless. Inflation is a tax on everyone, but hits the poor the hardest,. figures the imbecile is advocating taxing the poor so harshly.

  4. copernicus34 says:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s