It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Bad Is It For Trumpcare and the Republican Party

page: 14
24
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


your response to me is utter nutters




posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: veracity

Blame the Republicans? My problems stem directly from the ACA. The law as it was written is what is the problem.



what part upsets you? Of course the republican govs are to blame for rising costs in the red states due to not expanding medicaid...that is usually what people complain about.

What part of the "law" do YOU not like? Free contraceptives? Free check-ups? No pre-existing conditions?

Or

Are you a business owner that must NOW offer insurance to your workers? and if so...
Wouldnt you say that helps more people (your employees) than is detrimental (just you)?

Please tell me, what written part of the ACA law do you have a problem with?
edit on 26-3-2017 by veracity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: veracity

There ya go! When one makes a completely incorrect statement and is called on it, one should always call the response "utter nutters." Unless one can get away with calling the response "racist," "sexist," "xenophobic," etc., of course.

Pelosi would be so proud...

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: veracity

Blame the Republicans? My problems stem directly from the ACA. The law as it was written is what is the problem.



what part upsets you? Of course the republican govs are to blame for rising costs in the red states due to not expanding medicaid...that is usually what people complain about.

What part of the "law" do YOU not like? Free contraceptives? Free check-ups? No pre-existing conditions?

Or

Are you a business owner that must NOW offer insurance to your workers? and if so...
Wouldnt you say that helps more people (your employees) than is detrimental (just you)?

Please tell me, what written part of the ACA law do you have a problem with?


as an employer i have to say that it in no way helps either the employer or the employee. i no longer hire full time workers cause of the added cost. i used to get by with just 1 full time employee, but now i need to hire 2 part timers who dont make enough to earn a living but i can atleast afford to stay in business and provide some sort of work for people. on the flip side i could have just scaled my business way back, paid less in taxes, bought less goods and services, and just squeeked by taking the jobs that dont require a 2nd hand to accomplish. id like to know why u think the employer should have to pay for someone elses healthcare though. are people themselves considered too dumb to take care of it on their own? i know personal responsibility is a dead concept these days but at some point we gotta turn this bus around.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TheScale
I don't believe that obamacare forced you to turn your one full time employee into two part time employees..
since, I don't believe that as an employer of just one employee, you were mandated to provide that employee with health insurance.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: TheScale
I don't believe that obamacare forced you to turn your one full time employee into two part time employees..
since, I don't believe that as an employer of just one employee, you were mandated to provide that employee with health insurance.



only if i am allready paying for those premiums or reimburse them can there be that tax break. i wish i could just go back to paying for workers comp cause it was cheaper in the end. again though id like to know why people think this is something that should be foisted onto the employers shoulders. if were responsible people living in a country that provides the opportunities for every person to find a job and work them why not put that responsibility on each individual.
edit on 26-3-2017 by TheScale because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: veracity

Blame the Republicans? My problems stem directly from the ACA. The law as it was written is what is the problem.



what part upsets you? Of course the republican govs are to blame for rising costs in the red states due to not expanding medicaid...that is usually what people complain about.

What part of the "law" do YOU not like? Free contraceptives? Free check-ups? No pre-existing conditions?

Or

Are you a business owner that must NOW offer insurance to your workers? and if so...
Wouldnt you say that helps more people (your employees) than is detrimental (just you)?

Please tell me, what written part of the ACA law do you have a problem with?


as an employer i have to say that it in no way helps either the employer or the employee. i no longer hire full time workers cause of the added cost. i used to get by with just 1 full time employee, but now i need to hire 2 part timers who dont make enough to earn a living but i can atleast afford to stay in business and provide some sort of work for people. on the flip side i could have just scaled my business way back, paid less in taxes, bought less goods and services, and just squeeked by taking the jobs that dont require a 2nd hand to accomplish. id like to know why u think the employer should have to pay for someone elses healthcare though. are people themselves considered too dumb to take care of it on their own? i know personal responsibility is a dead concept these days but at some point we gotta turn this bus around.


Jerk, just offer insurance to 1 full timer. You are fenageling the law so you don't have to. Quit being a jerk and offer insurance, or close up your business. There is no way it is detrimental to the employees bc YOU are screwing them.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: TheScale
I don't believe that obamacare forced you to turn your one full time employee into two part time employees..
since, I don't believe that as an employer of just one employee, you were mandated to provide that employee with health insurance.



only if i am allready paying for those premiums or reimburse them can there be that tax break. i wish i could just go back to paying for workers comp cause it was cheaper in the end. again though id like to know why people think this is something that should be foisted onto the employers shoulders. if were responsible people living in a country that provides the opportunities for every person to find a job and work them why not put that responsibility on each individual.


It IS responsible to find a job that offers insurance! It is the employers responsibility to provide that insurance.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: veracity

Blame the Republicans? My problems stem directly from the ACA. The law as it was written is what is the problem.



what part upsets you? Of course the republican govs are to blame for rising costs in the red states due to not expanding medicaid...that is usually what people complain about.

What part of the "law" do YOU not like? Free contraceptives? Free check-ups? No pre-existing conditions?

Or

Are you a business owner that must NOW offer insurance to your workers? and if so...
Wouldnt you say that helps more people (your employees) than is detrimental (just you)?

Please tell me, what written part of the ACA law do you have a problem with?


as an employer i have to say that it in no way helps either the employer or the employee. i no longer hire full time workers cause of the added cost. i used to get by with just 1 full time employee, but now i need to hire 2 part timers who dont make enough to earn a living but i can atleast afford to stay in business and provide some sort of work for people. on the flip side i could have just scaled my business way back, paid less in taxes, bought less goods and services, and just squeeked by taking the jobs that dont require a 2nd hand to accomplish. id like to know why u think the employer should have to pay for someone elses healthcare though. are people themselves considered too dumb to take care of it on their own? i know personal responsibility is a dead concept these days but at some point we gotta turn this bus around.


Jerk, just offer insurance to 1 full timer. You are fenageling the law so you don't have to. Quit being a jerk and offer insurance, or close up your business. There is no way it is detrimental to the employees bc YOU are screwing them.


it costs me too much at the end of the year. the thing some dont realize its this is just one of the added costs in my industry im in. along with increased environmental laws, which actually has added 30% on to most of my jobs right from the start, to increased inspections, and more expensive permits, it all adds up to an environment that doesnt make it possible for me to hire one guy anymore. and fyi id love to hire one guy full time cause even with the 2 ive had to take on more of the hard work for myself. so not only is it harder on me as the employer but it doesnt create a good environment for employment either which does hurt the employee if they cant get hired in the first place.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: TheScale
I don't believe that obamacare forced you to turn your one full time employee into two part time employees..
since, I don't believe that as an employer of just one employee, you were mandated to provide that employee with health insurance.



only if i am allready paying for those premiums or reimburse them can there be that tax break. i wish i could just go back to paying for workers comp cause it was cheaper in the end. again though id like to know why people think this is something that should be foisted onto the employers shoulders. if were responsible people living in a country that provides the opportunities for every person to find a job and work them why not put that responsibility on each individual.


It IS responsible to find a job that offers insurance! It is the employers responsibility to provide that insurance.


see this is what i find interesting though. why even include the employer? if what the govt wants is healthcare for everyone no matter your circumstances then why dont we just go straight to each individual. that way if your working at mcdonalds one month and home depot the next you still have the coverage and none of the hassle of moving things from one employer to the next. i mean i know the reason, but id argue if that is the impetus for going through the employer then we have a bigger problem that should be addressed.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: veracity

Blame the Republicans? My problems stem directly from the ACA. The law as it was written is what is the problem.



what part upsets you? Of course the republican govs are to blame for rising costs in the red states due to not expanding medicaid...that is usually what people complain about.

What part of the "law" do YOU not like? Free contraceptives? Free check-ups? No pre-existing conditions?

Or

Are you a business owner that must NOW offer insurance to your workers? and if so...
Wouldnt you say that helps more people (your employees) than is detrimental (just you)?

Please tell me, what written part of the ACA law do you have a problem with?


as an employer i have to say that it in no way helps either the employer or the employee. i no longer hire full time workers cause of the added cost. i used to get by with just 1 full time employee, but now i need to hire 2 part timers who dont make enough to earn a living but i can atleast afford to stay in business and provide some sort of work for people. on the flip side i could have just scaled my business way back, paid less in taxes, bought less goods and services, and just squeeked by taking the jobs that dont require a 2nd hand to accomplish. id like to know why u think the employer should have to pay for someone elses healthcare though. are people themselves considered too dumb to take care of it on their own? i know personal responsibility is a dead concept these days but at some point we gotta turn this bus around.


Jerk, just offer insurance to 1 full timer. You are fenageling the law so you don't have to. Quit being a jerk and offer insurance, or close up your business. There is no way it is detrimental to the employees bc YOU are screwing them.


it costs me too much at the end of the year. the thing some dont realize its this is just one of the added costs in my industry im in. along with increased environmental laws, which actually has added 30% on to most of my jobs right from the start, to increased inspections, and more expensive permits, it all adds up to an environment that doesnt make it possible for me to hire one guy anymore. and fyi id love to hire one guy full time cause even with the 2 ive had to take on more of the hard work for myself. so not only is it harder on me as the employer but it doesnt create a good environment for employment either which does hurt the employee if they cant get hired in the first place.


The "employee" can find another job that has insurance, you are not a savior bc you can produce work for someone. The mandate does not include 1-employee businesses anyway so there's some misconception in your posts. Sorry things are hard, time to close up shop and find a job. Chances are you will also have insurance with your new job. And please don't blame the environment for your $ problems.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: TheScale
I don't believe that obamacare forced you to turn your one full time employee into two part time employees..
since, I don't believe that as an employer of just one employee, you were mandated to provide that employee with health insurance.



only if i am allready paying for those premiums or reimburse them can there be that tax break. i wish i could just go back to paying for workers comp cause it was cheaper in the end. again though id like to know why people think this is something that should be foisted onto the employers shoulders. if were responsible people living in a country that provides the opportunities for every person to find a job and work them why not put that responsibility on each individual.


It IS responsible to find a job that offers insurance! It is the employers responsibility to provide that insurance.


see this is what i find interesting though. why even include the employer? if what the govt wants is healthcare for everyone no matter your circumstances then why dont we just go straight to each individual. that way if your working at mcdonalds one month and home depot the next you still have the coverage and none of the hassle of moving things from one employer to the next. i mean i know the reason, but id argue if that is the impetus for going through the employer then we have a bigger problem that should be addressed.


You mean single payer? Well, ok
. Maybe one day it will happen in my lifetime.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: veracity

Blame the Republicans? My problems stem directly from the ACA. The law as it was written is what is the problem.



what part upsets you? Of course the republican govs are to blame for rising costs in the red states due to not expanding medicaid...that is usually what people complain about.

What part of the "law" do YOU not like? Free contraceptives? Free check-ups? No pre-existing conditions?

Or

Are you a business owner that must NOW offer insurance to your workers? and if so...
Wouldnt you say that helps more people (your employees) than is detrimental (just you)?

Please tell me, what written part of the ACA law do you have a problem with?


as an employer i have to say that it in no way helps either the employer or the employee. i no longer hire full time workers cause of the added cost. i used to get by with just 1 full time employee, but now i need to hire 2 part timers who dont make enough to earn a living but i can atleast afford to stay in business and provide some sort of work for people. on the flip side i could have just scaled my business way back, paid less in taxes, bought less goods and services, and just squeeked by taking the jobs that dont require a 2nd hand to accomplish. id like to know why u think the employer should have to pay for someone elses healthcare though. are people themselves considered too dumb to take care of it on their own? i know personal responsibility is a dead concept these days but at some point we gotta turn this bus around.


Jerk, just offer insurance to 1 full timer. You are fenageling the law so you don't have to. Quit being a jerk and offer insurance, or close up your business. There is no way it is detrimental to the employees bc YOU are screwing them.


it costs me too much at the end of the year. the thing some dont realize its this is just one of the added costs in my industry im in. along with increased environmental laws, which actually has added 30% on to most of my jobs right from the start, to increased inspections, and more expensive permits, it all adds up to an environment that doesnt make it possible for me to hire one guy anymore. and fyi id love to hire one guy full time cause even with the 2 ive had to take on more of the hard work for myself. so not only is it harder on me as the employer but it doesnt create a good environment for employment either which does hurt the employee if they cant get hired in the first place.


The "employee" can find another job that has insurance, you are not a savior bc you can produce work for someone. The mandate does not include 1-employee businesses anyway so there's some misconception in your posts. Sorry things are hard, time to close up shop and find a job. Chances are you will also have insurance with your new job. And please don't blame the environment for your $ problems.


well u like to make assumptions. the thing u dont understand is this is a family business with many owners but like i said we used to employ 1 full time employee. yes environmental law and regulation has a huge impact in my business. to make such assumptions without any knowledge on the business is pretty arrogant. can u argue that their hasent been and increase in environmental regulation in the past 8 years?
edit on 26-3-2017 by TheScale because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TheScale


i mean i know the reason,
Yes. The reason being that, as employers, they become part of a risk pool (of employers) and a desirable market for insurers (because a single policy can have multiple subscribers). Coverage can be provided at a lower cost to a group.

Individual coverage is sort of hit or miss in that regard so the cost to the consumer will be higher. There is no fixed pool.

edit on 3/26/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TheScale

TheScale, there are several holes in your assumptions, and your story overall is suspect. I'll just say that since ObamaCare is here to stay for awhile, tell your employees to call HealthCare.gov and ask for insurance. They will most likely have 80% to 100% of their monthly premium paid for by U.S. taxpayers, since you pay them so little.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: veracity

Blame the Republicans? My problems stem directly from the ACA. The law as it was written is what is the problem.



what part upsets you? Of course the republican govs are to blame for rising costs in the red states due to not expanding medicaid...that is usually what people complain about.

What part of the "law" do YOU not like? Free contraceptives? Free check-ups? No pre-existing conditions?

Or

Are you a business owner that must NOW offer insurance to your workers? and if so...
Wouldnt you say that helps more people (your employees) than is detrimental (just you)?

Please tell me, what written part of the ACA law do you have a problem with?


as an employer i have to say that it in no way helps either the employer or the employee. i no longer hire full time workers cause of the added cost. i used to get by with just 1 full time employee, but now i need to hire 2 part timers who dont make enough to earn a living but i can atleast afford to stay in business and provide some sort of work for people. on the flip side i could have just scaled my business way back, paid less in taxes, bought less goods and services, and just squeeked by taking the jobs that dont require a 2nd hand to accomplish. id like to know why u think the employer should have to pay for someone elses healthcare though. are people themselves considered too dumb to take care of it on their own? i know personal responsibility is a dead concept these days but at some point we gotta turn this bus around.


Jerk, just offer insurance to 1 full timer. You are fenageling the law so you don't have to. Quit being a jerk and offer insurance, or close up your business. There is no way it is detrimental to the employees bc YOU are screwing them.


it costs me too much at the end of the year. the thing some dont realize its this is just one of the added costs in my industry im in. along with increased environmental laws, which actually has added 30% on to most of my jobs right from the start, to increased inspections, and more expensive permits, it all adds up to an environment that doesnt make it possible for me to hire one guy anymore. and fyi id love to hire one guy full time cause even with the 2 ive had to take on more of the hard work for myself. so not only is it harder on me as the employer but it doesnt create a good environment for employment either which does hurt the employee if they cant get hired in the first place.


The "employee" can find another job that has insurance, you are not a savior bc you can produce work for someone. The mandate does not include 1-employee businesses anyway so there's some misconception in your posts. Sorry things are hard, time to close up shop and find a job. Chances are you will also have insurance with your new job. And please don't blame the environment for your $ problems.


well u like to make assumptions. the thing u dont understand is this is a family business with many owners but like i said we used to employ 1 full time employee. yes environmental law and regulation has a huge impact in my business. to make such assumptions without any knowledge on the business is pretty arrogant. can u argue that their hasent been and increase in environmental regulation in the past 8 years?


Sorry for assuming but any employer who hires 2 part timers instead of 1 full time just so he doesn't have to pay insurance is a jerk. That is NOT an assumption.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Before ObamaCare, group/employer health coverage cost more than individually purchased health insurance.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

For the same coverage? For those with pre-existing conditions?

Not where I live.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Phage

Before ObamaCare, group/employer health coverage cost more than individually purchased health insurance.



Not in my experience or anyone I know
edit on 26-3-2017 by veracity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

For the same coverage? For those with pre-existing conditions?

Not where I live.


NOOOO. Individual health coverage didn't have the core Essential Health Benefits. (FYI...those "Essential Health Benefits" have been in employer-group plans since 2000. Obamacare's EHB's were patterned after employer/group plans.) And, if you had Diabetes (or worse) you were denied coverage.

If you were denied, you went to the State High Risk Pool, if you could afford it..or went without health insurance, if you couldn't afford the High Risk Pool.

By not accepting people with serious existing medical conditions, and making the "Essential" health benefits, "optional to purchase" health benefits, Individually purchased health insurance plans were significantly less expensive than GROUP plans. Laws require that Employer Medical plans cover all employees existing conditions and give each of them at least 8 of the Essential Health Benefits. (Illinois law. Varies by state.)




top topics



 
24
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join