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.
Originally posted by TheCounselor
reply to post by longlostbrother
Thank you brother for the links.
I'd still prefer to have a choice in insurance, though.
Originally posted by TheCounselor
reply to post by Indigo5
I thought "Dear Leader" was in reference to Mao Tze Tung. "Der Fuhrer" is reference to Hitler.
My better half works for a company that has about ten people. The owner/boss doesn't rake in much more than the other employees, due to trying to keep the business open.
There is the possibility of some of the employees being cut down to 29 hours a week, so the insurance mess won't come into play, but I don't know much about Obamacare. From what I understand, all full time employees must be covered. We have good insurance from her work, but we don't know if we are allowed to keep it, or if the company pays a fine if they refuse Obamacare. If someone can enlighten me to the FACTS, not propaganda, I'd appreciate it. I'd really prefer to keep the old insurance, but don't know if I have any choice.
(Edited to add, I see Dixiebaby has provided a link.)
There are costs coming, and there has to be some decisions made. You can let go of a few employees, and keep the company open for the rest, or keep all the employees and eventually go out of business.
There is inflation coming. There is no doubt that there is a financial crisis coming. Gas prices will rise again. There very well be new, higher taxes on the horizon. It's not going to be a good habitat for small businesses.
The business of which I speak of must deal regularly with the EPA. There's some changes coming with that. Electricity will be going up due changes in the coal industry.
I'm sorry I can't change the facts for you. The economic landscape of the USA is such that layoffs are inevitable.
I myself am a self employed graphic artist. We don't know if I have to buy into Obamacare for myself, or if I can still use BH's insurance. I'm hired by contract. and am still trying to figure out the intricacies of it.edit on 9-11-2012 by TheCounselor because: (no reason given)
reply to post by longlostbrother
To keep costs down it also makes a lot of changes to how insurances do business, like forcing them to spend 80% of their income on services, and refund the rest (millions have already been refunded in CA for example).
Originally posted by romney
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by NavyDoc
LOL. Your charts did not mention any sepcifics.
Wow...didn't look at the link did you? Can't figure out if you are ignorant in this claim or dishonest? Actually stopped caring either way...edit on 8-11-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
They really just divide up the cost of a gallon by percentages, it does not address the cost of the percentages nor the underlying costs that make those portions. Regulations of fuel delivery trucks and taxes upon them incerase the transportation costs for example--something that you ignore entirely. Of course you conveniently blew off all of my links. Intellectually dishonest?
What a load of hogwash
Do you really think there is any motive for corporations to reduce cost and therefore profit?
There is no real competition in that market, period, it is a farce that you have bought into.
Originally posted by longlostbrother
Originally posted by TheCounselor
reply to post by longlostbrother
Thank you brother for the links.
I'd still prefer to have a choice in insurance, though.
You do!
No one is removing your freedom to go and buy insurance...?
Originally posted by ararisq
I work for a company that has been on a hiring spree all year, adding 50+ jobs this year alone. Today, I got the call that my staff is being cut by over 75%. I have no idea how we'll be able to deliver our work next year, it just seems impossible.
I've heard some other anecdotal evidence that people are losing their jobs all across the company as businesses allocate what used to be salary to future taxes.
Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by DixieBaby
How about this:
ObamaCare Employer / Employee Taxes
Unless you own a company that makes over $250k in taxable profit or has over 50 employees you do not have to insure your employees. If you exceed these amounts you have to either insure your employees or pay a tax. Employers who do not meet these guidelines (97% of small businesses) will receive tax credits for insuring their employees.
In other words the ObamaCare taxes help small business employees and employers by offering them better health insurance and bigger tax breaks.
That's from your link.
And this from uber-liberal Forbes:
Businesses with 50 or more employees must provide health insurance or pay a penalty. If the business fails to comply, the penalty is $2,000 for each full-time employee (with a 30-employee deduction.) Additionally, if the coverage offered is too expensive (defined as costing more than 9.5 percent of the employee’s household income), the penalty is $3,000 per employee who must buy insurance with a government subsidy. However, only 200,000 small businesses will be affected by these changes because over 96 percent of small businesses fall below the 50-employee threshold.
Overall, the ACA brings a mixture of rules and benefits, but there is nothing to suggest that the healthcare shake up will hinder job creation and economic growth. In fact, it could inject order into the unruly medical marketplace if the administration explains benefits and requirements simply and clearly.
www.forbes.com...
Also from Forbes:
Employers are not up in arms over universal, affordable healthcare coverage either, says Widmer. A two year old study from Urban Institute revealed that concerns over employers dropping coverage or scaling back benefits because of health reform have not been realized. That’s a claim many Washington Republicans have made about ObamCare, saying it would cause U.S. small businesses to hold back on hiring because of mandated insurance laws. In Massachusetts, companies were never mandated to provide health insurance.
www.forbes.com...
So basically, it affects less than 5% of business, but provides healthcare to millions of people. Even the business it DOES affect, it barely affects.
More fearmongering from the right.
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by romney
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by NavyDoc
LOL. Your charts did not mention any sepcifics.
Wow...didn't look at the link did you? Can't figure out if you are ignorant in this claim or dishonest? Actually stopped caring either way...edit on 8-11-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
They really just divide up the cost of a gallon by percentages, it does not address the cost of the percentages nor the underlying costs that make those portions. Regulations of fuel delivery trucks and taxes upon them incerase the transportation costs for example--something that you ignore entirely. Of course you conveniently blew off all of my links. Intellectually dishonest?
What a load of hogwash
Do you really think there is any motive for corporations to reduce cost and therefore profit?
There is no real competition in that market, period, it is a farce that you have bought into.
Again, you ignore the facts that I put up and demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic economics. If you drive the price of a commodity up too high, profits fall with demand.
Also, you complain that there is no competition in oil (outside OPEC you would be wrong) then who is to blame? Back again to government where regulations prevent startup oil companies by making the start of one too onerous and expensive to do.
Big government is the problem, not the solution. Always was and always will.
Originally posted by jimmyx
the U.S. has become a NET EXPORTER of oil, (more leaving than staying here) the first time in 63 years.....the problem isn't oil production, it's refinery production into diesel, aviation fuel, oils and lubricants, and most of all gasoline...i propose that the US nationalize refinerys...therefore, the US can buy oil from the lowest bidder, take out the profit, and provide the needed energy to lower business and personal energy use costs across the nation. the nations financial security should NOT be left to private monopolies, who control the vital and necessary energy of both civilian and military needs.
Originally posted by shoenice
a local business who has seen it's share of hard times in my area . who's been known in the past with great employment and sales .. Are laying off 30 people . 120 . people work there . A good friend of mine who's been there for 10 years is one of them ... He's lost now ... He had a feeling he would stay .. But since Obummer was elected again . I guess the owner doesn't want to take a chance .
Originally posted by peck420
Originally posted by jimmyx
the U.S. has become a NET EXPORTER of oil, (more leaving than staying here) the first time in 63 years.....the problem isn't oil production, it's refinery production into diesel, aviation fuel, oils and lubricants, and most of all gasoline...i propose that the US nationalize refinerys...therefore, the US can buy oil from the lowest bidder, take out the profit, and provide the needed energy to lower business and personal energy use costs across the nation. the nations financial security should NOT be left to private monopolies, who control the vital and necessary energy of both civilian and military needs.
Per the EIA:
US oil production: 6 million barrels / day
US oil consumption: 18.83 million barrels / day.
The rest in creative accounting with crude supplied by others and refined inside the US. The US is very, very far from 'energy independence'.edit on 9-11-2012 by peck420 because: (no reason given)