Obama Wins - Layoffs Starting

page: 31
72
<< 28  29  30    32  33 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedomwv
It is clear to me that this is an attempt by the capitalist to punish the common worker for not voting in the interest of the capitalist class. It is very important for the Unions to be very strong during this time. The Unions must show the owners of production that laying off workers will not work as a way to force the agenda of profit at all cost; regardless of the effect it will have on society. The workers must stand together and show the capitalist class that regardless of who is elected, the demands and exceptions of the workers will remain the same.


Uh, no. THe reason why is twofold. THE administration has been promising a push for higher taxes and more regualtion after the election. WIth increased taxation, the cost of doing business goes up. Businesses were holding on, not moving on either contraction or expansion until they saw the outcome of the election. Now that they know that they have another 4 years of a business unfriendly administration, they have to start cutting back.

More importantly, and what you forget, is that a large portion of the taxation and mandates for Obamacare start at the first of the year. This will make each and every employee much more expensive to keep without an increase in demand, the economy, or revenue. If you want to blame anyone for these layoffs, put the blame where it is due--the politicians that make it more and more expensive to start and run a business.




posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gridrebel

Originally posted by FreebirdGirl
reply to post by Gridrebel
 



Have you actually read the healthcare act? From reading your posts it doesn't seem that way. The healthcare act prevents insurance premiums from exceeding a percentage of a person's income. If you don't know the answer please don't make up one.


The health care act prohibits the premiums from going up 10% or more in a year. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your income. Tough titties if you can't afford them, shop somewhere else. The health care premiums have risen by 4% every year for the last few years. Figure it out.



Don't need to figure anything out. I can read.



There are two situations where large employers may face a penalty for workers who get subsidized coverage in an Exchange:


1.Large employers that do not offer coverage and have at least one full-time employee receiving subsidized coverage are assessed an annual fee of $2,000 per full-time employee, but the first 30 employees are excluded in calculating the assessment.
2.Large employers who offer coverage that is either unaffordable or inadequate and who have at least one full-time employee receiving subsidized coverage in the Exchange must pay an annual fee of $3,000 for each full-time employee receiving a premium credit, with a maximum penalty equal to $2,000 for each full-time employee, excluding the first 30 employees from the assessment. (Coverage is considered unaffordable if the employee must contribute more than 9.5 percent of their household income for their premium. Coverage is considered inadequate if the plan's does not coverage at least 60 percent of a person's medical costs on average - referred to as actuarial values.)



101.communitycatalyst.org...



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisqObama Wins - Layoffs Starting


So, can these "layoffs" fall under economic or employment "oppression" as they are being claimed as the direct result of people voting for Obama?


If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same...


www.justice.gov...
edit on 11-11-2012 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by freedomwv
It is clear to me that this is an attempt by the capitalist to punish the common worker for not voting in the interest of the capitalist class. It is very important for the Unions to be very strong during this time. The Unions must show the owners of production that laying off workers will not work as a way to force the agenda of profit at all cost; regardless of the effect it will have on society. The workers must stand together and show the capitalist class that regardless of who is elected, the demands and exceptions of the workers will remain the same.


Uh, no. THe reason why is twofold. THE administration has been promising a push for higher taxes and more regualtion after the election. WIth increased taxation, the cost of doing business goes up. Businesses were holding on, not moving on either contraction or expansion until they saw the outcome of the election. Now that they know that they have another 4 years of a business unfriendly administration, they have to start cutting back.

More importantly, and what you forget, is that a large portion of the taxation and mandates for Obamacare start at the first of the year. This will make each and every employee much more expensive to keep without an increase in demand, the economy, or revenue. If you want to blame anyone for these layoffs, put the blame where it is due--the politicians that make it more and more expensive to start and run a business.


BS,

The Obama administration is trying to protect the tax cuts for everyone but the highest earners... if the owners are cutting employees because their personal tax rates are going up, then they're doing it because they're selfish, not because of any necessity.

96% of businesses in America are already offering healthcare; the majority of business will not be affected, other than having to transition, and most of the rhetoric from business leaders is them using people's confusion to justify layoffs... just like hundreds of businesses laid of workers after 9/11, for no reason, but blamed 9/11,

What you will see, mark my words, is an improving economic situation and guess what, in 10 years, people will realise the Republican written and promoted and supported "Obamacare" doesn't go far enough.

You'll still be paying too much for to little.

If you want real saving and better care, you'll need to do some research and figure out what countries spend less and provide much better (and comprehensive... and popular) healthcare services...

And then see if you can get past your ideology to support REAL change.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by freedomwv
It is clear to me that this is an attempt by the capitalist to punish the common worker for not voting in the interest of the capitalist class. It is very important for the Unions to be very strong during this time. The Unions must show the owners of production that laying off workers will not work as a way to force the agenda of profit at all cost; regardless of the effect it will have on society. The workers must stand together and show the capitalist class that regardless of who is elected, the demands and exceptions of the workers will remain the same.


Uh, no. THe reason why is twofold. THE administration has been promising a push for higher taxes and more regualtion after the election. WIth increased taxation, the cost of doing business goes up. Businesses were holding on, not moving on either contraction or expansion until they saw the outcome of the election. Now that they know that they have another 4 years of a business unfriendly administration, they have to start cutting back.

More importantly, and what you forget, is that a large portion of the taxation and mandates for Obamacare start at the first of the year. This will make each and every employee much more expensive to keep without an increase in demand, the economy, or revenue. If you want to blame anyone for these layoffs, put the blame where it is due--the politicians that make it more and more expensive to start and run a business.


BS,

The Obama administration is trying to protect the tax cuts for everyone but the highest earners... if the owners are cutting employees because their personal tax rates are going up, then they're doing it because they're selfish, not because of any necessity.

96% of businesses in America are already offering healthcare; the majority of business will not be affected, other than having to transition, and most of the rhetoric from business leaders is them using people's confusion to justify layoffs... just like hundreds of businesses laid of workers after 9/11, for no reason, but blamed 9/11,

What you will see, mark my words, is an improving economic situation and guess what, in 10 years, people will realise the Republican written and promoted and supported "Obamacare" doesn't go far enough.

You'll still be paying too much for to little.

If you want real saving and better care, you'll need to do some research and figure out what countries spend less and provide much better (and comprehensive... and popular) healthcare services...

And then see if you can get past your ideology to support REAL change.


You are so kind. There are those who sacrifice employees they have always not cared about in a desperate attempt to appear to be right in their selfishness. The American people are not stupid. They can see right through this.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


BS back at you. Teh Obama administration is trying to use class warfare to push his agenda. Like the Clinton years, what is called "wealthy" for taxation will gradually drop down and down and down until most of the middle class that pays taxes will be effected.

The trouble with Obamacare is that the mandates of coverage and madates as to what consititutes a coverable employee have been expanded, thus driving up the cost per employee beyond what it is today. Think about it logically, you cannot mandate more coverage in terms of people and conditions without increasing the cost. There is no magic healthcare fairy, costs will go up and thus employment will go down. This is basic economics.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by freedomwv
It is clear to me that this is an attempt by the capitalist to punish the common worker for not voting in the interest of the capitalist class. It is very important for the Unions to be very strong during this time. The Unions must show the owners of production that laying off workers will not work as a way to force the agenda of profit at all cost; regardless of the effect it will have on society. The workers must stand together and show the capitalist class that regardless of who is elected, the demands and exceptions of the workers will remain the same.


Uh, no. THe reason why is twofold. THE administration has been promising a push for higher taxes and more regualtion after the election. WIth increased taxation, the cost of doing business goes up. Businesses were holding on, not moving on either contraction or expansion until they saw the outcome of the election. Now that they know that they have another 4 years of a business unfriendly administration, they have to start cutting back.

More importantly, and what you forget, is that a large portion of the taxation and mandates for Obamacare start at the first of the year. This will make each and every employee much more expensive to keep without an increase in demand, the economy, or revenue. If you want to blame anyone for these layoffs, put the blame where it is due--the politicians that make it more and more expensive to start and run a business.


BS,

The Obama administration is trying to protect the tax cuts for everyone but the highest earners... if the owners are cutting employees because their personal tax rates are going up, then they're doing it because they're selfish, not because of any necessity.

96% of businesses in America are already offering healthcare; the majority of business will not be affected, other than having to transition, and most of the rhetoric from business leaders is them using people's confusion to justify layoffs... just like hundreds of businesses laid of workers after 9/11, for no reason, but blamed 9/11,

What you will see, mark my words, is an improving economic situation and guess what, in 10 years, people will realise the Republican written and promoted and supported "Obamacare" doesn't go far enough.

You'll still be paying too much for to little.

If you want real saving and better care, you'll need to do some research and figure out what countries spend less and provide much better (and comprehensive... and popular) healthcare services...

And then see if you can get past your ideology to support REAL change.


Where did you get the numbers for businesses that already provide healthcare? According to the government, the percentage of small businesses offering healthcare is actually at 59%.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


BS back at you. Teh Obama administration is trying to use class warfare to push his agenda. Like the Clinton years, what is called "wealthy" for taxation will gradually drop down and down and down until most of the middle class that pays taxes will be effected.

The trouble with Obamacare is that the mandates of coverage and madates as to what consititutes a coverable employee have been expanded, thus driving up the cost per employee beyond what it is today. Think about it logically, you cannot mandate more coverage in terms of people and conditions without increasing the cost. There is no magic healthcare fairy, costs will go up and thus employment will go down. This is basic economics.


class warfare?...oh...the poor, poor, wealthy....it sure is class warfare, and the wealthy have been winning that war for decades...and now the rest of the people are standing their ground and fighting back
instead of the wealthy constantly saying they are "giving" us something for free...why don't the wealthy just pay us more for the work we do. maybe they can't use that line, because that's what they have been doing all along to the rest of us
edit on 12-11-2012 by jimmyx because: syntax



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by artnut

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by freedomwv
It is clear to me that this is an attempt by the capitalist to punish the common worker for not voting in the interest of the capitalist class. It is very important for the Unions to be very strong during this time. The Unions must show the owners of production that laying off workers will not work as a way to force the agenda of profit at all cost; regardless of the effect it will have on society. The workers must stand together and show the capitalist class that regardless of who is elected, the demands and exceptions of the workers will remain the same.


Uh, no. THe reason why is twofold. THE administration has been promising a push for higher taxes and more regualtion after the election. WIth increased taxation, the cost of doing business goes up. Businesses were holding on, not moving on either contraction or expansion until they saw the outcome of the election. Now that they know that they have another 4 years of a business unfriendly administration, they have to start cutting back.

More importantly, and what you forget, is that a large portion of the taxation and mandates for Obamacare start at the first of the year. This will make each and every employee much more expensive to keep without an increase in demand, the economy, or revenue. If you want to blame anyone for these layoffs, put the blame where it is due--the politicians that make it more and more expensive to start and run a business.


BS,

The Obama administration is trying to protect the tax cuts for everyone but the highest earners... if the owners are cutting employees because their personal tax rates are going up, then they're doing it because they're selfish, not because of any necessity.

96% of businesses in America are already offering healthcare; the majority of business will not be affected, other than having to transition, and most of the rhetoric from business leaders is them using people's confusion to justify layoffs... just like hundreds of businesses laid of workers after 9/11, for no reason, but blamed 9/11,

What you will see, mark my words, is an improving economic situation and guess what, in 10 years, people will realise the Republican written and promoted and supported "Obamacare" doesn't go far enough.

You'll still be paying too much for to little.

If you want real saving and better care, you'll need to do some research and figure out what countries spend less and provide much better (and comprehensive... and popular) healthcare services...

And then see if you can get past your ideology to support REAL change.


Where did you get the numbers for businesses that already provide healthcare? According to the government, the percentage of small businesses offering healthcare is actually at 59%.


Yeah, but you've just answered you're own question, havent you?



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.


www.forbes.com...

ALSO:



Companies with up to 100 employees can benefit from the option of buying lower cost health insurance through employer-only exchanges, also set up by each state. This might also reduce costs for smaller firms if they add their employees to a much larger pool of insurance customers.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a big LOL at people who are whining about boycotting certain businesses because they lay people off.

Hey idiots: When the cost of simply being in business goes up, drastic measures such as layoffs and hiring freezes are needed.

Want businesses to expand and actually hire more people? Lower the cost of doing business then.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
a big LOL at people who are whining about boycotting certain businesses because they lay people off.

Hey idiots: When the cost of simply being in business goes up, drastic measures such as layoffs and hiring freezes are needed.

Want businesses to expand and actually hire more people? Lower the cost of doing business then.


The fact of the matter is that businesses have a LONG history of shedding employees and using "emergencies" as an excuse.

I was once laid off from a software company, a music software company, the week of 9/11, "because" of 9/11.

It's a common strategy - like dumping bad news on a Friday evening...

Don't pretend businesses are honest, rational machines... they're not.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


BS back at you. Teh Obama administration is trying to use class warfare to push his agenda.


When I observed how the "bailout" was being implemented, I noticed the following -- when the government would buy a major stake in company XYZ, they would acquire it as non-voting stock. Think about that. So while injecting cash and letting XYZ survive and then continue to develop, the govt explicitly refused to take ownership. If it's anything, it's class warfare in reverse. I can't buy that argument.

I know that Obamacare would drive up to the cost to the employers. To some degree, at least. A public healthcare would be a much better option for everyone, but it's going to snow in hell, before that can happen here.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
The fact of the matter is that businesses have a LONG history of shedding employees and using "emergencies" as an excuse.


Right on.

And oh, by the way -- somebody just dented the door of my brand new car (for real). I'm pretty sure this is due to Obama's re-election.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by artnut

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by freedomwv
It is clear to me that this is an attempt by the capitalist to punish the common worker for not voting in the interest of the capitalist class. It is very important for the Unions to be very strong during this time. The Unions must show the owners of production that laying off workers will not work as a way to force the agenda of profit at all cost; regardless of the effect it will have on society. The workers must stand together and show the capitalist class that regardless of who is elected, the demands and exceptions of the workers will remain the same.


Uh, no. THe reason why is twofold. THE administration has been promising a push for higher taxes and more regualtion after the election. WIth increased taxation, the cost of doing business goes up. Businesses were holding on, not moving on either contraction or expansion until they saw the outcome of the election. Now that they know that they have another 4 years of a business unfriendly administration, they have to start cutting back.

More importantly, and what you forget, is that a large portion of the taxation and mandates for Obamacare start at the first of the year. This will make each and every employee much more expensive to keep without an increase in demand, the economy, or revenue. If you want to blame anyone for these layoffs, put the blame where it is due--the politicians that make it more and more expensive to start and run a business.


BS,

The Obama administration is trying to protect the tax cuts for everyone but the highest earners... if the owners are cutting employees because their personal tax rates are going up, then they're doing it because they're selfish, not because of any necessity.

96% of businesses in America are already offering healthcare; the majority of business will not be affected, other than having to transition, and most of the rhetoric from business leaders is them using people's confusion to justify layoffs... just like hundreds of businesses laid of workers after 9/11, for no reason, but blamed 9/11,

What you will see, mark my words, is an improving economic situation and guess what, in 10 years, people will realise the Republican written and promoted and supported "Obamacare" doesn't go far enough.

You'll still be paying too much for to little.

If you want real saving and better care, you'll need to do some research and figure out what countries spend less and provide much better (and comprehensive... and popular) healthcare services...

And then see if you can get past your ideology to support REAL change.


Where did you get the numbers for businesses that already provide healthcare? According to the government, the percentage of small businesses offering healthcare is actually at 59%.


Yeah, but you've just answered you're own question, havent you?



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.


www.forbes.com...

ALSO:



Companies with up to 100 employees can benefit from the option of buying lower cost health insurance through employer-only exchanges, also set up by each state. This might also reduce costs for smaller firms if they add their employees to a much larger pool of insurance customers.


I have not answered any question. Correct me if I am wrong, but if the small business that makes over 250k a year taxable income, they still have to cover their employees. This is not "free healthcare" for anyone, and WILL hurt small business, but I can see no one will change your mind.





posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


BS back at you. Teh Obama administration is trying to use class warfare to push his agenda. Like the Clinton years, what is called "wealthy" for taxation will gradually drop down and down and down until most of the middle class that pays taxes will be effected.

The trouble with Obamacare is that the mandates of coverage and madates as to what consititutes a coverable employee have been expanded, thus driving up the cost per employee beyond what it is today. Think about it logically, you cannot mandate more coverage in terms of people and conditions without increasing the cost. There is no magic healthcare fairy, costs will go up and thus employment will go down. This is basic economics.


class warfare?...oh...the poor, poor, wealthy....it sure is class warfare, and the wealthy have been winning that war for decades...and now the rest of the people are standing their ground and fighting back
instead of the wealthy constantly saying they are "giving" us something for free...why don't the wealthy just pay us more for the work we do. maybe they can't use that line, because that's what they have been doing all along to the rest of us
edit on 12-11-2012 by jimmyx because: syntax


Here is a novel idea, how about paying people for the value they bring? Care about the workers? Then stop making it so damned hard to hire them and keep them. Unions, EEOC, ADA, health care mandates, employment tax, SS contributions (yes the employer pays into your SS too), W/C, etc. etc. etc. all make the cost of employing someone go up and up and up. Everytime the left adds another feel good program, they force another worker out of the workforce.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
One way or another, in a monopoly game, it's called a game of pay-up. So, pay-up and lose. Of course, the game couldn't continue without markets, so they will market their toys, but they don't play to lose anything.... and businesses and jobs will wash away, because money in circulation makes the market. Those who have a lot are not dumb enough to continue playing a losing game for long.

Every time those who have historically acquired wealth aren't allowed more advantages over the common individual, they throw a tantrum and things get worse.

So, what would you have gov't do? In the end you will die trying to please the un-pleasable. That is the game in vogue.

In the meanwhile gov't's get sandwiched between the haves and have-nots. What should they choose? Do you want the haves to own it all - and call you worthless - because they only chase after money, and often the ends justify the means.

It is a chase for money. Money, not people's lives or co-operation. Because they think everything is achievable with money alone - so people lose. (Your lives, your laws, your freedoms, your future....) Everything will have a price tag: Your environment, your children's future, the food on your plate (wait, they already do have price-tags!) If it goes higher, who wins? Add planet limits and you've got the perfect storm.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


BS back at you. Teh Obama administration is trying to use class warfare to push his agenda. Like the Clinton years, what is called "wealthy" for taxation will gradually drop down and down and down until most of the middle class that pays taxes will be effected.

The trouble with Obamacare is that the mandates of coverage and madates as to what consititutes a coverable employee have been expanded, thus driving up the cost per employee beyond what it is today. Think about it logically, you cannot mandate more coverage in terms of people and conditions without increasing the cost. There is no magic healthcare fairy, costs will go up and thus employment will go down. This is basic economics.


class warfare?...oh...the poor, poor, wealthy....it sure is class warfare, and the wealthy have been winning that war for decades...and now the rest of the people are standing their ground and fighting back
instead of the wealthy constantly saying they are "giving" us something for free...why don't the wealthy just pay us more for the work we do. maybe they can't use that line, because that's what they have been doing all along to the rest of us
edit on 12-11-2012 by jimmyx because: syntax


Here is a novel idea, how about paying people for the value they bring? Care about the workers? Then stop making it so damned hard to hire them and keep them. Unions, EEOC, ADA, health care mandates, employment tax, SS contributions (yes the employer pays into your SS too), W/C, etc. etc. etc. all make the cost of employing someone go up and up and up. Everytime the left adds another feel good program, they force another worker out of the workforce.


Geez.

It's like you have no idea about the history of the US workforce...



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


BS back at you. Teh Obama administration is trying to use class warfare to push his agenda. Like the Clinton years, what is called "wealthy" for taxation will gradually drop down and down and down until most of the middle class that pays taxes will be effected.

The trouble with Obamacare is that the mandates of coverage and madates as to what consititutes a coverable employee have been expanded, thus driving up the cost per employee beyond what it is today. Think about it logically, you cannot mandate more coverage in terms of people and conditions without increasing the cost. There is no magic healthcare fairy, costs will go up and thus employment will go down. This is basic economics.


class warfare?...oh...the poor, poor, wealthy....it sure is class warfare, and the wealthy have been winning that war for decades...and now the rest of the people are standing their ground and fighting back
instead of the wealthy constantly saying they are "giving" us something for free...why don't the wealthy just pay us more for the work we do. maybe they can't use that line, because that's what they have been doing all along to the rest of us
edit on 12-11-2012 by jimmyx because: syntax


Here is a novel idea, how about paying people for the value they bring? Care about the workers? Then stop making it so damned hard to hire them and keep them. Unions, EEOC, ADA, health care mandates, employment tax, SS contributions (yes the employer pays into your SS too), W/C, etc. etc. etc. all make the cost of employing someone go up and up and up. Everytime the left adds another feel good program, they force another worker out of the workforce.


Geez.

It's like you have no idea about the history of the US workforce...



No, I've got a great understanding of the REALITY of the history of the US workforce.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
I blame calculators, people just don't understand math anymore.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreebirdGirl

Originally posted by Gridrebel

Originally posted by FreebirdGirl
reply to post by Gridrebel
 



Have you actually read the healthcare act? From reading your posts it doesn't seem that way. The healthcare act prevents insurance premiums from exceeding a percentage of a person's income. If you don't know the answer please don't make up one.


The health care act prohibits the premiums from going up 10% or more in a year. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your income. Tough titties if you can't afford them, shop somewhere else. The health care premiums have risen by 4% every year for the last few years. Figure it out.



Don't need to figure anything out. I can read.



There are two situations where large employers may face a penalty for workers who get subsidized coverage in an Exchange:


1.Large employers that do not offer coverage and have at least one full-time employee receiving subsidized coverage are assessed an annual fee of $2,000 per full-time employee, but the first 30 employees are excluded in calculating the assessment.
2.Large employers who offer coverage that is either unaffordable or inadequate and who have at least one full-time employee receiving subsidized coverage in the Exchange must pay an annual fee of $3,000 for each full-time employee receiving a premium credit, with a maximum penalty equal to $2,000 for each full-time employee, excluding the first 30 employees from the assessment. (Coverage is considered unaffordable if the employee must contribute more than 9.5 percent of their household income for their premium. Coverage is considered inadequate if the plan's does not coverage at least 60 percent of a person's medical costs on average - referred to as actuarial values.)



101.communitycatalyst.org...



www.healthcare.gov...

The Affordable Care Act, through the Rate Review Program, ensures consumers in all states enjoy at least a minimum level of protections by ensuring that significant rate increases in all states are thoroughly analyzed and disclosed to the public.

Starting on September 1, 2011, health insurance companies in the small group and individual markets must submit information on all rate increases with an annual impact of 10 percent or greater for their non-grandfathered plans. Insurance companies cannot raise premium rates by 10 percent or more without first justifying the increase to a Rate Review Program. Insurers proposing increases at or above 10 percent must submit for review clear information indicating the factors contributing to the proposed increases.


You're comparing apples to oranges.





new topics
 
72
<< 28  29  30    32  33 >>

log in

join