If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Obamacare, where 30 hours a week equals full time employment and business costs go up if you employ more than 50 people. "It's not just about healthcare, it's about jobs"   (finance.yahoo.com) divider line 289
    More: Amusing, obamacare, tax deductions, H&R Block, r block, National Federation of Independent Business, single adults, Poverty in the United States, small businesses  
•       •       •

3932 clicks; posted to Business » on 16 Apr 2013 at 2:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



289 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-15 11:17:14 PM
OK, we can go with single-payer and remove most of the health care costs from your ledger? Wanna change the deal?
 
2013-04-15 11:24:00 PM
Yeah, in most states, 30 hours equals full-time. Why do you think my boss in Colorado had me schedule part-timers for 28-hour weeks?
 
2013-04-15 11:25:41 PM

NewportBarGuy: Wanna change the deal?


Yes, please.

/should have been the deal in the first place
 
2013-04-15 11:27:37 PM

Bob Falfa: Yeah, in most states, 30 hours equals full-time. Why do you think my boss in Colorado had me schedule part-timers for 28-hour weeks?


"At-will" employment? That sh*t is such a f*cking scam.
 
2013-04-15 11:42:39 PM
30 hours a week is considered full-time employment in Oregon as well.
 
2013-04-15 11:50:13 PM
So, have we covered that subby's headline is not just disingenuous, but uninformed, as well? Yes? Excellent!
 
2013-04-15 11:51:02 PM

Bathia_Mapes: 30 hours a week is considered full-time employment in Oregon as well.


By whom and for what? Find out why it was reclassified. It'll shock you
 
2013-04-15 11:54:27 PM

NewportBarGuy: Bob Falfa: Yeah, in most states, 30 hours equals full-time. Why do you think my boss in Colorado had me schedule part-timers for 28-hour weeks?

"At-will" employment? That sh*t is such a f*cking scam.


How so?
 
2013-04-16 12:01:34 AM

Bob Falfa: How so?


It allows an employer to bypass the process of showing a cause for removal, they can just fire at will because it is employment at will with no protections for either party. Great for the multi-billion conglomerate arguing about why they can't pay you $0.25 more per hour while shifting that money from the 1st Qtr to pay dividends to the people who did not save the company anything. They just held residence in the corporate suite.

It allows them to redefine the living wage. It allows them to reap massive profits at the expense of the workers who should be able to afford their products and increase sales.

It's a lot of things.
 
2013-04-16 12:05:10 AM
Math!
We meet again...
 
2013-04-16 12:14:16 AM

FormlessOne: So, have we covered that subby's headline is not just disingenuous, but uninformed, as well? Yes? Excellent!


It got greenlit, didn't it?
 
2013-04-16 12:18:52 AM
Obamacare, where children are considered dependents and where your taxes go up if you make more than $87,850.

Obamacare, where AR-15s fire .223 rounds and safeties are mechanical.

Obamacare, where the sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

Obamacare, where the dinosaurs have been extinct for over 60 million years and chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor.
 
2013-04-16 12:22:39 AM

NewportBarGuy: OK, we can go with single-payer and remove most of the health care costs from your ledger? Wanna change the deal?


I think people have to burn their hands in order to understand 'fire- HOT'.
 
2013-04-16 12:54:26 AM
www.ordinary-gentlemen.com

Gotta' pay for that Iraq war somehow.
 
2013-04-16 12:54:33 AM

NewportBarGuy: Bob Falfa: How so?

It allows an employer to bypass the process of showing a cause for removal, they can just fire at will because it is employment at will with no protections for either party. Great for the multi-billion conglomerate arguing about why they can't pay you $0.25 more per hour while shifting that money from the 1st Qtr to pay dividends to the people who did not save the company anything. They just held residence in the corporate suite.

It allows them to redefine the living wage. It allows them to reap massive profits at the expense of the workers who should be able to afford their products and increase sales.

It's a lot of things.


People have a right to contract, and should be free to do so as they see fit.  You shouldn't be forced to continue employing someone just because you hired them, unless you agree to that at the start.

That being said, this creates a problem whereby wealth concentrates to the top.  There's not really an easy solution to this, but I think government intervention via higher taxes on the wealthy and increased unionization are two things that should occur.  The solution though isn't restricting people's freedom.
 
2013-04-16 01:14:01 AM

vygramul: Obamacare, where children are considered dependents


I made my kids work from age 6 and claim me as their dependent, what else so you have kids for except for extra household labor?

and where your taxes go up if you make more than $87,850.

Not when you make as much as me and the Romneys,

Obamacare, where the sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

On Earth, maybe, but not the top secret Venus bases.

Obamacare, where the dinosaurs have been extinct for over 60 million years and chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor.

I went to the Creation Museum where I saw people riding dinosaurs, and that has to be true because it was in a building called a museum. Also, crocodiles.

So you see, Obamacare really has ruined everything. Except guns. Those are pretty much the same.
 
2013-04-16 01:25:11 AM

nmrsnr: So you see, Obamacare really has ruined everything. Except guns. Those are pretty much the same.


Obama's "ruining" those too.
 
2013-04-16 02:08:04 AM

NewportBarGuy: OK, we can go with single-payer and remove most of the health care costs from your ledger? Wanna change the deal?


I've been arguing for single payer (at least) the whole goddamned time.   The ACA is needlessly complicated and leaves millions uninsured (and, that was true even before the Supreme Court gutted the Medicaid provision).

The American people should be ashamed of the quality of this country's healthcare and the way it's delivered.  Don't misunderstand; the United States has some of the best healthcare technology in the world...but, we are not even close to having the best healthcare in the world.
 
2013-04-16 02:13:05 AM
imokaywiththis.jpeg
 
2013-04-16 02:17:29 AM
ITT there will be lots of people that do not know what employers have to pay per employee for healthcare. And, lo: they will derp.
 
2013-04-16 02:26:05 AM

NewportBarGuy: OK, we can go with single-payer and remove most of the health care costs from your ledger? Wanna change the deal?


Agreed.  This is the way we should have done it.
 
2013-04-16 02:28:17 AM

NewportBarGuy: Bathia_Mapes: 30 hours a week is considered full-time employment in Oregon as well.

By whom and for what? Find out why it was reclassified. It'll shock you


Oregon's Employment office (Jobs program, unemployment, etc.) considers a person to be employed full-time if they work at least 30 hours per week.
 
2013-04-16 02:31:37 AM

NewportBarGuy: OK, we can go with single-payer and remove most of the health care costs from your ledger? Wanna change the deal?


The problem with this is that some of us have better insurance than Medicare (which is presumably what single payer would look like) and pay very little for it (my coinsurnce is less than 3% my gross salary). And let's say we had an extra 15% flat tax on income to pay for single-payer; how many companies are going to give us all 15% raises once it's off their books, instead of putting that money into the bottom line? How many tax loopholes will be lobbied into the tax code to reduce the liability, which would leave single-payer struggling.

I like the idea of the government selling Medicare. People and employers could choose to buy MC or private payer for their employees. If that means every company decides to just give their employees Medicare, well then we have single payer and the market has spoken. But maybe companies like mine will continue to self-insure and I could keep my superior coverage.
 
2013-04-16 02:35:39 AM
www.lolbrary.com
 
2013-04-16 02:39:33 AM

NewportBarGuy: Bob Falfa: How so?

It allows an employer to bypass the process of showing a cause for removal, they can just fire at will because it is employment at will with no protections for either party. Great for the multi-billion conglomerate arguing about why they can't pay you $0.25 more per hour while shifting that money from the 1st Qtr to pay dividends to the people who did not save the company anything. They just held residence in the corporate suite.

It allows them to redefine the living wage. It allows them to reap massive profits at the expense of the workers who should be able to afford their products and increase sales.

It's a lot of things.


The last thing I want to deal with at work is a bunch of lazy entitled fat farks that my boss can't fire because of some neener-neener you-didn't-follow-the-rules bullcrap. I LOVE at-will employment, keeps the lazy and stupid out.

Wanna keep your job? MAKE MONEY FOR THE OWNERS...THATS YER JERB.
 
2013-04-16 02:40:54 AM

willfullyobscure: ITT there will be lots of people that do not know what employers have to pay per employee for healthcare. And, lo: they will derp.


Its on their W2 now.  its hard to not know if you can read directions.
 
2013-04-16 02:45:54 AM

NewportBarGuy: OK, we can go with single-payer and remove most of the health care costs from your ledger? Wanna change the deal?


I had my accountant tell me Obamacare is going to raise my taxes next year. By thousands! I asked her how and what my best strategy was - a reasonable question, since she had just finished my 1040 moments f*cking earlier. She actually answered "taxes won't go up, but, taxes will be higher! He'll make you buy health insurance!"

... With her hand resting on the summary sheet which had "HEALTH INSURANCE" listed on the third or fourth line, along with a significant number - inflated because people like me have to pick up the tab for people who don't have health insurance and just present at the ER. (county hospital taxes were on another line, further down the paper)

Filed for an extension when I got home, and will spend some time going over 2012. And 2011, just in case there was some Glenn Beck math in there. Ffffffff........ Luckily didn't use her in 2010, I think.
 
2013-04-16 02:46:46 AM

Gig103: The problem with this is that some of us have better insurance than Medicare (which is presumably what single payer would look like) and pay very little for it (my coinsurnce is less than 3% my gross salary). And let's say we had an extra 15% flat tax on income to pay for single-payer; how many companies are going to give us all 15% raises once it's off their books, instead of putting that money into the bottom line?


Well, companies don't need to cater to employees in terms of salaries or wages right now because it's a buyer's market where labor is concerned.

A truly national healthcare system, I'm convinced, would be an incredible boon to the overall economy.  It should encourage entrepreneurship and stimulate a great deal of growth in individual income.  The problem, of course, is that the boon will come at the expense of those who are currently benefiting from the status quo.  And, that's a tough thing for politicians to tackle.

I mean, sure, a new policy might create millions of new jobs.  But, projected employees don't write campaign checks.  Existing employees do.  So, guess who the politicians are looking after?  In other words, what's best for the country isn't always what's best for politicians...at least in the short term.

But, back to your personal issue: I suspect you'd be better off in the long run under a real national healthcare plan.
 
2013-04-16 02:47:50 AM

Lawyers With Nukes: NewportBarGuy: Bob Falfa: How so?

It allows an employer to bypass the process of showing a cause for removal, they can just fire at will because it is employment at will with no protections for either party. Great for the multi-billion conglomerate arguing about why they can't pay you $0.25 more per hour while shifting that money from the 1st Qtr to pay dividends to the people who did not save the company anything. They just held residence in the corporate suite.

It allows them to redefine the living wage. It allows them to reap massive profits at the expense of the workers who should be able to afford their products and increase sales.

It's a lot of things.

The last thing I want to deal with at work is a bunch of lazy entitled fat farks that my boss can't fire because of some neener-neener you-didn't-follow-the-rules bullcrap. I LOVE at-will employment, keeps the lazy and stupid out.

Wanna keep your job? MAKE MONEY FOR THE OWNERS...THATS YER JERB.


I lost a job a few years ago because the owner went crazy and started having explosive temper tantrums in the office with anyone who disagreed with him. I mean, knocking things over, throwing things, and trying to fight people temper tantrums.

Then he sexually harassed a friend of mine, and when she quit and then tried to file suit, he got even angrier and then promoted another woman who worked there who he was f*cking from an administrative assistant role to a Director of Operations role. That went about how you'd expect.

Company basically fell apart at the seams then, and everyone who he didn't fire in a rage quit because the whole thing was too unbearable to name.

But Louisiana's an at-will state, so we all had limited recourse to deal with the problems.

But sure, yea, we probably could have combated that by just werkin' harder and making him some more money. Because employers are always logical, rational people who are motivated to do what's in the best interest of the company and employees.
 
2013-04-16 02:50:24 AM
I'm so feckin tired of people biatching about Obamacare.  Seriously..  Yeah, it's not perfect, but it's at least a step in the right direction.

I'm uninsurable.  I have lupus.  No private insurance company will insure me unless I can get on a group plan.

My husband is contract-to-hire.  When the recruiter brought him on in January, they told him it was a 90 day contract.  After 90 days, the client could bring him on full-time.  He hurt his back again back in February while working overtime, but chose not to put in a workman's comp claim because he figured it would jeopardize his chances of being brought on (and trust me - this job is absolutely awesome.  He sees himself here for the rest of his working career, if all goes well).  He figured he only had to make it until April 22nd when he would be brought on full-time and get benefits because he's been doing so well, even his boss is singing his praises.  He went to see the family doctor mid-March when the pain got too bad, just to get some meds to hold him over until when we could see the specialist in early May.

He just learned a week ago from the client that his contract was NOT a 90 day contract - it was a 6 month contract.  And he looked through his paperwork from the recruiter, and they only stated in there was his contract is for at least 90 days.  He's got nothing in writing to prove the contractor lied.

So now he's not going to get benefits for the next three months.  And because he saw the family doctor in the last 90 days, if he was to purchase private insurance, he can't get coverage for his back for the next year.  He could jump on the contractor's benefits - except they also don't cover pre-existing conditions.  And PA closed the ability to apply for high risk insurance at the beginning of last month.

What is my husband supposed to do?

At this point, he's still keeping his appointment with the specialist and will pay the $265 out of pocket.  He's hoping he can get the doc to prescribe something like Neurontin or Lyrica for the nerve pain just to get him through until he can get benefits.  God only knows how much those are going to cost us.  He's expecting the need for x-rays and/or MRIs, since he had surgery done on his back ten years ago, and they're going to need to see if he's reinjured the old area or not.

And he can't get coverage at this point.

/I know.. we have bootstraps.. use 'em.
//I'm just so tired of all of this shiat anymore.
 
2013-04-16 02:52:37 AM

Gig103: The problem with this is that some of us have better insurance than Medicare (which is presumably what single payer would look like) and pay very little for it (my coinsurnce is less than 3% my gross salary).


Lots of countries with single-payer have supplemental private insurance. Public, single-payer insurance, shouldn't necessarily be the end-all, be-all of insurance. I have single-payer - it's great, I love it, and I completely recommend it, but it provides basic healthcare. If you want more premium services, you pay for it.

If we moved to a single-payer system, I think lots of companies that offer the really nice health insurance plans would continue to offer supplemental insurance for the same reason they offer health insurance now - it helps retain the best talent.
 
2013-04-16 02:52:39 AM
Health insurance should never have been tied to employment anyway.  It's really not the employer's responsibility.  Well, I mean, it is NOW, but it shouldn't have been that way.
 
2013-04-16 03:01:49 AM

Genevieve Marie: I lost a job a few years ago because the owner went crazy and started having explosive temper tantrums in the office with anyone who disagreed with him. I mean, knocking things over, throwing things, and trying to fight people temper tantrums.

Then he sexually harassed a friend of mine, and when she quit and then tried to file suit, he got even angrier and then promoted another woman who worked there who he was f*cking from an administrative assistant role to a Director of Operations role. That went about how you'd expect.

Company basically fell apart at the seams then, and everyone who he didn't fire in a rage quit because the whole thing was too unbearable to name.

But Louisiana's an at-will state, so we all had limited recourse to deal with the problems.

But sure, yea, we probably could have combated that by just werkin' harder and making him some more money. Because employers are always logical, rational people who are motivated to do what's in the best interest of the company and employees.


Limited recourse being the same thing you can do in any state: hire a lawyer and show that he fired your friend as retaliation for reporting the crime of sexual harassment... oh, wait, your friend quit.  Well, what recourse do you have for quitting?

/and California, the libbiest state that ever libbed, is at-will
 
2013-04-16 03:23:33 AM
Because every right wing Republican knows Jesus taught business costs ALWAYS come first.
 
2013-04-16 03:24:07 AM

vygramul: Obamacare, where children are considered dependents and where your taxes go up if you make more than $87,850.

Obamacare, where AR-15s fire .223 rounds and safeties are mechanical.

Obamacare, where the sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

Obamacare, where the dinosaurs have been extinct for over 60 million years and chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor.


Obamacare, where the wind comes sweepin' down the plain?
 
2013-04-16 03:27:58 AM

gadian: Health insurance should never have been tied to employment anyway.  It's really not the employer's responsibility.  Well, I mean, it is NOW, but it shouldn't have been that way.


It was because the company arguably has a greater steak in your good health than you do. If you die... well... doesn't mean much more to you after that does it. Your company however can have an emergency condition in that incident and many peoples livelihoods can be on the line.

It is similar to the reasoning behind companies taking out life insurance on their employees.

If, instead of providing the benefit, they simply paid you that extra money they couldn't be sure you would use it for health care. This way they are basically spending your money for you for their own benefit and getting you to thank you for doing it.
 
2013-04-16 03:35:08 AM

TheOnion: NewportBarGuy: Bob Falfa: How so?

It allows an employer to bypass the process of showing a cause for removal, they can just fire at will because it is employment at will with no protections for either party. Great for the multi-billion conglomerate arguing about why they can't pay you $0.25 more per hour while shifting that money from the 1st Qtr to pay dividends to the people who did not save the company anything. They just held residence in the corporate suite.

It allows them to redefine the living wage. It allows them to reap massive profits at the expense of the workers who should be able to afford their products and increase sales.

It's a lot of things.

People have a right to contract, and should be free to do so as they see fit.  You shouldn't be forced to continue employing someone just because you hired them, unless you agree to that at the start.

That being said, this creates a problem whereby wealth concentrates to the top.  There's not really an easy solution to this, but I think government intervention via higher taxes on the wealthy and increased unionization are two things that should occur.  The solution though isn't restricting people's freedom.


No, that is how a race to the bottom happens and there is less money in circulation and fewer goods get sold and things just go to the crapper and and and

////screw commas
 
2013-04-16 03:35:16 AM
My Mother recently had a suspected heart attack.  Turned out to be OK, but she was kept in the hospital for observation.  Insurance wouldn't cover it and my parents had to come up with $3,000 they really didn't have to spend.  Why?  Because of an Obamacare rule that if an emergency room doctor and not one's personal doctor admits someone to the hospital, it counts as "outpatient care."  How the hell is that supposed to make healthcare "affordable?!"
 
2013-04-16 03:42:06 AM
THANKS PRSDNT OBIMBO
 
2013-04-16 03:49:21 AM

Gig103: NewportBarGuy: OK, we can go with single-payer and remove most of the health care costs from your ledger? Wanna change the deal?

The problem with this is that some of us have better insurance than Medicare (which is presumably what single payer would look like) and pay very little for it (my coinsurnce is less than 3% my gross salary). And let's say we had an extra 15% flat tax on income to pay for single-payer; how many companies are going to give us all 15% raises once it's off their books, instead of putting that money into the bottom line? How many tax loopholes will be lobbied into the tax code to reduce the liability, which would leave single-payer struggling.

I like the idea of the government selling Medicare. People and employers could choose to buy MC or private payer for their employees. If that means every company decides to just give their employees Medicare, well then we have single payer and the market has spoken. But maybe companies like mine will continue to self-insure and I could keep my superior coverage.


Rich people's problems.

Meanwhile, 15% of people receive food stamps.
 
2013-04-16 03:53:39 AM
Well, er, this is the shiat sandwich GOP obstructionism forced on us.

Liberals wanted single payer. You know, a system that would have payed for itself, and probably fixed the budget problems in medicare forever.

But nope, Turtle boy was busy getting his cloaca waxed by Insurance Inc, the owners of America.
 
2013-04-16 03:59:56 AM

Genevieve Marie: But Louisiana's an at-will state, so we all had limited recourse to deal with the problems.


u have gators in louisiana, don't you ??
 
2013-04-16 04:00:18 AM

willfullyobscure: ITT there will be lots of people that do not know what employers have to pay per employee for healthcare. And, lo: they will derp.


It's a shiat-ton, and it's stupid that an employer is involved in health insurance beyond whatever is needed for injury or illness caused by the job itself.

Why the f*ck are me, my company, and the rest of my coworkers having to be linked through our medical plans to the 400lb cake snatcher in accounting?

Goddamn tax code is farking retarded.
 
2013-04-16 04:03:41 AM
The company I work for (13 years) has always required employees to have health insurance.  If you cannot show that you have it through somewhere else (like a spouse's workplace) then you have to buy it.  It's always been that way.
 
2013-04-16 04:10:00 AM

birdistasty: I'm so feckin tired of people biatching about Obamacare.  Seriously..  Yeah, it's not perfect, but it's at least a step in the right direction.

I'm uninsurable.  I have lupus.  No private insurance company will insure me unless I can get on a group plan.

My husband is contract-to-hire.  When the recruiter brought him on in January, they told him it was a 90 day contract.  After 90 days, the client could bring him on full-time.  He hurt his back again back in February while working overtime, but chose not to put in a workman's comp claim because he figured it would jeopardize his chances of being brought on (and trust me - this job is absolutely awesome.  He sees himself here for the rest of his working career, if all goes well).  He figured he only had to make it until April 22nd when he would be brought on full-time and get benefits because he's been doing so well, even his boss is singing his praises.  He went to see the family doctor mid-March when the pain got too bad, just to get some meds to hold him over until when we could see the specialist in early May.

He just learned a week ago from the client that his contract was NOT a 90 day contract - it was a 6 month contract.  And he looked through his paperwork from the recruiter, and they only stated in there was his contract is for at least 90 days.  He's got nothing in writing to prove the contractor lied.

So now he's not going to get benefits for the next three months.  And because he saw the family doctor in the last 90 days, if he was to purchase private insurance, he can't get coverage for his back for the next year.  He could jump on the contractor's benefits - except they also don't cover pre-existing conditions.  And PA closed the ability to apply for high risk insurance at the beginning of last month.

What is my husband supposed to do?

At this point, he's still keeping his appointment with the specialist and will pay the $265 out of pocket.  He's hoping he can get the doc to prescribe something li ...


You know, as much as I like to biatch about the NHS here - and there are parts of it that are despicable - it still doesn't look bad compared to the absolute shiate that the American health'care' system puts you lot through.
 
2013-04-16 04:11:02 AM

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: My Mother recently had a suspected heart attack.  Turned out to be OK, but she was kept in the hospital for observation.  Insurance wouldn't cover it and my parents had to come up with $3,000 they really didn't have to spend.  Why?  Because of an Obamacare rule that if an emergency room doctor and not one's personal doctor admits someone to the hospital, it counts as "outpatient care."  How the hell is that supposed to make healthcare "affordable?!"


hahahah ahahah hahaha haha hahah
that is so retarded

I love how people blame retarded shiat on elected officials
 
2013-04-16 04:28:15 AM

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: My Mother recently had a suspected heart attack.  Turned out to be OK, but she was kept in the hospital for observation.  Insurance wouldn't cover it and my parents had to come up with $3,000 they really didn't have to spend.  Why?  Because of an Obamacare rule that if an emergency room doctor and not one's personal doctor admits someone to the hospital, it counts as "outpatient care."  How the hell is that supposed to make healthcare "affordable?!"


http://www.medicare.gov/Pubs/pdf/11435.pdf

Makes sense to me.
 
2013-04-16 04:41:40 AM

namatad: I love how people blame retarded shiat on elected officials


Yea. Accept where log_jammin posts the proof of how retarded things are.

This shiat isn't in the ACA. Its' 3,000 pages are just an outline. Health and human services and the IRS have to release "guidance". They've barely started and we've passed 10,000 pages.

Oh yea, think your going to need to get insurance from the exchange? Well they recently released a draft copy of the application. Here it is in all its' 60 pages of fun!
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pdf_cms_1_031313.pdf

And you people want single payer? You know they can't even get this figured out. Right?!?!
 
2013-04-16 04:43:57 AM
Obamacare really is ridiculous. But it's also necessary if you want to keep an old fashioned insurance based healthcare scheme afloat instead of a contemporary world single payer system.
 
2013-04-16 04:45:02 AM

birdistasty: I'm so feckin tired of people biatching about Obamacare.  Seriously..  Yeah, it's not perfect, but it's at least a step in the right direction.

I'm uninsurable.  I have lupus.  No private insurance company will insure me unless I can get on a group plan.

My husband is contract-to-hire.  When the recruiter brought him on in January, they told him it was a 90 day contract.  After 90 days, the client could bring him on full-time.  He hurt his back again back in February while working overtime, but chose not to put in a workman's comp claim because he figured it would jeopardize his chances of being brought on (and trust me - this job is absolutely awesome.  He sees himself here for the rest of his working career, if all goes well).  He figured he only had to make it until April 22nd when he would be brought on full-time and get benefits because he's been doing so well, even his boss is singing his praises.  He went to see the family doctor mid-March when the pain got too bad, just to get some meds to hold him over until when we could see the specialist in early May.

He just learned a week ago from the client that his contract was NOT a 90 day contract - it was a 6 month contract.  And he looked through his paperwork from the recruiter, and they only stated in there was his contract is for at least 90 days.  He's got nothing in writing to prove the contractor lied.

So now he's not going to get benefits for the next three months.  And because he saw the family doctor in the last 90 days, if he was to purchase private insurance, he can't get coverage for his back for the next year.  He could jump on the contractor's benefits - except they also don't cover pre-existing conditions.  And PA closed the ability to apply for high risk insurance at the beginning of last month.

What is my husband supposed to do?

At this point, he's still keeping his appointment with the specialist and will pay the $265 out of pocket.  He's hoping he can get the doc to prescribe something li ...


By 2014 they will not be able to deny you pre-existing conditions.
 
Displayed 50 of 289 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report