Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Buzzfeed)   Staples cuts part time employee hours in order to exploit an Affordable Care Act loophole. That was sleazy   (buzzfeed.com) divider line 264
    More: Asinine, Affordable Care Act, store manager, Dollar General  
•       •       •

11422 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2014 at 11:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



264 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-09 11:47:45 PM  
Done in none. Nice job subby.
 
2014-01-09 11:49:25 PM  
Buzzfeed link.

NOPE..
 
2014-01-09 11:50:23 PM  
No shiat.  It's almost as though destroying the ability of people to afford anything was built into this abortion from the beginning
 
2014-01-09 11:51:08 PM  
Purely a coinkydink, I'm sure.
 
2014-01-09 11:51:15 PM  

styckx: Buzzfeed link.

NOPE..


so you hate buzzfeed... why ?

(note you are posting on FARK.com your reason has to include something that makes buzzfeed different to fark)
 
2014-01-09 11:51:18 PM  
"Loophole"? Hasn't that always been there?
 
2014-01-09 11:51:50 PM  
And this surprises who?  Whom?  Whatever, was Obvious tag busy?
 
2014-01-09 11:52:09 PM  
Pretty sure any asshole-ish move by any employer or insurance company for the next $YEARS will be blamed on Obamacare.  It's a wonderful excuse for anyone to use, true or not.
 
2014-01-09 11:52:14 PM  
Words fail me.
Pictures don't
www.banklawyersblog.com
 
2014-01-09 11:52:24 PM  
Something something Obamacare something job creators etc.

Really, just give your damn employees benefits. So what if your 10,000 % profit percentage is suddenly reduced to 9,999 %? Why the fark are people not demanding the heads of the businessmen who make these changes, instead of demanding the heads of the people who are trying to help them(but are then used as an excuse for the businessmen to be worse people)?
 
2014-01-09 11:54:04 PM  
Color me unsurprised. Back when I still had a full time job (I left it in June), we were told to start cutting part time and relief staff hours to 28 hours a week, maximum, in order to keep our numbers down for when the healthcare law stuff started. And this was at a not for profit 'Christian' place that provided care for adults with intellectual disabilities.
It's one of several reasons I'm no longer working there. But, from ehat I heard from HR, a lot of businesses would be doing it to save money.
 
2014-01-09 11:54:25 PM  
Nicely done  Subs, I larfed.
 
2014-01-09 11:56:58 PM  
They did this where I work, Home Depot. The worst part about it it, of someone calls out, I can't call anyone in, because they're already scheduled 29 hours for the week.
 
2014-01-09 11:57:21 PM  
Who exactly is surprised by this? People saw this coming a year ago.
 
2014-01-09 11:58:12 PM  
Solution: Require insurance for all employees. Suddenly places will want to have people work full time again.

/or, failing that, at least some kind of sliding scale
 
2014-01-09 11:58:17 PM  
They were keeping hours down when I started working there over a decade ago. These stores hire mostly kids for a reason. Low wages, limited hours.

Obama makes a beautiful scapegoat though.
 
2014-01-09 11:58:34 PM  
FTA:
"Staples is limiting the number of hours part-time associates can work to 25 hours a week ..."

"...a way to skirt impending rules requiring companies to provide health insurance for full-time employees or face a steep penalty."

one of these things is not like the other?
Seems to me it would only be sleazy if they did this to full-time employees, what they are doing is creating a clear definition between part-time and full-time.
 
2014-01-10 12:00:44 AM  

spunkymunky: But, from ehat I heard from HR, a lot of businesses would be doing it to save money.


HR's e-hats

www.originalbuzz.info
 
2014-01-10 12:02:21 AM  
Why do they hate Americans?
 
2014-01-10 12:02:53 AM  
I hope some of the 50 people who have been in a Staples in the past 5 years protest this move.
 
2014-01-10 12:03:51 AM  
Never before in American history have employers cut their employees' hours to avoid paying benefits. It was also never the case that a bureaucrat would get between you and your doctor.

Thanks, Obama. You and your infernal time machine.
 
2014-01-10 12:05:48 AM  
Why is heath care tied to employment in the USA?
 
2014-01-10 12:07:02 AM  

el_pilgrim: FTA:
"Staples is limiting the number of hours part-time associates can work to 25 hours a week ..."

"...a way to skirt impending rules requiring companies to provide health insurance for full-time employees or face a steep penalty."

one of these things is not like the other?
Seems to me it would only be sleazy if they did this to full-time employees, what they are doing is creating a clear definition between part-time and full-time.


ACA treats employees working 30+ hours as full time and requires coverage for them.
 
2014-01-10 12:07:51 AM  
One anonymous Staples employee, who says she worked 30- to 35-hour weeks for nine years,

There is the problem. Stupid lazy libs. 9 years as apart time Staples employee......
 
2014-01-10 12:07:54 AM  

Zombalupagus: Solution: Require insurance for all employees. Suddenly places will want to have people work full time again.


Better solution:  make employer provided health insurance illegal.

I keep reading about how employers want to choose what kind of health insurance their employees are allowed to purchase.  Apparently, some employers are even going to the Supreme Court based on some sort of insane legal theory that their employees are the legal property of their employer and that employers should get to make health care decisions for their employers.

Since it's employer provided health insurance is obviously such a problem, we should get rid of it.
 
2014-01-10 12:08:59 AM  

el_pilgrim: FTA:
"Staples is limiting the number of hours part-time associates can work to 25 hours a week ..."

"...a way to skirt impending rules requiring companies to provide health insurance for full-time employees or face a steep penalty."

one of these things is not like the other?
Seems to me it would only be sleazy if they did this to full-time employees, what they are doing is creating a clear definition between part-time and full-time.


30 hours a week is considered full time, which many of their part time employees were putting in. Also, had you read the memo, they state that managers should hire additional part time employees to cover any shortfalls in staffing, that is the very definition of sleazy.
 
2014-01-10 12:09:08 AM  

el_pilgrim: FTA:
"Staples is limiting the number of hours part-time associates can work to 25 hours a week ..."

"...a way to skirt impending rules requiring companies to provide health insurance for full-time employees or face a steep penalty."

one of these things is not like the other?
Seems to me it would only be sleazy if they did this to full-time employees, what they are doing is creating a clear definition between part-time and full-time.


The thing is that the vast majority of their retail employees are part time. It's not just one or two people that they hired just to fill in certain hours, it's pretty much their work force.
 
2014-01-10 12:09:28 AM  

spunkymunky: Color me unsurprised. Back when I still had a full time job (I left it in June), we were told to start cutting part time and relief staff hours to 28 hours a week, maximum, in order to keep our numbers down for when the healthcare law stuff started. And this was at a not for profit 'Christian' place that provided care for adults with intellectual disabilities.
It's one of several reasons I'm no longer working there. But, from ehat I heard from HR, a lot of businesses would be doing it to save money.


Good.  Employer provided health insurance was always a very, very bad idea.  I'm glad Obamacare is forcing people to realize that.
 
2014-01-10 12:10:11 AM  

socoloco: Why do they hate Americans?


They aren't Americans, they aren't even people, they are identified as "resources" and nothing more.
 
2014-01-10 12:10:53 AM  
Well, only Democrats would try and classify a full time employee as 30 hours. Most FTEs generally are 35 or 40 hours a week.
 
2014-01-10 12:11:19 AM  
i.imgflip.com

Seriously, why is this even news?  It's been done by pretty much every big retailer at this point.
 
2014-01-10 12:11:19 AM  

Thunderpipes: Stupid lazy libs.


does that ever get old for you ?
cuz its getting frekking old for others.
 
2014-01-10 12:11:25 AM  

Elandriel: ACA treats employees working 30+ hours as full time and requires coverage for them.


Exactly.  Sleazy corrupt companies like Staples have been getting away with pretending like full-time, 30+ hour a week employees were part time for years.  I'm glad that their not allowed to be such evil dicks anymore.
 
2014-01-10 12:11:36 AM  
Caffeinatedjedi:
Really, just give your damn employees benefits. So what if your 10,000 % profit percentage is suddenly reduced to 9,999 %?

You mean "So what if your 2.2% profit margin is suddenly reduced to a loss?" You have some interesting ideas about how much actual companies make, especially during a long recession.
 
2014-01-10 12:12:22 AM  
The Larch
Zombalupagus: Solution: Require insurance for all employees. Suddenly places will want to have people work full time again.
Better solution: make employer provided health insurance illegal.
I keep reading about how employers want to choose what kind of health insurance their employees are allowed to purchase. Apparently, some employers are even going to the Supreme Court based on some sort of insane legal theory that their employees are the legal property of their employer and that employers should get to make health care decisions for their employers.
Since it's employer provided health insurance is obviously such a problem, we should get rid of it.


I see the Affordable Healthcare Act as an opportunity. While I would love to have a great job where I can visit a doctor with a $50 co-pay on the cheap, I think it is great that people can buy decent insurance without insane loopholes. No bullshiat preconditions, six month wait for specialists, or be denied for coverage if someone forgets something minor on their health insurance forms.

I could be self-employed or work a series of temp jobs and not have to worry about the 60 or 90 days rules. I am free from having to work one full time job dedicated to one employer.

For the "I've got mine" crowd angry that this could change their healthcare, there were events going on outside their window that were pretty insane.
 
2014-01-10 12:13:39 AM  

cirby: Caffeinatedjedi:
Really, just give your damn employees benefits. So what if your 10,000 % profit percentage is suddenly reduced to 9,999 %?

You mean "So what if your 2.2% profit margin is suddenly reduced to a loss?" You have some interesting ideas about how much actual companies make, especially during a long recession.


The recession ended years ago outside the USA
 
2014-01-10 12:14:22 AM  

Slartibartfaster: Thunderpipes: Stupid lazy libs.

does that ever get old for you ?
cuz its getting frekking old for others.


Perhaps if they weren't lazy and stupid they'd quit getting into these circumstances
 
2014-01-10 12:14:35 AM  

cirby: Caffeinatedjedi:
Really, just give your damn employees benefits. So what if your 10,000 % profit percentage is suddenly reduced to 9,999 %?

You mean "So what if your 2.2% profit margin is suddenly reduced to a loss?" You have some interesting ideas about how much actual companies make, especially during a long recession.


Ah yes, hard times. The big boss could only afford a 62 ft. yacht, and not that 64fter he really wanted. My sympathy lays in the smaller businesses, where sometimes you have to downsize to stay afloat, not in big business where they cut employees before they cut the bigwigs bonuses.
 
2014-01-10 12:14:56 AM  
Dont work for a business that treats you like utter shiat, news story at 11.  If McDonalds treats you better than Walmart, do the math.
 
2014-01-10 12:15:08 AM  

Zombalupagus: Solution: Require insurance for all employees. Suddenly places will want to have people work full time again.

/or, failing that, at least some kind of sliding scale


Then they will just make all employment a salaried position and then start abusing the shiat out of people by making them work a 50-60 hour week for 40 hours worth of pay.
 
2014-01-10 12:17:58 AM  

cirby: Caffeinatedjedi:
Really, just give your damn employees benefits. So what if your 10,000 % profit percentage is suddenly reduced to 9,999 %?

You mean "So what if your 2.2% profit margin is suddenly reduced to a loss?" You have some interesting ideas about how much actual companies make, especially during a long recession.


Who has a 2.2% profit margin?
 
2014-01-10 12:18:16 AM  

sethen320: [i.imgflip.com image 480x640]

Seriously, why is this even news?  It's been done by pretty much every big retailer at this point.


Because the apocalypse known as fatrbongodon'tcare has ushered in a new era when employers will screw over their employees to get out of paying for benefits. This has never happened before. It's an unprecedented sea change in the Marxist-Sharia dystopia Sarah Palin warned us of.

Silly liberal.
 
2014-01-10 12:19:20 AM  

emarica: Why is heath care tied to employment in the USA?


Because if you don't want to make a profit off someone else's illness and death, you're a gotdanged dirty commie!

/The best part is you don't even need to heal them
 
2014-01-10 12:20:21 AM  
30 hours a week is considered full time, which many of their part time employees were putting in. Also, had you read the memo, they state that managers should hire additional part time employees to cover any shortfalls in staffing, that is the very definition of sleazy.


What are we in France?  Since I got my first part-time job back in 1980 something full-time was 40 hours.
 
2014-01-10 12:21:20 AM  

Elandriel: el_pilgrim: FTA:
"Staples is limiting the number of hours part-time associates can work to 25 hours a week ..."

"...a way to skirt impending rules requiring companies to provide health insurance for full-time employees or face a steep penalty."

one of these things is not like the other?
Seems to me it would only be sleazy if they did this to full-time employees, what they are doing is creating a clear definition between part-time and full-time.

ACA treats employees working 30+ hours as full time and requires coverage for them.


It also means "More jobs!!" because more people will be working part-time. Cutting hours to 25 keeps employees well clear of the 30 hour break point and essentially guarantees no chance ever of encroaching into that magical overtime catagory, plus... go be poor and get your subsidized health care somewhere else, part-time peon.

But hey, unemployment numbers are down, am I right?

Or did people actually think the megacorps famous for utilizing cut rate labor wouldn't run the numbers on payroll + benefits, then come up with a more aggressive cost reduction strategy?
 
2014-01-10 12:22:04 AM  
I'm wondering if the quality and price of the insurance that Staples offers their employees better or worse that what the staff can get through their health exchanges.
 
2014-01-10 12:22:07 AM  
So much for customer service.  Please stay on the line, your call is important to us.....
 
2014-01-10 12:22:42 AM  
Most of the people affected already have insurance. You can stay on mommy's & daddy's insurance until you are 26 years old, long enough to finish college and get a full time job. If you can't get full-time employment at 26 years old, you should have paid better attention in high school. Now suffer the consequences of your own failures.
 
2014-01-10 12:23:29 AM  

emarica: Why is heath care tied to employment in the USA?




Because we have a for-profit healthcare system. So good health isn't seen as a right (which seems to fly in the face of the preamble to our constitution). It's set up to be a money making opportunity. In order to gain the privilege of the opportunity to purchase a chance at maintaining your health you must play a role in making corporations richer by being an employee.

Because that's how the republicans like it. Money reigns supreme and helping people without gaining money from it is wrong. At least as far as they're concerned.

As a social experiment I want the south to secede. That'll give the north to the liberals and the south to the conservatives. Each will have almost complete control over their newfound nations. Then I want to watch what happens over the next 50 years. It would be fascinating.
 
2014-01-10 12:23:49 AM  

luxup: 30 hours a week is considered full time, which many of their part time employees were putting in. Also, had you read the memo, they state that managers should hire additional part time employees to cover any shortfalls in staffing, that is the very definition of sleazy.


What are we in France?  Since I got my first part-time job back in 1980 something full-time was 40 hours.


If we were in France, everyone would have health coverage and staples wouldn't feel compelled to destroy employee morale for a few dollars.
 
2014-01-10 12:24:16 AM  
As a Staples employee that quit a month ago, I can confirm this. I worked full time hours for six years as a resident tech, offically a part time postition, but once the corporate mandate came down I was cut down to sixteen hours per week. I jumped ship and found a new job. Turns out my store is closing, but the part time hour limit is company wide. Screw Staples, I earned every award they have to give then got told to piss off.
 
2014-01-10 12:25:56 AM  
One less place for me to shop.  Oh well, fark them.
 
2014-01-10 12:28:18 AM  
If there's one thing worse than paper cuts, it's staple cuts.

/pass the lemon juice
 
2014-01-10 12:28:35 AM  

Frederick: cirby: Caffeinatedjedi:
Really, just give your damn employees benefits. So what if your 10,000 % profit percentage is suddenly reduced to 9,999 %?

You mean "So what if your 2.2% profit margin is suddenly reduced to a loss?" You have some interesting ideas about how much actual companies make, especially during a long recession.

Who has a 2.2% profit margin?


Most grocery store chains when they're having a good year for starters
 
2014-01-10 12:29:45 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-10 12:31:04 AM  
No duh. We've been told this was going to happen for 3 damn years, now.
 
2014-01-10 12:33:04 AM  

limboslam: No duh. We've been told this was going to happen for 3 damn years, now.


That gave you three years to attend medical school so you can heal yourself.
 
2014-01-10 12:33:52 AM  

The Larch: spunkymunky: Color me unsurprised. Back when I still had a full time job (I left it in June), we were told to start cutting part time and relief staff hours to 28 hours a week, maximum, in order to keep our numbers down for when the healthcare law stuff started. And this was at a not for profit 'Christian' place that provided care for adults with intellectual disabilities.
It's one of several reasons I'm no longer working there. But, from ehat I heard from HR, a lot of businesses would be doing it to save money.

Good.  Employer provided health insurance was always a very, very bad idea.  I'm glad Obamacare is forcing people to realize that.


So if it's such a bad idea, why didn't Obama abolish it in favor of his more affordable plan?
 
2014-01-10 12:36:19 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: Most grocery store chains when they're having a good year for starters


And yet Pubix which is known for how well it treats its employees is over 6%.
 
2014-01-10 12:37:23 AM  

farkstorm: Most of the people affected already have insurance. You can stay on mommy's & daddy's insurance until you are 26 years old, long enough to finish college and get a full time job. If you can't get full-time employment at 26 years old, you should have paid better attention in high school. Now suffer the consequences of your own failures.


Do you enjoy repeating right wing lies or just lying in general?
 
2014-01-10 12:38:49 AM  
I still think socialized medicine as a baseline, with employers having the option to offer more and better coverage as part of a compensation package, would be better than this. Employer-provided insurance only became a thing when employers realized that $6-an-hour plus benefits cost a lot less than just $8-an-hour, because a great deal of what goes into benefits is deductible and it costs less to provide benefits ostensibly worth $2-an-hour a year to a large group of many employees than it does to just give them the money. Health care costs far less in socialized-medicine countries simply because an entity which handles everyone's healthcare A. unifies the paperwork, so the cost of cross-coding between 100 different systems is gone, B. has far greater leverage in cost negotiations, and C. gets the benefits of research into human trials and out to patients far faster than a for-profit, corporate model.

I also think large corporations and 'job creators' have forgotten the Matthew Principle of Economics. If you pay low-wage earners more, they tend to spend it...at your business and those like it, boosting not only the economy, but your own earnings. The rich will get richer no matter what, so why not lay things out so that the rich get richer from actual earnings rather than having to spend the same money or more on Senators and such just to keep cutting taxes on things like food stamps, TANF and Head Start, when by just moving the money around more between the working class and their own bottom line, they can lower their taxes by removing the NEED for so many social programs?

It's like the insurance, PACs, political parties above the extreme-local level and corporate  mega-trust industries are parasitically leeching money from the poor and rich alike, and the inability for rich and poor to ever talk to one another and point out how much we're losing to these second-spaceship types keeps our economy from realizing its' full potential.

As such, I propose we draft absolutely everybody in the medical-billing and coding industries  plus most of the doctors, dentists and nurses into a National Health Service (keeping them all at exactly the same salaries, of course, pending productivity tests and patient surveys, but abolishing the need for fancy status symbols, advertising or marketing, allof which pad costs and do nothing,) abolish all employer-provided insurance which is not provided above and beyond the basic system, declare socialized medicine a fait accompli, raise the minimum wage to reflect both the increased tax burden of the new NHS and the lost value of employer-provided benefits (likely to about $10-an-hour minimum in most states,) have any politician who profits directly or indirectly as a result of legislative action exiled or hanged for abuse of the public trust and if the damn anarcho-libertarians attempt a government shutdown, have them tried and summarily shot for treason. Or better yet, guillotined. The guillotine is more cost-effective, as the executed person's blood and organs can then be used by people waiting on transplant lists.

And then, when this reign of terror ends and the people responsible for instituting the NHS of the US are also guillotined, at least we will know we saved many lives while it lasted and left a better system in place than the one we found.

...Yeah, taking the English Lit class that reads 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' at the same time I took Politics of Public Budgeting and Ethics of Public Administration was a really questionable choice in my college days...
 
2014-01-10 12:39:39 AM  

nyseattitude: farkstorm: Most of the people affected already have insurance. You can stay on mommy's & daddy's insurance until you are 26 years old, long enough to finish college and get a full time job. If you can't get full-time employment at 26 years old, you should have paid better attention in high school. Now suffer the consequences of your own failures.

Do you enjoy repeating right wing lies or just lying in general?


How, in any way shape or form, is this not correct? You are why this country fails. Stupid libs, making crap up.
 
2014-01-10 12:39:58 AM  
I'm starting to think we're long overdue for a few labor riots.
 
2014-01-10 12:40:21 AM  

just_intonation: So if it's such a bad idea, why didn't Obama abolish it in favor of his more affordable plan?


Yes, why don't we live in a perfect universe where every single thing matches the platonic ideal without compromise?

Boy, I'm glad you're asking the hard philosophical questions about life, the universe, and everything.

Maybe in two years, when you turn 9, you'll start to understand.
 
2014-01-10 12:41:41 AM  

farkstorm: Most of the people affected already have insurance. You can stay on mommy's & daddy's insurance until you are 26 years old, long enough to finish college and get a full time job. If you can't get full-time employment at 26 years old, you should have paid better attention in high school. Now suffer the consequences of your own failures.


Remember when fast food and other part-time wage-slave jobs were considered the jobs for high-school drop-outs, while a high school diploma could get you a full-time job, and a college degree generally got you on the road to a decent career? Because it wasn't that long ago.
 
2014-01-10 12:43:02 AM  
But it's affordable, so why are you complaining?  Everybody can afford their own now and medical debt is a thing of the past!

Oh glorious day!
 
2014-01-10 12:43:37 AM  
Just pass single payer and thee shenanigans shall end.
 
2014-01-10 12:44:36 AM  
LOL i sometimes forget people don't realize sociopaths run 95% of businesses. BRANDS ARE NOT FRIENDS. They want to hurt you to the edge of death.
 
2014-01-10 12:48:09 AM  

Thunderpipes: nyseattitude: farkstorm: Most of the people affected already have insurance. You can stay on mommy's & daddy's insurance until you are 26 years old, long enough to finish college and get a full time job. If you can't get full-time employment at 26 years old, you should have paid better attention in high school. Now suffer the consequences of your own failures.

Do you enjoy repeating right wing lies or just lying in general?

How, in any way shape or form, is this not correct? You are why this country fails. Stupid libs, making crap up.


For one thing, Republicans have gutted the public school system, and high school leaves many students unprepared for college. For another, college is expensive, and many families cannot afford it, even with scholarships.

And again, a high school diploma USED to get you a half-decent full-time job, not a dead-end fast food job that doesn't even pay enough for a roof over your head without government aid; those were largely reserved for dropouts.
 
2014-01-10 12:49:19 AM  
They will learn the same lesson that Papa Johns and Applebees did.
 
2014-01-10 12:49:32 AM  

just_intonation: The Larch: spunkymunky: Color me unsurprised. Back when I still had a full time job (I left it in June), we were told to start cutting part time and relief staff hours to 28 hours a week, maximum, in order to keep our numbers down for when the healthcare law stuff started. And this was at a not for profit 'Christian' place that provided care for adults with intellectual disabilities.
It's one of several reasons I'm no longer working there. But, from ehat I heard from HR, a lot of businesses would be doing it to save money.

Good.  Employer provided health insurance was always a very, very bad idea.  I'm glad Obamacare is forcing people to realize that.

So if it's such a bad idea, why didn't Obama abolish it in favor of his more affordable plan?


He can't. People want single payer but didn't get it either. This is something people have been fighting for for over 40 years. Just passing the legislation that we have is a historical land mark for the common person. Think of it as "getting your foot in the door".
 
2014-01-10 12:50:03 AM  
Business acts rationally to economic/political climate to save money and we're blaming them because why?
 
2014-01-10 12:51:01 AM  
I'm a pretty liberal guy, but when did people start looking to jobs at places like Staples as a source of health care?  You went to school or busted your but so you could get a decent job that provided insurance.  Everyone understood that if you wanted health care from Staples or Radio Shack or the neighborhood supermarket then you worked your way up from the register and got into the back office.

I would love health care in every pot but I'm sure every business everywhere though full-time was 40 hours a week.  All of a sudden your being told that it's now 30 hours a week?  If you never intended your 32 hour a week employee to be considered full-time what do you do?

If I'm a part-timer sure, I'm thrilled I qualify but I don't know that business should be expected to just take one for the team.  Hell, they would have children working crazy hours in a dilapidated shed chained to some machine if they could get away with it so how scum bag of a move is this really?

If your a conservative this is great isn't it?  I mean, they are creating jobs right?

Joking, not trolling.
 
2014-01-10 12:51:18 AM  

just_intonation: So if it's such a bad idea, why didn't Obama abolish it in favor of his more affordable plan?


Here's a guy who doesn't understand what a Republic is.
 
2014-01-10 12:51:24 AM  
i1282.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-10 12:51:32 AM  
I understand that the ACA states that 30 hours requires benefits, Staples created a policy that mirrors the law, drawing a line for their part-timers. They wouldn't have done this but for the ACA and a lot of their part-time workers who previously were eligible for benefits won't be any more.

Its a sucky system all around, but we shouldn't be crying that our part time jobs aren't giving us full time benefits.

I myself am a part-time employee at a restaurant and lost my insurance this year because according to the new policy I didn't work enough hours last year. And you know, I'm not mad/upset about. It's a part time job for a reason and I never expected my full time benefits to continue when I went to part time.

I agree that we need a better healthcare system in this country - employee provided is not the solution, and neither is the ACA.
 
2014-01-10 12:51:41 AM  

brukmann: LOL i sometimes forget people don't realize sociopaths run 95% of businesses. BRANDS ARE NOT FRIENDS. They want to hurt milk you to the edge of death.


FTFY. They're not there just to cause you pain - they must profit from your pain. Maximum profit for minimum effort. Corporations don't care about you. Corporations, like sociopaths, are quite capable of pretending to care about you to get what they want from you as easily as possible. For example, if putting on a clown face and providing costumed characters will get you to buy unhealthy, overpriced food served to you by underpaid, overworked people that you're almost encouraged to disdain, well, Ronald's happy to take a swing at that.

We're going to see a lot of this, unfortunately, because we're not quite over our corporation worship just yet.
 
2014-01-10 12:51:58 AM  
A petition against the move is circulating saying the decision is based on the Affordable Care Act.

Well duh. If you offered businesses a tax break if they made everyone wear red shower caps to work, they'd do that too. If you don't want something to happen, don't incentivize it. That seems to be a difficult concept for some people.
 
2014-01-10 12:52:58 AM  

luxup: I'm a pretty liberal guy, but when did people start looking to jobs at places like Staples as a source of health care?


When companies started shipping their jobs to China or slashing benefits in the name of the bottom line.
 
2014-01-10 12:54:01 AM  
How about, you pay for your own goddamn healthcare?

Why is this such a friggin issue?

Libs have no stake in the game, they don't pay, so will always vote for Messiahs, and vote for free stuff. Just not sustainable. They breed like rats, they will eventually be too many for working people to support.
 
2014-01-10 12:55:12 AM  
It's working as designed.
 
2014-01-10 12:56:33 AM  

el_pilgrim: I understand that the ACA states that 30 hours requires benefits, Staples created a policy that mirrors the law, drawing a line for their part-timers. They wouldn't have done this but for the ACA and a lot of their part-time workers who previously were eligible for benefits won't be any more.

Its a sucky system all around, but we shouldn't be crying that our part time jobs aren't giving us full time benefits.

I myself am a part-time employee at a restaurant and lost my insurance this year because according to the new policy I didn't work enough hours last year. And you know, I'm not mad/upset about. It's a part time job for a reason and I never expected my full time benefits to continue when I went to part time.

I agree that we need a better healthcare system in this country - employee provided is not the solution, and neither is the ACA.


Don't blame the ACA - it's not like your employer is prevented from providing you with insurance at any hours.
 
2014-01-10 12:57:05 AM  

Thunderpipes: nyseattitude: farkstorm: Most of the people affected already have insurance. You can stay on mommy's & daddy's insurance until you are 26 years old, long enough to finish college and get a full time job. If you can't get full-time employment at 26 years old, you should have paid better attention in high school. Now suffer the consequences of your own failures.

Do you enjoy repeating right wing lies or just lying in general?

How, in any way shape or form, is this not correct? You are why this country fails. Stupid libs, making crap up.


I was covered under my mothers insurance until I was like 21 or 24 the latest.  She worked for the State.  I'm in my 40s now and I grew up in NYC.  When did that change?  Now, if your parents didn't have a good job then it was the emergency room at the city hospital for you.

I am far from a right winger.
 
2014-01-10 01:00:29 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: just_intonation: So if it's such a bad idea, why didn't Obama abolish it in favor of his more affordable plan?

Here's a guy who doesn't understand what a Republic is.


Please -- enlighten me.

nyseattitude: He can't. People want single payer but didn't get it either. This is something people have been fighting for for over 40 years. Just passing the legislation that we have is a historical land mark for the common person. Think of it as "getting your foot in the door".


I get that.  My point, though, is that neither Obama *nor* the government is doing what the *people* want.  The people are the ones getting shafted because of it, and the people don't seem to have the balls to do what needs to be done.  You know, this being a Republic and all, and we can elect people that would actually (gasp!) *represent* us.  Perish the thought!
 
2014-01-10 01:02:12 AM  
Really? I urge every offended Farker to step up and pay the affected employees the difference in wages they would have gotten had not the US Congress through three decades and now Obama diligently corrupted the position of Employee into the single biggest liability an Employer can have.

None of you complainers have skin in the game. You try and make payroll sometime lugging around the gigantic absurdity of imposed obligations that attain to the title of Employee.

/Obama never has made a payroll. Has no idea what or how
 
2014-01-10 01:02:27 AM  

Old enough to know better: I'm starting to think we're long overdue for a few labor riots.


With Ames pitchforks, Georgia Pacific posterboards, and Rubbermaid Sharpies, right?  I guess Coleman can chip in with the torches.
 
2014-01-10 01:02:35 AM  

Gyrfalcon: "Loophole"? Hasn't that always been there?


People claimed it would happen from inception, and said it would be a problem.  These people were called racists.
 
2014-01-10 01:04:30 AM  

djh0101010: Pretty sure any asshole-ish move by any employer or insurance company for the next $YEARS will be blamed on Obamacare.  It's a wonderful excuse for anyone to use, true or not.


THANKS OBAMACARE
 
2014-01-10 01:04:34 AM  

Caffienatedjedi: Something something Obamacare something job creators etc.

Really, just give your damn employees benefits. So what if your 10,000 % profit percentage is suddenly reduced to 9,999 %? Why the fark are people not demanding the heads of the businessmen who make these changes, instead of demanding the heads of the people who are trying to help them(but are then used as an excuse for the businessmen to be worse people)?


If you think businesses with fewer than 500 employees are making 10,000% profit, then your opinion about anything is not worth listening to.  These businesses are being crushed by this tax, AND they have people "demanding their heads."
 
2014-01-10 01:04:40 AM  

The Larch: Zombalupagus: Solution: Require insurance for all employees. Suddenly places will want to have people work full time again.

Better solution:  make employer provided health insurance illegal.

I keep reading about how employers want to choose what kind of health insurance their employees are allowed to purchase.   Apparently, some employers are even going to the Supreme Court based on some sort of insane legal theory that their employees are the legal property of their employer and that employers should get to make health care decisions for their employers.

Since it's employer provided health insurance is obviously such a problem, we should get rid of it.


Citation needed
 
2014-01-10 01:05:40 AM  

limboslam: No duh. We've been told this was going to happen for 3 damn years, now.


Those were all racists saying that.  Derp and such.
 
2014-01-10 01:05:46 AM  

CtrlAltDestroy: emarica: Why is heath care tied to employment in the USA?

Because we have a for-profit healthcare system. So good health isn't seen as a right (which seems to fly in the face of the preamble to our constitution). It's set up to be a money making opportunity. In order to gain the privilege of the opportunity to purchase a chance at maintaining your health you must play a role in making corporations richer by being an employee.

Because that's how the republicans like it. Money reigns supreme and helping people without gaining money from it is wrong. At least as far as they're concerned.

As a social experiment I want the south to secede. That'll give the north to the liberals and the south to the conservatives. Each will have almost complete control over their newfound nations. Then I want to watch what happens over the next 50 years. It would be fascinating.


Look at where people are moving.  The north is shiat and people are leaving in droves.  Look at the last two censuses and the U.S. Congressional apportionment.  People are moving south and west.  Indiana would probably want to join your new South along with Kentucky to make it contiguous.
 
2014-01-10 01:07:47 AM  
and?
 
2014-01-10 01:07:50 AM  

Thunderpipes: nyseattitude: farkstorm: Most of the people affected already have insurance. You can stay on mommy's & daddy's insurance until you are 26 years old, long enough to finish college and get a full time job. If you can't get full-time employment at 26 years old, you should have paid better attention in high school. Now suffer the consequences of your own failures.

Do you enjoy repeating right wing lies or just lying in general?

How, in any way shape or form, is this not correct? You are why this country fails. Stupid libs, making crap up.


I've seen many of your posts and have seen you identified as racist, bigoted, partisan hack, a liar, delusional, crazy and "possibly dangerous". I don't converse with people like you.
 
2014-01-10 01:08:40 AM  

luxup: Thunderpipes: nyseattitude: farkstorm: Most of the people affected already have insurance. You can stay on mommy's & daddy's insurance until you are 26 years old, long enough to finish college and get a full time job. If you can't get full-time employment at 26 years old, you should have paid better attention in high school. Now suffer the consequences of your own failures.

Do you enjoy repeating right wing lies or just lying in general?

How, in any way shape or form, is this not correct? You are why this country fails. Stupid libs, making crap up.

I was covered under my mothers insurance until I was like 21 or 24 the latest.  She worked for the State.  I'm in my 40s now and I grew up in NYC.  When did that change?  Now, if your parents didn't have a good job then it was the emergency room at the city hospital for you.

I am far from a right winger.


Obamacare changed it. All libs can stay on mom and dad's government provided plan until 26. Do you read?
 
2014-01-10 01:10:34 AM  

Thunderpipes: How about, you pay for your own goddamn healthcare?

Why is this such a friggin issue?

Libs have no stake in the game, they don't pay, so will always vote for Messiahs, and vote for free stuff. Just not sustainable. They breed like rats, they will eventually be too many for working people to support.


-5/10, way too obvious
 
2014-01-10 01:12:03 AM  

Clemkadidlefark: Really? I urge every offended Farker to step up and pay the affected employees the difference in wages they would have gotten had not the US Congress through three decades and now Obama diligently corrupted the position of Employee into the single biggest liability an Employer can have.

None of you complainers have skin in the game. You try and make payroll sometime lugging around the gigantic absurdity of imposed obligations that attain to the title of Employee.

/Obama never has made a payroll. Has no idea what or how


fark those employees! A business can, and should run itself! A corporate is a PERSON! Let the free market take over! Get rid of every employee and let the customer come in to grab what they want off pallets in a back, the customer can pay on the way out where they'll just drop the money in a bucket and take what change is needed! FREE MARKET! FREE MARKET!!
 
2014-01-10 01:12:17 AM  
The talking heads are yelling about how 91 million Americans are not working (they didn't say how many are retired or children). It got me to thinking, unemployment is down and these same heads are saying because benefits are running out. So what's the underemployment rate and why isn't that attached to the unemployment rate like the symbiote it is?
 
2014-01-10 01:12:51 AM  
Nope, can't imagine why Staples would attempt to torpedo the PPACA

s1.reutersmedia.net
 
2014-01-10 01:14:13 AM  

just_intonation: cameroncrazy1984: just_intonation: So if it's such a bad idea, why didn't Obama abolish it in favor of his more affordable plan?

Here's a guy who doesn't understand what a Republic is.

Please -- enlighten me.

nyseattitude: He can't. People want single payer but didn't get it either. This is something people have been fighting for for over 40 years. Just passing the legislation that we have is a historical land mark for the common person. Think of it as "getting your foot in the door".

I get that.  My point, though, is that neither Obama *nor* the government is doing what the *people* want.  The people are the ones getting shafted because of it, and the people don't seem to have the balls to do what needs to be done.  You know, this being a Republic and all, and we can elect people that would actually (gasp!) *represent* us.  Perish the thought!


I agree, but it is a foundation to build on and that is something we haven't had in the past.
 
2014-01-10 01:14:40 AM  

Carousel Beast: The Larch: Zombalupagus: Solution: Require insurance for all employees. Suddenly places will want to have people work full time again.

Better solution:  make employer provided health insurance illegal.

I keep reading about how employers want to choose what kind of health insurance their employees are allowed to purchase.   Apparently, some employers are even going to the Supreme Court based on some sort of insane legal theory that their employees are the legal property of their employer and that employers should get to make health care decisions for their employers.

Since it's employer provided health insurance is obviously such a problem, we should get rid of it.

Citation needed


You must not be American.  Sleazy scumbag companies that are pretending to be "religious organizations" think they should be allowed to control their employee's private health care decisions.   The little sleazebags are coming out of the woodwork here in America right now in their efforts to reduce freedom and increase autocratic control that companies have over their employees.
 
2014-01-10 01:14:55 AM  
cameroncrazy1984:

Don't blame the ACA - it's not like your employer is prevented from providing you with insurance at any hours.


But why should they? I don't create as much value as a full time employee. sure they could insure me, but they could also not utilize part time labor at all, or sponsor rockets to the moon, or give all their money away for causes that aren't worth it.

It is the ACA that is causing all of these companies to do this, and it sucks. Previously a lot of companies would give part-time benefits based on where they felt part-time created enough value to justify spending money on benefits. Now the government tells them what it is and they don't like that. It's not their responsibility to insure us, it's ours.
 
2014-01-10 01:15:29 AM  

GORDON: Caffienatedjedi: Something something Obamacare something job creators etc.

Really, just give your damn employees benefits. So what if your 10,000 % profit percentage is suddenly reduced to 9,999 %? Why the fark are people not demanding the heads of the businessmen who make these changes, instead of demanding the heads of the people who are trying to help them(but are then used as an excuse for the businessmen to be worse people)?

If you think businesses with fewer than 500 employees are making 10,000% profit, then your opinion about anything is not worth listening to.  These businesses are being crushed by this tax, AND they have people "demanding their heads."


Wait, Staples has less than 500 employees? That must make operating over 2000 stores difficult.
 
2014-01-10 01:17:40 AM  
This what happens when a law is passed that negatively affects businesses. They react to the law, the system reaches a new eqhilibrium, and politicians feign outrage at the entirely predictable outcome and curse the evil busseness owners.
 
2014-01-10 01:17:52 AM  

Mentat: luxup: I'm a pretty liberal guy, but when did people start looking to jobs at places like Staples as a source of health care?

When companies started shipping their jobs to China or slashing benefits in the name of the bottom line.


I understand being in a meeting with someone explaining how to opt in to our new company insurance program which used to seem to change every year.  I've been at home with the kids now for about 5 years so this is way before the ACA.  A lot must have changed because back then part-time employees never had any benefits to lose.  They didn't get vacation days either or tuition assistance.

I've been part of restructuring, layoffs and managing teams in India remotely for jobs that were done in house the year before.  Even then, full-time was 40 hours and if Staples told everyone working 32 hours a week to top out at 25 about nobody would have given a crap news media wise.

I guess the more accurate question would have been, since when did Stapes and places like it start giving bennies to those it considered part-time staff and has anyone actually lost benefits they were previously getting because of it?
 
2014-01-10 01:20:01 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: One less place for me to shop.  Oh well, fark them.


A-greed.
 
2014-01-10 01:20:16 AM  

NoSugarAdded: luxup: 30 hours a week is considered full time, which many of their part time employees were putting in. Also, had you read the memo, they state that managers should hire additional part time employees to cover any shortfalls in staffing, that is the very definition of sleazy.


What are we in France?  Since I got my first part-time job back in 1980 something full-time was 40 hours.

If we were in France, everyone would have health coverage and staples wouldn't feel compelled to destroy employee morale for a few dollars.


Don't forget about 25% unemployment if you're under 30.

**That's not great for morale either**
 
2014-01-10 01:23:00 AM  

Animatronik: This what happens when a law is passed that negatively affects businesses. They react to the law, the system reaches a new eqhilibrium, and politicians feign outrage at the entirely predictable outcome and curse the evil busseness owners.


If businesses could be trusted to act like responsible parties, many of the rules they operate under wouldn't be there at all.
 
2014-01-10 01:29:36 AM  

Thunderpipes: luxup: Thunderpipes: nyseattitude: farkstorm: Most of the people affected already have insurance. You can stay on mommy's & daddy's insurance until you are 26 years old, long enough to finish college and get a full time job. If you can't get full-time employment at 26 years old, you should have paid better attention in high school. Now suffer the consequences of your own failures.

Do you enjoy repeating right wing lies or just lying in general?

How, in any way shape or form, is this not correct? You are why this country fails. Stupid libs, making crap up.

I was covered under my mothers insurance until I was like 21 or 24 the latest.  She worked for the State.  I'm in my 40s now and I grew up in NYC.  When did that change?  Now, if your parents didn't have a good job then it was the emergency room at the city hospital for you.

I am far from a right winger.

Obamacare changed it. All libs can stay on mom and dad's government provided plan until 26. Do you read?


My comprehension is pretty good I think.  The whole point was agreeing that 26 is old enough to have gotten off of mommy and daddy's plan and get your own.  Your comment doesn't change that point one bit.  I pointed to my own case as being a bit younger because as you astutely pointed out, it would have changed since then.  I also believe that conservs can stay on their parents plan as well as libs.

Reading between the lines it all means, try to get a better job instead of a part-time position at the local box store because you have had long enough to leave the nest little one.  It's not a radical idea and one that many immigrant and poverty stricken families still try to instill in their children.  Do you understand?
 
2014-01-10 01:30:18 AM  

djh0101010: Pretty sure any asshole-ish move by any employer or insurance company for the next $YEARS will be blamed on Obamacare.  It's a wonderful excuse for anyone to use, true or not.


In a sense it is. Obamacare like a lot of government policies assumes benevolency on the part of the practitioners. Unfortunately IRL they don't exist.. Certainly not in corporate America.
 
2014-01-10 01:32:23 AM  
Suck it, libs. Anything that gets you socialists all butthurt is definitely a good thing.

It sucks for the people directly affected by it, but its a necessary step on the path towards the repeal of the ACA.  So again... Suck it, libs.
 
2014-01-10 01:33:37 AM  
The Larch:Since it's employer provided health insurance is obviously such a problem, we should get rid of it.

You get Republicans on board with single-payer health care and I'll get the Democrats.

Now go to it.
 
2014-01-10 01:35:01 AM  

SuperNinjaToad: In a sense it is. Obamacare like a lot of government policies assumes benevolency on the part of the practitioners. Unfortunately IRL they don't exist.. Certainly not in corporate America.


And then those same people whine when regulations have to be 10,000 pages long to think of every one of the ways they squirm out of them. QUIT CIRCUMVENTING REGULATIONS AND THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO BE SO COMPLEX!
 
2014-01-10 01:45:07 AM  

Slartibartfaster: Thunderpipes: Stupid lazy libs.

does that ever get old for you ?
cuz its getting frekking old for others.


Ignore is your friend. It's the only way to keep the signal to noise ratio tolerable enough to be here.
 
2014-01-10 01:47:37 AM  

Phineas: Suck it, libs. Anything that gets you socialists all butthurt is definitely a good thing.

It sucks for the people directly affected by it, but its a necessary step on the path towards the repeal of the ACA.  So again... Suck it, libs.


Buh bye.

*click*
 
2014-01-10 01:48:31 AM  
This isn't a bug.
It's a feature of the Obamacare law.

Everyone knew this would happen from day one. Some people were in denial but everyone knew this would happen including those who wrote the law.

I'll leave it up to the reader to figure out the political benefits and the benefits to government, it isn't difficult.
 
2014-01-10 01:49:02 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-01-10 01:49:29 AM  
Wow. I thought they were a business that was allowed to make decisions to maximize profit. You know....the kind of thing that America brags about. When they become a socialist entity, like our current government, they will get in line like the rest of you sheep.
 
2014-01-10 01:54:30 AM  
I feel that the conservatives don't ever think of the long term consequences.  It's maddening.  If Obama...sorry, if the ACA is going to fail, let it fail on it's own after maybe, I don't know, trying to help first.  It's like walking up to a little old lady and kicking the cane out her hand instead of offering her your arm to cross the street.

If it works though, what is the downside to having everyone have access to quality medial care?  Give it 20 years.  That's how long it would take to start to see the big picture anyway.  It's not like when they tried similar programs in other states they failed miserably.

Am I really a crazy liberal for believing that if you make sure everyone is educated properly and kept healthy, you wind up with a safer society and more desirable work force many, many years down the road. It's not like it's all going to happen by next Tuesday.
 
2014-01-10 01:55:08 AM  
Well that was
cdn.instructables.com
 
2014-01-10 01:55:50 AM  
Staples is limiting the number of hours part-time associates can work to 25 hours a week, a move that has drawn the ire of disgruntled workers who claim it is a way to skirt impending rules requiring companies to provide health insurance for full-time employees or face a steep penalty.

According to an early December internal memo obtained by BuzzFeed that Staples sent to its store managers, the company described the decision to curb hours for part-time associates starting with the week ended Jan. 4 as "an effort to maximize scheduling flexibility."


Pussies.  My employer is straight forward with it, we got an all staff email that just directly told all part-time employees they have to keep it under 30 hours so they don't qualify for benefits under the ACA.  They're not pretending.
 
2014-01-10 01:55:55 AM  

Thunderpipes: How about, you pay for your own goddamn healthcare?


Pay for the Best Health Care in the World® (where "best" means "most expensive") on $7.25/hr.  Or less than that, if the wingnuts get their way.  Roight, guv.  Raise the minimum wage.  Then we'll talk about paying for your own goddamn healthcare.

Why is this such a friggin issue?

Libs have no stake in the game, they don't pay, so will always vote for Messiahs, and vote for free stuff. Just not sustainable.


I'll listen to wingnuts about "voting for free stuff" when you stop baying for MOAR WAR! every time Fox Propaganda starts hyping the Emmanuel Goldstein de la semaine.

They breed like rats, they will eventually be too many for working people to support.

How's banning abortion and birth control and defunding Planned Parenthood (in Jesus' name we pray) working out for you?
 
2014-01-10 02:01:51 AM  

luxup: I feel that the conservatives don't ever think of the long term consequences.  It's maddening.  If Obama...sorry, if the ACA is going to fail, let it fail on it's own after maybe, I don't know, trying to help first.  It's like walking up to a little old lady and kicking the cane out her hand instead of offering her your arm to cross the street.

If it works though, what is the downside to having everyone have access to quality medial care?  Give it 20 years.  That's how long it would take to start to see the big picture anyway.  It's not like when they tried similar programs in other states they failed miserably.

Am I really a crazy liberal for believing that if you make sure everyone is educated properly and kept healthy, you wind up with a safer society and more desirable work force many, many years down the road. It's not like it's all going to happen by next Tuesday.


it doesn't take food out of my kids mouths to help that little old lady cross the street. Obamacare does. Why should I give it 20 years?

This law was passed full of loopholes and problems. So, instead of pointing out those problems, your solution would be to play nicely like the law is a good law with no problems? To take a financial beating just for the sake of propping up an invasive, unconstitutional law? That is really your answer? Wow. Ok. I get it now.

I guess you have no idea why a business get's formed in the first place. It's usually not to be a prop for social engineering. Usually, a business gets formed to make money. To earn profits. To take these profits, and then some, and funnel back into a government mandate, kind of defeats the purpose of going into business, doesn't it?
 
2014-01-10 02:03:40 AM  

buny101: This law was passed full of loopholes and problems. So, instead of pointing out those problems, your solution would be to play nicely like the law is a good law with no problems? To take a financial beating just for the sake of propping up an invasive, unconstitutional law? That is really your answer? Wow. Ok. I get it now.


A law that's upheld by the Supreme Court is by definition constitutional.
 
2014-01-10 02:03:55 AM  

lennavan: Staples is limiting the number of hours part-time associates can work to 25 hours a week, a move that has drawn the ire of disgruntled workers who claim it is a way to skirt impending rules requiring companies to provide health insurance for full-time employees or face a steep penalty.

According to an early December internal memo obtained by BuzzFeed that Staples sent to its store managers, the company described the decision to curb hours for part-time associates starting with the week ended Jan. 4 as "an effort to maximize scheduling flexibility."

Pussies.  My employer is straight forward with it, we got an all staff email that just directly told all part-time employees they have to keep it under 30 hours so they don't qualify for benefits under the ACA.  They're not pretending.


I can top that.  I had a former employer, a well known research company send out a company wide email about the great job an upstate office did in deploying and tabulating the data for an online survey they quickly put together to cover the major news event that just happened.

We were all pretty pissed when we read it in the New York office as this was send on the day we all returned to work after 9/11.  I think it was the word 'kuddos' that set us off.
 
2014-01-10 02:11:36 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: No shiat.  It's almost as though destroying the ability of people to afford anything was built into this abortion from the beginning


I would have preferred a Canadian-style Single Payer system, myself....

/ yeah, I know we can't have that....because it reeks of "Socialism"
// *sigh*
 
2014-01-10 02:12:39 AM  

Mentat: This law was passed full of loopholes and problems. So, instead of pointing out those problems, your solution would be to play nicely like the law is a good law with no problems? To take a financial beating just for the sake of propping up an invasive, unconstitutional law? That is really your answer? Wow. Ok. I get it now.


What is constitutional at one point changes in time, according to the balances of the court and public opinion. Many laws that are upheld at one point are struck down at another. Times change. One day, obamacare will be sitting in a rusty heap, gathering dust. It can't be sustained. It will either fall of it's own accord, or will fall when this country collapses from within, the result of our evergrowing debt.
 
2014-01-10 02:14:45 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Smeggy Smurf: Most grocery store chains when they're having a good year for starters

And yet Pubix which is known for how well it treats its employees is over 6%.


Sucks to be them.  WinCo Foods which is a non-union company and growing faster than anybody else averages slightly over 10%.  That's good because my firm charges them a fortune for architectural services for no less than half of their new stores
 
2014-01-10 02:16:07 AM  

Forbidden Doughnut: Smeggy Smurf: No shiat.  It's almost as though destroying the ability of people to afford anything was built into this abortion from the beginning

I would have preferred a Canadian-style Single Payer system, myself....

/ yeah, I know we can't have that....because it reeks of "Socialism"
// *sigh*


Crap, missed that one. You can have have your death panels and months of waiting for routine care all you want.  Me as a capitalist prefers to be able to afford proper care in a timely manner because I'm not a useless socialist who needs to hide behind government's apron strings like a little biatch.
 
2014-01-10 02:19:33 AM  

Mentat: buny101: This law was passed full of loopholes and problems. So, instead of pointing out those problems, your solution would be to play nicely like the law is a good law with no problems? To take a financial beating just for the sake of propping up an invasive, unconstitutional law? That is really your answer? Wow. Ok. I get it now.

A law that's upheld by the Supreme Court is by definition constitutional.


Beat me to it.  Well said.  The law should not be treated like the Bible, just believing the parts you like, ignoring the parts that don't agree with you and making up the rest.

It still costs you in the form of taxes to cover health care costs and aggregate sick time loss to employers as well as a whole lot of other big word reasons that I can't think about right now.  It's late.

Besides, I seriously doubt that as you type away on your computer to comment on Fark that your children are missing any meals.  When they lose 20lbs because of the ACA then talk to me.  If their like a lot of other kids in this country the weight loss will probably make them healthier.
 
2014-01-10 02:21:26 AM  

ReapTheChaos: 30 hours a week is considered full time, which many of their part time employees were putting in. Also, had you read the memo, they state that managers should hire additional part time employees to cover any shortfalls in staffing, that is the very definition of sleazy.


No. It's the very definition of managing resources. If the employee is going to cost the company the same as a full time employee minus any wage difference then why do that if you don't have to? Cutting the employee's hours to below the ACA mandated hourly limit gets the employer another 20 hours or so worth of labor (AKA bang for the buck) for the exact same cost as those extra 10 hours by a full time employee minus wages. The math isn't hard and you can expect to see a whole lot of this happening as the employer mandate kicks in.

On the plus side a couple of extra jobs slots are going to be created albeit at less hours worked per person. Of course all of this was known over a year ago as the regulations were promulgated and some even think that it was a backdoor way to help the administration being able to point to higher job creation numbers and lower unemployment figures because of that 29 hour limit.

The end result is that in order to maintain your "Old" cost of living you will end up having to work 2 jobs for a grand total of 50 hours a week plus whatever extra travel time that you will have to do on your own dime, both to make it worth the while of the second employer to keep you on (there are fixed extra costs to having more employees so they will need you to work as close to their limit as possible, call it 25 hours a week or so) and you're going to need those extra 10 hours of pay to buy your Obamacare plan anyway. All of this has been explained by the so-called ACA "Liars and fear mongers" before. They can't help it if the ACA deniers didn't want to listen and instead stuck their fingers in their ears.

You can also expect a lot of larger employers of full time workers say fark it, pay the fines that they will have to pay, kick the difference of what their current health plan costs them now minus that employees share of the fine back down to the employees and let them deal with the exchanges. Bonus. No more having to deal with the costs and HR headaches of managing a healthcare plan.

Welcome to the show! Sit back, it's going to be quite the ride!
 
2014-01-10 02:22:06 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: How's banning abortion and birth control and defunding Planned Parenthood (in Jesus' name we pray) working out for you?


Wow....is that the best strawman argument you can create?   Sounds like you've got alot of unused space between your ears. Maybe you should change your tag to Sheila Jackson Lee.   At least then you could justify your batshiat crazy statements.
 
2014-01-10 02:22:58 AM  

Mentat: [i1282.photobucket.com image 553x353]


www.anorak.co.uk
 
2014-01-10 02:24:15 AM  
One Neat Trick to Save Your Business Millions On Healthcare?

/Fark you, buzzfeed
 
2014-01-10 02:24:19 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: Crap, missed that one. You can have have your death panels and months of waiting for routine care all you want.  Me as a capitalist prefers to be able to afford proper care in a timely manner because I'm not a useless socialist who needs to hide behind government's apron strings like a little biatch.


We've got death panels aplenty.  They're called insurance companies.  Insurance companies do not make money by giving you health care.  They make money by not giving you health care.  But it's capitalism, so I guess that makes it all right.
 
2014-01-10 02:25:10 AM  

Forbidden Doughnut: Smeggy Smurf: No shiat.  It's almost as though destroying the ability of people to afford anything was built into this abortion from the beginning

I would have preferred a Canadian-style Single Payer system, myself....


Dare to guess how I know that you don't work for an insurance company or have any investments or retirement funds associated with insurance companies?

Does the phrase "tits up" mean anything to you?
 
2014-01-10 02:25:21 AM  

emarica: Why is heath care tied to employment in the USA?


Stupidity
 
2014-01-10 02:26:56 AM  

emarica: cirby: Caffeinatedjedi:
Really, just give your damn employees benefits. So what if your 10,000 % profit percentage is suddenly reduced to 9,999 %?

You mean "So what if your 2.2% profit margin is suddenly reduced to a loss?" You have some interesting ideas about how much actual companies make, especially during a long recession.

The recession ended years ago outside the USA


Other countries couldn't afford as much stimulus as we could.
 
2014-01-10 02:27:00 AM  

ReapTheChaos: el_pilgrim: FTA:
"Staples is limiting the number of hours part-time associates can work to 25 hours a week ..."

"...a way to skirt impending rules requiring companies to provide health insurance for full-time employees or face a steep penalty."

one of these things is not like the other?
Seems to me it would only be sleazy if they did this to full-time employees, what they are doing is creating a clear definition between part-time and full-time.

30 hours a week is considered full time, which many of their part time employees were putting in. Also, had you read the memo, they state that managers should hire additional part time employees to cover any shortfalls in staffing, that is the very definition of sleazy.


That's probably far better for the economy overall, and certain retailers specifically. I don't patronize a lot of places I used to because they cut their staffs down to one or two people at a time, causing bad blood and walkouts costing a company real money. (Instead of fixing they just cut hours more.)
 
2014-01-10 02:30:56 AM  

emarica: Why is heath care tied to employment in the USA?


because we're taught socialism is bad
 
2014-01-10 02:32:00 AM  

Frederick: cirby: Caffeinatedjedi:
Really, just give your damn employees benefits. So what if your 10,000 % profit percentage is suddenly reduced to 9,999 %?

You mean "So what if your 2.2% profit margin is suddenly reduced to a loss?" You have some interesting ideas about how much actual companies make, especially during a long recession.

Who has a 2.2% profit margin?


Not Staples. I think they were negative for the year
 
2014-01-10 02:33:01 AM  

buny101: I guess you have no idea why a business get's formed in the first place. It's usually not to be a prop for social engineering. Usually, a business gets formed to make money. To earn profits. To take these profits, and then some, and funnel back into a government mandate, kind of defeats the purpose of going into business, doesn't it?


So what, the ACA means the death of all future and current business?  Ok, don't go into business.  I'm sure it was the ACA that is keeping you.  Wait, but you are probably a small business owner so I guess you are doomed.  That does suck but most small business fail with or without the ACA.

Somehow I think business will survive.  When they ended child labor I'm sure that cut into profits as well.  More than the ACA I'm sure.  I mean, it was child labor!  They worked for like nothing.
 
2014-01-10 02:37:25 AM  
according to staples official numbers http://investor.staples.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=96244&p=irol-fundIncomeA
they make no money, negatives actually....
however if you go back every year before this one they were about 3/4 of a billion. even in 2009 during the massive recession.  So  why are in the red this year?  A major acquisition or they are cooking the books.  Quick I need an analysis here!

btw, doesn't BAIN Capital own this piece of shiat?
 
2014-01-10 02:43:10 AM  

buny101: Mentat: This law was passed full of loopholes and problems. So, instead of pointing out those problems, your solution would be to play nicely like the law is a good law with no problems? To take a financial beating just for the sake of propping up an invasive, unconstitutional law? That is really your answer? Wow. Ok. I get it now.

What is constitutional at one point changes in time, according to the balances of the court and public opinion. Many laws that are upheld at one point are struck down at another. Times change. One day, obamacare will be sitting in a rusty heap, gathering dust. It can't be sustained. It will either fall of it's own accord, or will fall when this country collapses from within, the result of our evergrowing debt.


Well you know "change" wasn't exactly explained. Change for the worse is the last thing most people thought.
 
2014-01-10 02:46:06 AM  
in regard to Home Depot being mentioned on it's slashing.  Check again and Bain Capital owns a good chunck of that corp too....

So, are we catching a common thread?
 
2014-01-10 02:54:54 AM  

bromah: in regard to Home Depot being mentioned on it's slashing.  Check again and Bain Capital owns a good chunck of that corp too....

So, are we catching a common thread?


Yes, Home Depot is not doing enough to increase Bain Capital's profits.
 
2014-01-10 02:55:29 AM  
I'm a pretty liberal guy, but when did we start seeing all people as equals worthy of respect?
 
2014-01-10 03:07:13 AM  

Zombalupagus: Solution: Require insurance for all employees. Suddenly places will want to have people work full time again.

/or, failing that, at least some kind of sliding scale


hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
sliding scale would totally solve this

sigh

I was told that the free market would fix everything.
WHY didnt the free market fix healthcare before Obamacare came into force??
 
2014-01-10 03:20:00 AM  

lewismarktwo: I'm a pretty liberal guy, but when did we start seeing all people as equals worthy of respect?


So not expecting employers to give health insurance to part-time employees is now disrespectful to the masses?  Nobody even dreamed that 30 hours was full-time until somebody put it in the ACA, and that was of course done to try and get more people insured.

I'm sure everyone who is arguing that 30 hours qualifies for insurance from employers would have told you full-time work is 40 hours just a few years ago.  I didn't realize that change until today.

Don't confuse understanding why a business would move to keep part-time employees defied as part-time employees with not seeing some people as not worthy of respect.  I can just see things from more than one side.
 
2014-01-10 03:41:06 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: Sucks to be them.  WinCo Foods which is a non-union company and growing faster than anybody else averages slightly over 10%.


As I understand, WinCo doesn't accept credit cards and also makes you bag your own groceries, which could account for the difference in profit right there.  Publix is also non-union, entirely employee-owned, accepts credit cards, bags your groceries for you (and takes the stuff out to your car), and usually offers a fair number of 2-for-1s during any given week.
 
2014-01-10 03:55:29 AM  
Insurance should not be tied to employment.

Once you enter into an contract with an insurance company,
You should be able to keep that insurance for life as long as you are willing to payments.

The old lose your job, lose your insurance after 18 months even if you are willing to continue
to paying more than double was evil.

The old if you have a pre-existing condition you can't get any insurance on any other other potential conditions at all, except for triple the cost crappy care high risk state pools was especially atrocious.

Obama care is an improvement but I am not optimistic about the long run.

The compromises were not good and the whole system needs to be revamped

As long as insurance companies are setting their own rates and maintaining 30% or more administration/profit margins and can increase profits by withholding or minimizing care. .

Things are going to get a lot worse.
 
2014-01-10 03:56:14 AM  
Sherlock is constipated.
 
2014-01-10 04:24:23 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: Crap, missed that one. You can have have your death panels and months of waiting for routine care all you want. Me as a capitalist prefers to be able to afford proper care in a timely manner because I'm not a useless socialist who needs to hide behind government's apron strings like a little biatch.


Have you ever talked to a Canadian about their healthcare waits? When they are sick they go to to the clinic, show them their card and they are seen that day.

It's routine.
.
 
2014-01-10 04:26:04 AM  
Is it not possible for employers to bundle health insurance into the employees already negotiated compensation package?

So that:
previous salary without benefits = $X total compensation
new "salary and benefits" = $X total compensation

Obviously to the employee it means less salary but benefits, to the employer it's the same expense.
 
2014-01-10 04:55:33 AM  

Frederick: Is it not possible for employers to bundle health insurance into the employees already negotiated compensation package?

So that:
previous salary without benefits = $X total compensation
new "salary and benefits" = $X total compensation

Obviously to the employee it means less salary but benefits, to the employer it's the same expense.


No. The employer loses the deduction that they get now plus they have a fine to pay if they have over 50 full time employees (you know that that's going to come into play as to how much they kick down to the employees total compensation). Then the employees have to pay taxes on any gross monetary compensation that they get from their employer (it can't be tagged as healthcare on their W4). Then the deductible part of that on the employees taxes doesn't even start to count until your healthcare costs, including premiums, exceed 10% of your adjusted gross income. So lets say you have 50k agi. The first 5k is 100% taxable.

In other words the employee will take it in the shorts both coming and going. This is the way that it was set up on purpose. Why? I have no idea but I suspect that it has something to do with Uncle Sam dipping some more money out of you and your employers pockets.
 
2014-01-10 05:12:39 AM  
And if the politicians that wrote this law actually cared about the working class instead of trying to trick the working class into voting for them healthcare would be like rule 34 NO EXEPTIONS
 
2014-01-10 06:07:21 AM  

g4lt: Nope, can't imagine why Staples would attempt to torpedo the PPACA

[s1.reutersmedia.net image 450x266]


Which I still find amazing, since the PPACA was based off of Romney's healthcare plan from his time as the Governor of Massachusetts. The GOP insisted on this plan, and did everything possible to block what Obama really wanted, which was a single-payer, truly universal healthcare plan. Then when Obama agrees with the GOP so some form of healthcare reform can get passed, suddenly it's "Obamacare", and the worst thing ever, according to the GOP.

Fark the GOP and their BS. We should have single-payer, universal healthcare, like most of the rest of the First World nations do. But instead we are stuck with this system that is basically a handout to for-profit health insurers, and the GOP get to blame the Dems for it, when it was their idea in the first place!
 
2014-01-10 06:08:06 AM  
Buzzfeed?

Stoppedreadingrightthere.jpg

/does anyone have that picture, so i can save it?
//please?
 
2014-01-10 06:18:55 AM  
Staples is trying to minimize costs by following the rules that Obama set?
I would hope any company would do that.

Well played Staples, well played.

assets0.ordienetworks.com
 
2014-01-10 06:56:54 AM  

Descartes: Staples is trying to minimize costs by following the rules that Obama set?
I would hope any company would do that.

Well played Staples, well played.

[assets0.ordienetworks.com image 300x225]

Yeah, I really can't get outraged by this.

 
2014-01-10 07:05:26 AM  

Frederick: cirby: Caffeinatedjedi:
Really, just give your damn employees benefits. So what if your 10,000 % profit percentage is suddenly reduced to 9,999 %?

You mean "So what if your 2.2% profit margin is suddenly reduced to a loss?" You have some interesting ideas about how much actual companies make, especially during a long recession.

Who has a 2.2% profit margin?




Most publicly owned corporations. It's all a song and dance.. The administration looks at gross revenue, and then spends any excess money on expansion until the margins are as low as possible while still being considered acceptable. Why? Because spending the company profits on growth drives up the share price, which makes the executives far more money than paying out dividends to shareholders.

These companies dont REALLY operate on razor thin margins.. They just want you to think that. Welcome to corporate America.
 
2014-01-10 07:42:58 AM  
"Staples also noted in the memo that managers might need to hire more part-time workers to compensate for the reduction in hours."

Job creation!
 
2014-01-10 07:44:55 AM  

zepillin: Have you ever talked to a Canadian about their healthcare waits? When they are sick they go to to the clinic, show them their card and they are seen that day.

It's poutine.
.

 
2014-01-10 07:57:15 AM  
How dare you suggest a company is at fault for its hiring, pay scale and benefits packages...
 
2014-01-10 08:00:22 AM  

luxup: Beat me to it.  Well said.  The law should not be treated like the Bible, just believing the parts you like, ignoring the parts that don't agree with you and making up the rest.


Have you mentioned that thought to Obama? Because he's just willy-nilly changing stuff by executive fiat, as new sections hit their due date and become a massive problem.
 
2014-01-10 08:04:38 AM  

zepillin: Have you ever talked to a Canadian about their healthcare waits? When they are sick they go to to the clinic, show them their card and they are seen that day.


For Routine care? Maybe. For worse stuff? You can google that on your own. Of course, those who can afford it come to the US and pay out of pocket, rather than being left to writhe in pain until the Canadian health care system gets around to them.
 
2014-01-10 08:18:47 AM  
My girlfriend's employer called a bunch of their 32-hour-a-week employees together last spring and cautioned them that starting in late 2014, they'd have to truncate them to 29.5 hours a week because they simply don't have the budget to offer the mandated standard for insurance to a couple hundred part-time employees. They'd have to hire some more hands to cover those 2.5-hour shortfalls on the schedule.

The employer in question? A school district. The employees in question are teaching assistants (from mothers who come in and read a couple days a week, to special-ed assistants who pretty much put in teacher hours during and after school for a 32-hour paycheck).

My girlfriend said that the questions posed to the superintendent that afternoon were at times amusing. Why not cut teachers' pay and divert that money into healthcare costs? (Contracts, unions, and you can't shorten the hours the teachers need to be on hand.) Why not pay everyone as if they were working a 32-hour day? (See above note about needing to hire more assistants.) Why couldn't the superintendent volunteer for a pay cut to fund healthcare? (Because he'd find a better-paying job elsewhere.)

They do offer health benefits already. It'd take my girlfriend's entire take-home to cover the premium. So she switched jobs this school year to another district, where she's also not getting any benefits, but hopefully will be able to snag a job with benefits next year.

It's easy to point the finger at Big Retail and corporate America. But these are decisions that all employers with a part-time labor pool have to consider. Frankly, I'm surprised we don't hear more about school districts having to make the same cuts and tough choices that Staples and Target are making.
 
2014-01-10 08:19:48 AM  
In other news. Fark was picking on people for going ahead and doing that last year.  Before the official launch of it.
 
2014-01-10 08:40:17 AM  
You mean people are suffering unintended consequences from a starry-eyed government takeover of 1/6 of the economy that none of the lawmakers read before passing?

Do tell.
 
2014-01-10 08:40:43 AM  

emarica: Why is heath care tied to employment in the USA?


Because of wage controls set by the government. Healthcare didn't count for the limit so companies used it to entice workers.
 
2014-01-10 08:41:18 AM  
"Staples owes me something! The world owes me! I'm a victim!"
 
hej
2014-01-10 08:46:08 AM  
So, Staples is hiring additional employees due to the ACA.  What's wrong with that?
 
2014-01-10 08:48:40 AM  

pwn3d781: It's easy to point the finger at Big Retail and corporate America. But these are decisions that all employers with a part-time labor pool have to consider. Frankly, I'm surprised we don't hear more about school districts having to make the same cuts and tough choices that Staples and Target are making.


Ahem...
 
2014-01-10 08:56:30 AM  

ReapTheChaos: Zombalupagus: Solution: Require insurance for all employees. Suddenly places will want to have people work full time again.

/or, failing that, at least some kind of sliding scale

Then they will just make all employment a salaried position and then start abusing the shiat out of people by making them work a 50-60 hour week for 40 hours worth of pay.


Or, everyone becomes "self-employed" with 1099 contracts.
 
2014-01-10 09:04:31 AM  

ReapTheChaos: Who exactly is surprised by this? People saw this coming a year ago.


People saw this coming *THREE* years ago, when this was first being debated.
 
2014-01-10 09:05:21 AM  

dittybopper: ReapTheChaos: Who exactly is surprised by this? People saw this coming a year ago.

People saw this coming *THREE* *FOUR* years ago, when this was first being debated.


Sorry, bad cold, didn't think the math through.
 
2014-01-10 09:09:19 AM  

zepillin: Insurance should not be tied to employment.


Insurance is *ALWAYS* tied to employment, at least indirectly, because you have to have money to pay for it.
 
2014-01-10 09:11:17 AM  
It's not a "loophole", it's a deliberate provision of the law. lawmakers are not that stupid that they don't understand the consequences of making a provision like this, otherwise they would not have put a cut-off at a certain number of hours.
 
2014-01-10 09:11:59 AM  

CruJones: And this surprises who?  Whom?  Whatever, was Obvious tag busy?


Most of the people who supported Obama and his plan, most were saying 'they would never do that!' Well now its happening and people are supposed to be outraged?
 
2014-01-10 09:13:23 AM  
Companies have been doing this since the beginning of time.  Scheduling employees for 39.99999 hours a week in order to avoid the 40 hours to they are not considered full time and they don't have to pay benefits.
 
2014-01-10 09:20:00 AM  

Eponymous: Lee Jackson Beauregard: How's banning abortion and birth control and defunding Planned Parenthood (in Jesus' name we pray) working out for you?

Wow....is that the best strawman argument you can create?


It's not a strawman argument if it's true.  Or maybe the Publicans *don't* call for banning abortion and birth control and defunding Planned Parenthood (in Jesus' name we pray) and then rant that the Welfare Queens are "breeding like rats," as Thunderpipes said?


[ad hominem cheerfully ignored]
 
2014-01-10 09:22:03 AM  

mwfark: You mean people are suffering unintended consequences from a starry-eyed government takeover of 1/6 of the economy that none of the lawmakers read before passing?


What, we now have single payer and Fox Propaganda didn't raise holy hell about it?  How did that happen?
 
2014-01-10 09:25:57 AM  

Radioactive Ass: pwn3d781: It's easy to point the finger at Big Retail and corporate America. But these are decisions that all employers with a part-time labor pool have to consider. Frankly, I'm surprised we don't hear more about school districts having to make the same cuts and tough choices that Staples and Target are making.

Ahem...


Hey, that's great, I'm glad someone's bringing it up. I don't monitor every article on the subject and I won't pretend that I do.

I'm just surprised that, as often as we see the "OMG (big-box retailer) is cutting hours because they don't want to pay for health insurance!" articles, we don't see the same thing regularly about school districts, or the ensuing flamewars on Fark to go along with it.
 
2014-01-10 09:28:45 AM  

emarica: Why is heath care tied to employment in the USA?


Because otherwise, socialism! It be vastly cheaper all around for a single payer Government ran healthcare, but Congress would never allow it since it told the voters that would lead to death panels and the end of the universe and would get voted out of office by pant wetting voters.
 
2014-01-10 09:30:15 AM  

pwn3d781: Hey, that's great, I'm glad someone's bringing it up. I don't monitor every article on the subject and I won't pretend that I do.


I ran across it earlier when I first got into this thread and was looking up something else.
 
2014-01-10 09:30:46 AM  

Caffienatedjedi: Something something Obamacare something job creators etc.

Really, just give your damn employees benefits. So what if your 10,000 % profit percentage is suddenly reduced to 9,999 %?


I'm sure the company wouldnt mind, but the stockholders would see this as a "loss" and "sliding profits" and the stock would tank.
 
2014-01-10 09:32:30 AM  

Descartes: Staples is trying to minimize costs by following the rules that Obama set?
I would hope any company would do that.

Well played Staples, well played.

[assets0.ordienetworks.com image 300x225]


What rules? There's no rule preventing Staples from providing benefits to anyone in their company. There's also no rule that Staples can't face a public backlash regarding this policy, just as Papa John's and Applebees did. Look what happened to them.
 
2014-01-10 09:35:05 AM  
Who would have thought that a company founded by Bain Capital would do something sleazy?  Should Rmoney not have cited them as one of his success stories?
 
2014-01-10 09:36:53 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: What rules? There's no rule preventing Staples from providing benefits to anyone in their company. There's also no rule that Staples can't face a public backlash regarding this policy, just as Papa John's and Applebees did. Look what happened to them.


It going to be very hard to "Backlash" against when every part time or low income employer does this (as both private and public entities have already started to do). What? Are you gonna stop sending your kids to school? Stop eating at every restaurant out there? Have fun with that. You can't boycott everything you know.
 
2014-01-10 09:38:42 AM  

Radioactive Ass: It going to be very hard to "Backlash" against when every part time or low income employer does this (as both private and public entities have already started to do).


Every employer? Papa Johns tried it, got really bad PR, said nope never mind, and a lot of other employers went "uhh nope"
 
2014-01-10 09:40:18 AM  
In fact, one of the country's largest low-wage and part-time employers announced in Sept that it would be doing the opposite:moving 35,000 people to full-time.
 
2014-01-10 09:45:59 AM  
And somehow this will be Obama's fault.
 
2014-01-10 09:51:36 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Every employer? Papa Johns tried it, got really bad PR, said nope never mind, and a lot of other employers went "uhh nope"


Uh-huh... if you say so. Like I said, public and private.

And that's a year before they have to do it.

As to Walmart they did it because they were already losing customers due to chronic under staffing, not because of some imagined backlash over something that wouldn't be in effect for over a year. Let's see how that works out in a year shall we? Say after the next xmas rush when the mandate actually kicks in and they know what their premiums will be?
 
2014-01-10 09:55:09 AM  
Christie knew about this also.
 
2014-01-10 09:55:55 AM  
Can we please just move on to single payer and stop making health insurance dependent upon if you work for a shiatty employer or not.
 
2014-01-10 09:57:50 AM  
How about we do this: Employers no longer offer any healthcare whatsoever. They use the money to invest in employee retirements or whatever. Then everyone has to buy health insurance directly off of the exchanges.
 
2014-01-10 10:22:05 AM  
CtrlAltDestroy:
Because we have a for-profit healthcare system. So good health isn't seen as a right (which seems to fly in the face of the preamble to our constitution).

The level of ignorance responsible for statements like this is at the core of basically every left vs. right argument about economics and socialism.  When you have no idea what a right actually is, what the word means, and base your arguments on your faulty understanding, it's no wonder there's conflict.

Here's a hint to perhaps set you on the right path:  Rights are about what you are free achieve, not what others are obligated to provide.  There is a difference between your ability to exercize a right, and your freedom to do so if you have the ability.  One is guaranteed, the other is not.
 
2014-01-10 10:33:49 AM  

Pincy: Can we please just move on to single payer and stop making health insurance dependent upon if you work for a shiatty employer or not.


I am all for that.
 
2014-01-10 10:38:59 AM  
That should attract even more Top Quality help for their stores, that should help their bottom line. "If they can get to the interview, hire them".
 
2014-01-10 10:43:03 AM  
I do merchandising work (as well as product retrievals) and every merchandising company I have applied to has told me the same thing: Working over 29 hrs/week is verboten and, doing so without proper authorization can result in termination. Obamacare requirements are given as the rationale.


/Thanks, Obamination!
 
2014-01-10 10:46:47 AM  

KarmicDisaster: That should attract even more Top Quality help for their stores, that should help their bottom line. "If they can get to the interview, hire them".


Well, yes and no. If\when everyone starts doing this with their part time force it'll become more common to see people working two part time jobs in two different companies. The main sticking point will probably be juggling schedules. That would even it out as time goes by.
 
2014-01-10 10:56:28 AM  

mwfark: You mean people are suffering unintended consequences from a starry-eyed government takeover of 1/6 of the economy that none of the lawmakers read before passing?

Do tell.


Racist homophobe. I bet you don't like poor people or immigrants, and you probably don't believe in Santa Clause. GDamn mouth-breather. Hurry up and die so the compassionate people like me can be rid of your filth and intolerance. People have a right to the government giving them stuff, and every business in the country was created to hire people and give them money, farkwad: Learn your constitution!

/ You, ... goat farker!
// Like I'm supposed to believe you read everything before you sign it
/// Grrrr
 
2014-01-10 10:57:38 AM  

ReapTheChaos: Zombalupagus: Solution: Require insurance for all employees. Suddenly places will want to have people work full time again.

/or, failing that, at least some kind of sliding scale

Then they will just make all employment a salaried position and then start abusing the shiat out of people by making them work a 50-60 hour week for 40 hours worth of pay.


Salary or not, unless you are an "exempt" class, they still have to pay you overtime.

See also: devs lawsuit against apple a few years back.
 
2014-01-10 10:58:20 AM  

The Larch: Carousel Beast: The Larch: Zombalupagus: Solution: Require insurance for all employees. Suddenly places will want to have people work full time again.

Better solution:  make employer provided health insurance illegal.

I keep reading about how employers want to choose what kind of health insurance their employees are allowed to purchase.   Apparently, some employers are even going to the Supreme Court based on some sort of insane legal theory that their employees are the legal property of their employer and that employers should get to make health care decisions for their employers.

Since it's employer provided health insurance is obviously such a problem, we should get rid of it.

Citation needed

You must not be American.  Sleazy scumbag companies that are pretending to be "religious organizations" think they should be allowed to control their employee's private health care decisions.   The little sleazebags are coming out of the woodwork here in America right now in their efforts to reduce freedom and increase autocratic control that companies have over their employees.



If the  Sleazy scumbag companies that are pretending to be "religious organizations"  are paying for your health insurance, why shouldn't they be allowed to dictate what is covered and what is not? You don't want them handling your healthcare decisions, don't ask them for healthcare.

/Almost too simple
 
2014-01-10 11:00:03 AM  

Caffienatedjedi: Something something Obamacare something job creators etc.

Really, just give your damn employees benefits. So what if your 10,000 % profit percentage is suddenly reduced to 9,999 %? Why the fark are people not demanding the heads of the businessmen who make these changes, instead of demanding the heads of the people who are trying to help them(but are then used as an excuse for the businessmen to be worse people)?


Because most profit margins for most smaller businesses are closer to 4-5%. Not everyone is Microsoft or Boeing, Mr. Economist.

/yes, you'll still reply with fine, make 3% instead
//thank god you obviously don't run a business
 
2014-01-10 11:11:39 AM  
Pfft, they were working Part Time at Staples. BFD.
 
2014-01-10 11:12:12 AM  

Pincy: Can we please just move on to single payer and stop making health insurance dependent upon if you work for a shiatty employer or not.


We don't need single payer to remove the dependency between healthcare and employment.  Those two should have never been mixed in the first place.  Just let people work for money, what they trade that money for is up to them.
 
2014-01-10 11:27:56 AM  

buny101: What is constitutional at one point changes in time, according to the balances of the court and public opinion.


You mean like the Voting Rights Act?
 
2014-01-10 11:28:55 AM  

djh0101010: Pretty sure any asshole-ish move by any employer or insurance company for the next $YEARS will be blamed on Obamacare.  It's a wonderful excuse for anyone to use, true or not.


In a sense this is about Obamacare but it's really a more general thing--employers keep people on part time to avoid paying benefits.  Obamacare effectively redefined full time as 30 hr/wk so they are reducing the number of hours to get below the new threshold for full time.

el_pilgrim: "Staples is limiting the number of hours part-time associates can work to 25 hours a week ..."

"...a way to skirt impending rules requiring companies to provide health insurance for full-time employees or face a steep penalty."

one of these things is not like the other?
Seems to me it would only be sleazy if they did this to full-time employees, what they are doing is creating a clear definition between part-time and full-time.


No.  The rules cut the number of hours for full time so the stores are reacting by cutting the number of hours their part timers work.  The real problem is the system has a big divide between part time and full time in the first place.

A simple fix:  Companies count up how much they pay in benefits.  Any employee not eligible for a benefit due to a lack of hours gets an appropriate share added to their hourly rate.  (ie, insurance for a full-timer costs the company $4k. Anyone not eligible for insurance gets an extra $2/hr.)
 
2014-01-10 11:30:19 AM  

Deoan: ReapTheChaos: Zombalupagus: Solution: Require insurance for all employees. Suddenly places will want to have people work full time again.

/or, failing that, at least some kind of sliding scale

Then they will just make all employment a salaried position and then start abusing the shiat out of people by making them work a 50-60 hour week for 40 hours worth of pay.

Salary or not, unless you are an "exempt" class, they still have to pay you overtime.

See also: devs lawsuit against apple a few years back.


No they don't. I'm sure they may be exceptions to this, but in general a salaried position does not get paid overtime, that's kind of the whole point to it.
 
2014-01-10 11:31:43 AM  
When you slap goofy laws in place to entitle people to certain things, you always run the risk of causing the employer to behave in ways that weren't intended.  It all balances out.  They cut the hours to 25 per part time employee, they hire one extra part time employee.  Good for the one new employee, bad for the dozen old employees.  There's nothing sleazy about this.  Be happy they can't ship the jobs overseas.

This is why I laugh at the "tax the evil corporations" crowd.  You can't dictate every aspect of how a business is run through populist legislation.
 
2014-01-10 11:31:58 AM  

drop: CtrlAltDestroy:
Because we have a for-profit healthcare system. So good health isn't seen as a right (which seems to fly in the face of the preamble to our constitution).

The level of ignorance responsible for statements like this is at the core of basically every left vs. right argument about economics and socialism.  When you have no idea what a right actually is, what the word means, and base your arguments on your faulty understanding, it's no wonder there's conflict.

Here's a hint to perhaps set you on the right path:  Rights are about what you are free achieve, not what others are obligated to provide.  There is a difference between your ability to exercize a right, and your freedom to do so if you have the ability.  One is guaranteed, the other is not.


You seem to have some preexisting idea of what I'm trying to say instead of what I'm actually saying. Providing for the welfare of the people and allowing them to have the chance at success is what a government should do for it's citizens. If you are without healthcare, you are far too often unable to be well enough to have a chance to achieve anything.

Here's a hint to set you on the right path: the single most common reason for personal bankruptcy is health care induced debt. Doing absolutely nothing wrong can lead to you being crippled for life, either literally or metaphorically. Someone else crashes into you in an intersection, genetically related cancer, etc. If someone is unhealthy or buried in debt for no action of their own they are unable to be a functioning member of society.

You are full of bootstrapy, unrealistic shiat. Go troll someone else. You'll get nothing further from me.
 
2014-01-10 11:41:38 AM  

Slartibartfaster: styckx: Buzzfeed link.

NOPE..

so you hate buzzfeed... why ?

(note you are posting on FARK.com your reason has to include something that makes buzzfeed different to fark)


Buzzfeed has to pay a full-time staff to generate time-wasting drek. Fark gets people to do that for free. Fark has even taken it to a whole new level - getting people to PAY a monthly fee to generate content for them. Buzzfeed is your dimwitted cousin, and Fark is your slick nephew who never got his GED and doesn't have a real job, but still drives a Ferrari with the money he's conning off people. Gotta respect that...
 
2014-01-10 11:55:29 AM  

cirby: Caffeinatedjedi:
Really, just give your damn employees benefits. So what if your 10,000 % profit percentage is suddenly reduced to 9,999 %?

You mean "So what if your 2.2% profit margin is suddenly reduced to a loss?" You have some interesting ideas about how much actual companies make, especially during a long recession.


Ahh the old percent scam. 2.2% profit on 100,000 is low but 2.2% on 10 million is huge.  You claim supermarkets but most large scale stores sell millions per month.  The added cost to give insurance an living wage would barely scratch that 2.2%.  Small business are different and most of them are exempt from ACA anyway.
 
2014-01-10 12:00:31 PM  

emarica: Why is heath care tied to employment in the USA?


It's a holdover from the FDR administration's wage controls.
 
2014-01-10 12:02:44 PM  

CtrlAltDestroy: drop: CtrlAltDestroy:
Because we have a for-profit healthcare system. So good health isn't seen as a right (which seems to fly in the face of the preamble to our constitution).

The level of ignorance responsible for statements like this is at the core of basically every left vs. right argument about economics and socialism.  When you have no idea what a right actually is, what the word means, and base your arguments on your faulty understanding, it's no wonder there's conflict.

Here's a hint to perhaps set you on the right path:  Rights are about what you are free achieve, not what others are obligated to provide.  There is a difference between your ability to exercize a right, and your freedom to do so if you have the ability.  One is guaranteed, the other is not.

You seem to have some preexisting idea of what I'm trying to say instead of what I'm actually saying.


No, I responded directly to what you actually said.  Healthcare is considered a right; in fact, nearly everything you can imagine doing, you have the right to do.  See the 10th amendment.  You seem to think it's not considered a right, because people are not entitled to receive it for "free."  That is not how rights work.


Providing for the welfare of the people and allowing them to have the chance at success is what a government should do for it's citizens. If you are without healthcare, you are far too often unable to be well enough to have a chance to achieve anything.

Entirely different argument.  What you think government should do, and what I think it should do, are no doubt completely different.  The rights we both have are not though (well, unless you're a felon), nor is the definition of the word.
 
2014-01-10 12:04:47 PM  

Ker_Thwap: When you slap goofy laws in place to entitle people to certain things, you always run the risk of causing the employer to behave in ways that weren't intended.  It all balances out.  They cut the hours to 25 per part time employee, they hire one extra part time employee.  Good for the one new employee, bad for the dozen old employees.  There's nothing sleazy about this.  Be happy they can't ship the jobs overseas.

This is why I laugh at the "tax the evil corporations" crowd.  You can't dictate every aspect of how a business is run through populist legislation.


Healthcare should be provided by the government then, since it's not the responsibility of the corporations, and we are all guaranteed "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness", right? Note that it doesn't say "the pursuit of life".
 
2014-01-10 12:06:39 PM  

sufferpuppet: Pincy: Can we please just move on to single payer and stop making health insurance dependent upon if you work for a shiatty employer or not.

We don't need single payer to remove the dependency between healthcare and employment.  Those two should have never been mixed in the first place.  Just let people work for money, what they trade that money for is up to them.


Sorry, that doesn't work because people will go without health insurance and then force the rest of us to pick up the bill when they head off to the emergency room.  And there are other costs to having people forgo medical treatment as well.  Force everyone to pay into a single-payer system through taxes (just like do in almost every other civilized country in the world) and you get the best of both worlds: cheaper health care and a healthier population.
 
2014-01-10 12:07:51 PM  

drop: CtrlAltDestroy: drop: CtrlAltDestroy:
Because we have a for-profit healthcare system. So good health isn't seen as a right (which seems to fly in the face of the preamble to our constitution).

The level of ignorance responsible for statements like this is at the core of basically every left vs. right argument about economics and socialism.  When you have no idea what a right actually is, what the word means, and base your arguments on your faulty understanding, it's no wonder there's conflict.

Here's a hint to perhaps set you on the right path:  Rights are about what you are free achieve, not what others are obligated to provide.  There is a difference between your ability to exercize a right, and your freedom to do so if you have the ability.  One is guaranteed, the other is not.

You seem to have some preexisting idea of what I'm trying to say instead of what I'm actually saying.

No, I responded directly to what you actually said.  Healthcare is considered a right; in fact, nearly everything you can imagine doing, you have the right to do.  See the 10th amendment.  You seem to think it's not considered a right, because people are not entitled to receive it for "free."  That is not how rights work.


Providing for the welfare of the people and allowing them to have the chance at success is what a government should do for it's citizens. If you are without healthcare, you are far too often unable to be well enough to have a chance to achieve anything.

Entirely different argument.  What you think government should do, and what I think it should do, are no doubt completely different.  The rights we both have are not though (well, unless you're a felon), nor is the definition of the word.


Is charging people to vote ok? What about other prohibitive measures to access/exercise one's rights?
 
2014-01-10 12:21:56 PM  

robbiex0r: drop: CtrlAltDestroy: drop: CtrlAltDestroy:


Is charging people to vote ok? What about other prohibitive measures to access/exercise one's rights?


You mean like the right to bear arms?
 
2014-01-10 12:27:57 PM  
FALSE.
The Democrat mouthpieces (DailyKos, MSNBC, etc) assured us that there is no evidence employers are actually taking these actions, therefore this story is a lie.
 
2014-01-10 12:40:50 PM  

Ker_Thwap: When you slap goofy laws in place to entitle people to certain things, you always run the risk of causing the employer to behave in ways that weren't intended.  It all balances out.  They cut the hours to 25 per part time employee, they hire one extra part time employee.  Good for the one new employee, bad for the dozen old employees.  There's nothing sleazy about this.  Be happy they can't ship the jobs overseas.

This is why I laugh at the "tax the evil corporations" crowd.  You can't dictate every aspect of how a business is run through populist legislation.


You and I have very different opinions on what's considered sleazy. Hiring another employee when you already have employees willing to put in the hours simply to avoid paying them benefits is the very definition of sleazy in my book.
 
2014-01-10 12:41:17 PM  
 
2014-01-10 12:41:56 PM  

ReapTheChaos: You and I have very different opinions on what's considered sleazy. Hiring another employee when you already have employees willing to put in the hours simply to avoid paying them benefits is the very definition of sleazy in my book.


you sound greedy
 
2014-01-10 12:51:31 PM  
How this is different than any other company who has been keeping people under 40 hrs a week so they don't qualify for full benefits? ACA has lowered the bar so the employers would have to cover those working 39.5 hours... but not quite 40. Yes, the company is sleazy as well as all the others. They're only worried about the bottom line. That's why Capitalism is supposed to be so perfect but this is using Obamacare for a scapegoat.
 
2014-01-10 01:12:26 PM  

ginko: How this is different than any other company who has been keeping people under 40 hrs a week so they don't qualify for full benefits? ACA has lowered the bar so the employers would have to cover those working 39.5 hours... but not quite 40. Yes, the company is sleazy as well as all the others. They're only worried about the bottom line. That's why Capitalism is supposed to be so perfect but this is using Obamacare for a scapegoat.


It's a bit different because these people actually were part timers. 32 hours a week is 4 days at 8 hours or 6 to 6.5 hours five days a week. A lot of people in that time range are people like mothers who are working while their kids are in school, college students who work in between classes, classroom aides and so on. They can't work full time hours and fit the rest of their life in. Any employer who is going to have to pay for the full benefits anyway is going to want them to work at a minimum the full 40 hours a week for the best return on that very expensive investment.

Speaking of that investment what if the persons job doesn't have all that high of a return on what it costs to keep them employed full time because of seasonal needs? That's where a lot of those 39.5 hour weeks come in, they last for a few weeks or months then they drop back down to 20 hours or so of actual work to be done. Are they supposed to pay them full wages and supply health insurance even though they don't work because there's literally nothing to do? Are they supposed to drop them from their insurance because they are no longer considered "Full time" and leave the employees out to hang when tax time comes and they end up having to pay a fine because they had enough time not being insured over the year for it to kick in? Last time I checked the policies are for a year on the exchange. Are the employees supposed to pay for their insurance through the exchanges year round AND the employers double up on it when they are working enough to be considered full time?

It's a freaking mess.
 
2014-01-10 01:22:49 PM  

ReapTheChaos: Ker_Thwap: When you slap goofy laws in place to entitle people to certain things, you always run the risk of causing the employer to behave in ways that weren't intended.  It all balances out.  They cut the hours to 25 per part time employee, they hire one extra part time employee.  Good for the one new employee, bad for the dozen old employees.  There's nothing sleazy about this.  Be happy they can't ship the jobs overseas.

This is why I laugh at the "tax the evil corporations" crowd.  You can't dictate every aspect of how a business is run through populist legislation.

You and I have very different opinions on what's considered sleazy. Hiring another employee when you already have employees willing to put in the hours simply to avoid paying them benefits is the very definition of sleazy in my book.


Eh, I think it's sleazy to pass a law that attempts to force an employer to flat out give a pay/benefit raise to employees they've already hired.

Put yourself in an employers shoes.  You hire Bob, a real person, to labor for 6 hours a day at your house.  You and Bob both agree that you'll pay him $24 an hour, because that's what his time is worth, and that's what you can afford to pay, because you also have to pay taxes on his wages, so your actual cost is more like $30 an hour.  You're both relatively happy with that number, he'd like more, you'd like to pay less.  But, you pay your $2,070 a month and get the work done around your house.  You're a kind hearted soul, Bob isn't working overly hard, what an awesome person you are for paying Bob that much.

Suddenly, a third party interjects themselves into the proceedings and says, "pay his health insurance premium, because it's a nice thing to do for Bob."  The rock bottom cheapest plan costs you $200 a month.  But, but, you've already negotiated with Bob a certain amount, so he can afford his own damned health care.  Shut up and give him more, it's the law.   Go tell your employer you need $200 a month more now, so that you can pay Bob, I'm sure they'll understand.  Oh, they didn't?  I guess it can come out of your pizza fund, you don't need pizza.  It's just coming out of your expendable income, why should you care?  You'll just wasted it on bon bons.
 
2014-01-10 01:30:28 PM  

emarica: Why is heath care tied to employment in the USA?


Because...well...actually there is no good reason at all. It's a complete fluke because of a footnote in a piece of federal legislation many years ago. Logically it makes no sense whatsoever.
 
2014-01-10 01:33:05 PM  

robbiex0r: Ker_Thwap: When you slap goofy laws in place to entitle people to certain things, you always run the risk of causing the employer to behave in ways that weren't intended.  It all balances out.  They cut the hours to 25 per part time employee, they hire one extra part time employee.  Good for the one new employee, bad for the dozen old employees.  There's nothing sleazy about this.  Be happy they can't ship the jobs overseas.

This is why I laugh at the "tax the evil corporations" crowd.  You can't dictate every aspect of how a business is run through populist legislation.

Healthcare should be provided by the government then, since it's not the responsibility of the corporations, and we are all guaranteed "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness", right? Note that it doesn't say "the pursuit of life".


Seriously, that's an ugly straw man argument, and you can add in a false dichotomy as well.  At no point did I mention anything remotely related to the Declaration of Independence.  Nor are these the only two choices available.
 
2014-01-10 01:38:30 PM  
emarica: Why is heath care tied to employment in the USA?

Large employers started doing it in the 1940s to attract workers. It is not a requirement. Technically, it still isn't.
 
2014-01-10 01:56:17 PM  
Just so we're clear, a company sends a memo telling stores to maintain the part time status of part time employees by ensuring they are scheduled the appropriate amount of hours is wrong?

It doesn't have anything to do with ACA. It's about maintaining the proper FT/PT ratio in your store for scheduling purposes. Even I know this.
 
2014-01-10 02:03:02 PM  

robbiex0r: drop: CtrlAltDestroy: drop: CtrlAltDestroy:
Because we have a for-profit healthcare system. So good health isn't seen as a right (which seems to fly in the face of the preamble to our constitution).

The level of ignorance responsible for statements like this is at the core of basically every left vs. right argument about economics and socialism.  When you have no idea what a right actually is, what the word means, and base your arguments on your faulty understanding, it's no wonder there's conflict.

Here's a hint to perhaps set you on the right path:  Rights are about what you are free achieve, not what others are obligated to provide.  There is a difference between your ability to exercize a right, and your freedom to do so if you have the ability.  One is guaranteed, the other is not.

You seem to have some preexisting idea of what I'm trying to say instead of what I'm actually saying.

No, I responded directly to what you actually said.  Healthcare is considered a right; in fact, nearly everything you can imagine doing, you have the right to do.  See the 10th amendment.  You seem to think it's not considered a right, because people are not entitled to receive it for "free."  That is not how rights work.


Providing for the welfare of the people and allowing them to have the chance at success is what a government should do for it's citizens. If you are without healthcare, you are far too often unable to be well enough to have a chance to achieve anything.

Entirely different argument.  What you think government should do, and what I think it should do, are no doubt completely different.  The rights we both have are not though (well, unless you're a felon), nor is the definition of the word.

Is charging people to vote ok? What about other prohibitive measures to access/exercise one's rights?


Actually, a right is something that can only be taken away from you. not given. That's how rights work. They were yours to begin with. The right to free speech, the right to a speedy trial, the right to freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures? All rights that belong to you in the first place. Healthcare is a benefit. ACCESS to healthcare is a right, but coverage is not. No one can deny you from going to seek medical attention. Paying for that SERVICE however is a completely different story because you are getting a service provided to you by another individual.
 
2014-01-10 02:11:35 PM  
cirby - You mean "So what if your 2.2% profit margin is suddenly reduced to a loss?" You have some interesting ideas about how much actual companies make, especially during a long recession.

I don't need to see any ideas. I see them driving their white Lexus because it is Tuesday. They have three vehicles and plenty of these owners do not have kids. Why do you need three cars, four houses, a fishing boat, enough money to own the state, and yet wish to complain? A prime example of what has been happening in our society here is the modern definition of 'broke'. When I use it, I mean I am broke... not a dime to my name. No car, no assets to sell...BROKE. When you speak to one of the upper crust and they use the word 'broke', they mean they have less than $1000 in the bank and less than $10,000 in savings, and only have two cars and two houses, etc. It is pathetic than some owners have the chance to do right by the people that make them richer and yet choose to whine and screw these same people just because Mr Owner might not get to go to Cancun twice this year... assuming they get back from Europe in time for that vacation.... so very pathetic.

/if rich people would just behave like human beings and not like soulless vultures, they might be treated with a little more respect...
 
2014-01-10 02:27:41 PM  

emarica: Why is heath care tied to employment in the USA?


Everything is tied to employment in America. Basically your "productivity" is the sole measure of your worth as a human being in America, the land of plenty.
 
2014-01-10 02:44:06 PM  

cwolf20: In other news. Fark was picking on people for going ahead and doing that last year.  Before the official launch of it.


It was Republicans going "DUH DUH BUT THIS WILL DESTROY AMURICA WITH PEOPLE SLASHING JOBS TO 15 HOURS A WEEK!" and liberals of all colors going "No no it'll be great we'll rob the rich and feed the poor!"

The relevant conspiracy theory is that Obama is trying to cause a major recession and damage the economy so bad that it collapses.  Then he can save it by becoming the United Soviet States of North America.
 
2014-01-10 02:47:07 PM  

ReapTheChaos: Deoan: ReapTheChaos: Zombalupagus: Solution: Require insurance for all employees. Suddenly places will want to have people work full time again.

/or, failing that, at least some kind of sliding scale

Then they will just make all employment a salaried position and then start abusing the shiat out of people by making them work a 50-60 hour week for 40 hours worth of pay.

Salary or not, unless you are an "exempt" class, they still have to pay you overtime.

See also: devs lawsuit against apple a few years back.

No they don't. I'm sure they may be exceptions to this, but in general a salaried position does not get paid overtime, that's kind of the whole point to it.


http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/07/18/salaried-workers-do-you-get- pa id-for-overtime-odds-are-you-sho/
http://www.washington.edu/admin/hr/ocpsp/flsa-ot/flsa.html
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/career-management/are-salaried-empl oy ees-entitled-to-overtime-pay/
http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossarye/g/exempt.htm

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/overtimepay.htm
http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-flsa.htm

Did you even bother to look before bending over for your employer?
 
2014-01-10 03:00:25 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Forbidden Doughnut: Smeggy Smurf: No shiat.  It's almost as though destroying the ability of people to afford anything was built into this abortion from the beginning

I would have preferred a Canadian-style Single Payer system, myself....

/ yeah, I know we can't have that....because it reeks of "Socialism"
// *sigh*

Crap, missed that one. You can have have your death panels and months of waiting for routine care all you want.  Me as a capitalist prefers to be able to afford proper care in a timely manner because I'm not a useless socialist who needs to hide behind government's apron strings like a little biatch.


That's odd. I know full well that anecdotes are not evidence, but a close friend who emigrated to Canada is eminently pleased with the Canadian healthcare system; he tells me he's never waited more than 15 minutes to see a doctor even for non-emergent care, and rates the facilities as among the best he's ever seen, and ditto for his wife.

And "death panels"? Really? That was shown to be a lie not long after it came up here.I'm pretty sure that's the same as in Canuckistan.
 
2014-01-10 03:07:37 PM  

Ker_Thwap: ReapTheChaos: Ker_Thwap: When you slap goofy laws in place to entitle people to certain things, you always run the risk of causing the employer to behave in ways that weren't intended.  It all balances out.  They cut the hours to 25 per part time employee, they hire one extra part time employee.  Good for the one new employee, bad for the dozen old employees.  There's nothing sleazy about this.  Be happy they can't ship the jobs overseas.

This is why I laugh at the "tax the evil corporations" crowd.  You can't dictate every aspect of how a business is run through populist legislation.

You and I have very different opinions on what's considered sleazy. Hiring another employee when you already have employees willing to put in the hours simply to avoid paying them benefits is the very definition of sleazy in my book.

Eh, I think it's sleazy to pass a law that attempts to force an employer to flat out give a pay/benefit raise to employees they've already hired.

Put yourself in an employers shoes.  You hire Bob, a real person, to labor for 6 hours a day at your house.  You and Bob both agree that you'll pay him $24 an hour, because that's what his time is worth, and that's what you can afford to pay, because you also have to pay taxes on his wages, so your actual cost is more like $30 an hour.  You're both relatively happy with that number, he'd like more, you'd like to pay less.  But, you pay your $2,070 a month and get the work done around your house.  You're a kind hearted soul, Bob isn't working overly hard, what an awesome person you are for paying Bob that much.

Suddenly, a third party interjects themselves into the proceedings and says, "pay his health insurance premium, because it's a nice thing to do for Bob."  The rock bottom cheapest plan costs you $200 a month.  But, but, you've already negotiated with Bob a certain amount, so he can afford his own damned health care.  Shut up and give him more, it's the law.   Go tell your employer you need $200 a month ...


Here's the problem with your false dichotomy, Bob is only one employee, unless you hire 49 more Bobs to clean your house (or hire 49 more Bobs and have them clean other people's houses too, not just your own), then the ACA doesn't apply and you do not have to pay Bob anything extra or get him healthcare. Bob would be on the hook for getting his own healthcare using funds from the salary you are paying him.
 
2014-01-10 03:39:20 PM  

buckler: That's odd. I know full well that anecdotes are not evidence, but a close friend who emigrated to Canada is eminently pleased with the Canadian healthcare system; he tells me he's never waited more than 15 minutes to see a doctor even for non-emergent care, and rates the facilities as among the best he's ever seen, and ditto for his wife.


Made it my mission to ask the Canadians I've meet if they were happy with their health care since I was very young.

I've gotten about 29 yea's and only one nay.

That only nay was a way upper class snowflake and his complaints were nonsensical.

Try that in America and see where it gets you.
 
2014-01-10 03:48:34 PM  

kim jong-un: emarica: Why is heath care tied to employment in the USA?

Because of wage controls set by the government. Healthcare didn't count for the limit so companies used it to entice workers.


In other words,  Hitler.
 
2014-01-10 03:52:51 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: Here's the problem with your false dichotomy, Bob is only one employee, unless you hire 49 more Bobs to clean your house (or hire 49 more Bobs and have them clean other people's houses too, not just your own), then the ACA doesn't apply and you do not have to pay Bob anything extra or get him healthcare. Bob would be on the hook for getting his own healthcare using funds from the salary you are paying him.


I certainly had no intention of presenting this as an either/or choice.  I'm not certain that I did.  I tried to create an illustrative example of the situation when applied to an individual basis.  Generally I don't scale my beliefs up and down depending on company size.  It's just a matter of empathy, or identifying with both sides involved.

Will a company with a 10% profit, and 50 part time employees feel the same pain that this law causes another company with a 2% profit and 50,000 part time employees?  How about a struggling company with 1% profits, that's labor based?  What options do they have, close up shop, or send the manufacturing overseas?  Lower the average hours worked? Skimp on some other benefit that isn't regulated by law?  Fire an employee anytime they get a sniff of some promised benefit?  Feel free to come up with more solutions, as I'm not trying to limit your choices, just providing some possibilities.
 
2014-01-10 04:06:14 PM  

zepillin: buckler: That's odd. I know full well that anecdotes are not evidence, but a close friend who emigrated to Canada is eminently pleased with the Canadian healthcare system; he tells me he's never waited more than 15 minutes to see a doctor even for non-emergent care, and rates the facilities as among the best he's ever seen, and ditto for his wife.

Made it my mission to ask the Canadians I've meet if they were happy with their health care since I was very young.

I've gotten about 29 yea's and only one nay.

That only nay was a way upper class snowflake and his complaints were nonsensical.

Try that in America and see where it gets you.


So, this reminds me of an old guy I met...  A friend of my dad's, he was about 80 at the time.  He was wintering in Florida, and needed some fairly important heart procedure.  Rather than paying for him to go to a local doctor, they sent a jet for him and scheduled the surgery in Canada.  Yes, sent a jet.  They didn't pay for his flight back to Florida however.  I can't determine whether this all qualifies for excellent care, or horrible care.  Maybe some bureaucrat needed some flight hours or something?
 
2014-01-10 04:15:02 PM  
Sounds like something Papa John's would do.
 
2014-01-10 04:30:29 PM  

Ker_Thwap: DarkSoulNoHope: Here's the problem with your false dichotomy, Bob is only one employee, unless you hire 49 more Bobs to clean your house (or hire 49 more Bobs and have them clean other people's houses too, not just your own), then the ACA doesn't apply and you do not have to pay Bob anything extra or get him healthcare. Bob would be on the hook for getting his own healthcare using funds from the salary you are paying him.

I certainly had no intention of presenting this as an either/or choice.  I'm not certain that I did.  I tried to create an illustrative example of the situation when applied to an individual basis.  Generally I don't scale my beliefs up and down depending on company size.  It's just a matter of empathy, or identifying with both sides involved.

Will a company with a 10% profit, and 50 part time employees feel the same pain that this law causes another company with a 2% profit and 50,000 part time employees?  How about a struggling company with 1% profits, that's labor based?What options do they have, close up shop, or send the manufacturing overseas?  Lower the average hours worked? Skimp on some other benefit that isn't regulated by law?  Fire an employee anytime they get a sniff of some promised benefit?  Feel free to come up with more solutions, as I'm not trying to limit your choices, just providing some possibilities.


You know a lot of companies that close up shop after 1 year of running in the red?
 
2014-01-10 04:47:38 PM  

robbiex0r: Ker_Thwap: DarkSoulNoHope: Here's the problem with your false dichotomy, Bob is only one employee, unless you hire 49 more Bobs to clean your house (or hire 49 more Bobs and have them clean other people's houses too, not just your own), then the ACA doesn't apply and you do not have to pay Bob anything extra or get him healthcare. Bob would be on the hook for getting his own healthcare using funds from the salary you are paying him.

I certainly had no intention of presenting this as an either/or choice.  I'm not certain that I did.  I tried to create an illustrative example of the situation when applied to an individual basis.  Generally I don't scale my beliefs up and down depending on company size.  It's just a matter of empathy, or identifying with both sides involved.

Will a company with a 10% profit, and 50 part time employees feel the same pain that this law causes another company with a 2% profit and 50,000 part time employees?  How about a struggling company with 1% profits, that's labor based?What options do they have, close up shop, or send the manufacturing overseas?  Lower the average hours worked? Skimp on some other benefit that isn't regulated by law?  Fire an employee anytime they get a sniff of some promised benefit?  Feel free to come up with more solutions, as I'm not trying to limit your choices, just providing some possibilities.

You know a lot of companies that close up shop after 1 year of running in the red?


Funny you should ask, yes.  I'm a retired Revenue Officer.  There were a wild variety of reasons why they weren't profitable of course.  Several come to mind who closed because they hired boatloads of new employees for the first time and weren't prepared for the costs of hiring, training, taxes, benefits, seasonal nature and a number of other unanticipated items. Pretty much a combination of poor planning and lack of initial capitalization.  Not every company is a multi national conglomerate that rakes in the elite loot while thumbing it's collective nose at the peons.

I've also seen all the other things I noted.  Business is hard.  I have a lot of empathy for the hard working individuals who risk everything in order to start up and expand their businesses.
 
2014-01-10 05:27:35 PM  

nyseattitude: Thunderpipes: nyseattitude: farkstorm: Most of the people affected already have insurance. You can stay on mommy's & daddy's insurance until you are 26 years old, long enough to finish college and get a full time job. If you can't get full-time employment at 26 years old, you should have paid better attention in high school. Now suffer the consequences of your own failures.

Do you enjoy repeating right wing lies or just lying in general?

How, in any way shape or form, is this not correct? You are why this country fails. Stupid libs, making crap up.

I've seen many of your posts and have seen you identified as racist, bigoted, partisan hack, a liar, delusional, crazy and "possibly dangerous". I don't converse with people like you.


Ladies and gentlemen, the "open-minded".
 
2014-01-10 05:56:36 PM  

Deoan: ReapTheChaos: Deoan: ReapTheChaos: Zombalupagus: Solution: Require insurance for all employees. Suddenly places will want to have people work full time again.

/or, failing that, at least some kind of sliding scale

Then they will just make all employment a salaried position and then start abusing the shiat out of people by making them work a 50-60 hour week for 40 hours worth of pay.

Salary or not, unless you are an "exempt" class, they still have to pay you overtime.

See also: devs lawsuit against apple a few years back.

No they don't. I'm sure they may be exceptions to this, but in general a salaried position does not get paid overtime, that's kind of the whole point to it.

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/07/18/salaried-workers-do-you-get- pa id-for-overtime-odds-are-you-sho/
http://www.washington.edu/admin/hr/ocpsp/flsa-ot/flsa.html
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/career-management/are-salaried-empl oy ees-entitled-to-overtime-pay/
http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossarye/g/exempt.htm

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/overtimepay.htm
http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-flsa.htm

Did you even bother to look before bending over for your employer?


From your links:
The following are examples of employees exempt from both the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements:

Executive, administrative, and professional employees (including teachers and academic administrative personnel in elementary and secondary schools), outside sales employees, and certain skilled computer professionals (as defined in the Department of Labor's regulations) 1


Basically, all IT, managerial, administrative, etc. are exempt.

I've been exempt salary for 20 years now.  It's nice being able to plan ahead knowing exactly what your next paycheck is going to be, even if you were out sick for a few days or you had to take a few days off to take care of your wife, that sort of thing.

Now, there were times I got the short end of the stick, of course, but then again I wasn't working on a grungy factory floor either, and I've never really felt like I was being *EXPLOITED*.    And I don't feel the least bit guilty leaving work early in the case of, say, a snowstorm.
 
2014-01-10 06:23:04 PM  
Obama made the rules. Can't blame the business owners for this one, though some will.

Had the libs read it before they passed it they would have prevented this "loophole".
 
2014-01-10 07:08:19 PM  

ckevinc: Obama made the rules. Can't blame the business owners for this one, though some will.

Had the libs read it before they passed it they would have prevented this "loophole".


Had there been any actual liberals in Congress at the time passing, we wouldn't have had to deal with this abortion of a law.

/Single payer got shot down
 
2014-01-10 07:15:42 PM  
Not surprising, not every employer in this country can reasonably afford to provide part time employees health insurance. 

ElLoco: Elandriel: el_pilgrim: FTA:
"Staples is limiting the number of hours part-time associates can work to 25 hours a week ..."

"...a way to skirt impending rules requiring companies to provide health insurance for full-time employees or face a steep penalty."

one of these things is not like the other?
Seems to me it would only be sleazy if they did this to full-time employees, what they are doing is creating a clear definition between part-time and full-time.

ACA treats employees working 30+ hours as full time and requires coverage for them.

It also means "More jobs!!" because more people will be working part-time. Cutting hours to 25 keeps employees well clear of the 30 hour break point and essentially guarantees no chance ever of encroaching into that magical overtime catagory, plus... go be poor and get your subsidized health care somewhere else, part-time peon.

But hey, unemployment numbers are down, am I right?

Or did people actually think the megacorps famous for utilizing cut rate labor wouldn't run the numbers on payroll + benefits, then come up with a more aggressive cost reduction strategy?


Since when did every single company on this planet need to have nothing but full time jobs for employees with benefits? That's not sustainable for most companies and its retarded to expect that. Congress and the president did this, not the company.
 
2014-01-10 07:18:07 PM  

NicktheSmoker: Not surprising, not every employer in this country can reasonably afford to provide part time employees health insurance.  ElLoco: Elandriel: el_pilgrim: FTA:
"Staples is limiting the number of hours part-time associates can work to 25 hours a week ..."

"...a way to skirt impending rules requiring companies to provide health insurance for full-time employees or face a steep penalty."

one of these things is not like the other?
Seems to me it would only be sleazy if they did this to full-time employees, what they are doing is creating a clear definition between part-time and full-time.

ACA treats employees working 30+ hours as full time and requires coverage for them.

It also means "More jobs!!" because more people will be working part-time. Cutting hours to 25 keeps employees well clear of the 30 hour break point and essentially guarantees no chance ever of encroaching into that magical overtime catagory, plus... go be poor and get your subsidized health care somewhere else, part-time peon.

But hey, unemployment numbers are down, am I right?

Or did people actually think the megacorps famous for utilizing cut rate labor wouldn't run the numbers on payroll + benefits, then come up with a more aggressive cost reduction strategy?

Since when did every single company on this planet need to have nothing but full time jobs for employees with benefits? That's not sustainable for most companies and its retarded to expect that. Congress and the president did this, not the company.


Bah, stupid phone.  Wasn't replaying to you ElLoco, i stopped after the first sentence and i hit reply not paying attention lol.
 
2014-01-10 07:23:30 PM  

emarica: Why is heath care tied to employment in the USA?


Because of government controlled wage caps in prior decades. Government, the cause and solution to every problem. Well... at least a solution to problems they cause... until that solution causes a new problem.

The old lady who swallowed a fly was a story of government.
 
2014-01-10 07:25:52 PM  

LordJiro: Thunderpipes: nyseattitude: farkstorm: Most of the people affected already have insurance. You can stay on mommy's & daddy's insurance until you are 26 years old, long enough to finish college and get a full time job. If you can't get full-time employment at 26 years old, you should have paid better attention in high school. Now suffer the consequences of your own failures.

Do you enjoy repeating right wing lies or just lying in general?

How, in any way shape or form, is this not correct? You are why this country fails. Stupid libs, making crap up.

For one thing, Republicans have gutted the public school system, and high school leaves many students unprepared for college. For another, college is expensive, and many families cannot afford it, even with scholarships.

And again, a high school diploma USED to get you a half-decent full-time job, not a dead-end fast food job that doesn't even pay enough for a roof over your head without government aid; those were largely reserved for dropouts.


Spending pet pupil in the US is the highest in the world. It is triple what it was in 1980. Does "gutted" mean something different to liberals. Maybe it means administration now takes half of all school funds. Who are those admins... liberals.
 
2014-01-10 07:30:56 PM  

Mentat: buny101: This law was passed full of loopholes and problems. So, instead of pointing out those problems, your solution would be to play nicely like the law is a good law with no problems? To take a financial beating just for the sake of propping up an invasive, unconstitutional law? That is really your answer? Wow. Ok. I get it now.

A law that's upheld by the Supreme Court is by definition constitutional.


Only two parts of ACA were before the court, one of the parts was struck down. More parts are coming before it as standing accrues. You should know this, but you continue to ignore it.

Ignorance does not equal facts.
 
2014-01-10 07:33:13 PM  

MmmmBacon: g4lt: Nope, can't imagine why Staples would attempt to torpedo the PPACA

[s1.reutersmedia.net image 450x266]

Which I still find amazing, since the PPACA was based off of Romney's healthcare plan from his time as the Governor of Massachusetts. The GOP insisted on this plan, and did everything possible to block what Obama really wanted, which was a single-payer, truly universal healthcare plan. Then when Obama agrees with the GOP so some form of healthcare reform can get passed, suddenly it's "Obamacare", and the worst thing ever, according to the GOP.

Fark the GOP and their BS. We should have single-payer, universal healthcare, like most of the rest of the First World nations do. But instead we are stuck with this system that is basically a handout to for-profit health insurers, and the GOP get to blame the Dems for it, when it was their idea in the first place!


Gop never insisted on it, blue dog democrats did. Every significant GOP amendment was struck down by liberals.

Why do you liberals insist on lying about how this was passed? You are all so god damn ignorant.
 
2014-01-10 07:52:55 PM  
"loophole" = exactly what people said would happen

ok.
 
2014-01-10 08:12:29 PM  

MyRandomName: MmmmBacon: g4lt: Nope, can't imagine why Staples would attempt to torpedo the PPACA

[s1.reutersmedia.net image 450x266]

Which I still find amazing, since the PPACA was based off of Romney's healthcare plan from his time as the Governor of Massachusetts. The GOP insisted on this plan, and did everything possible to block what Obama really wanted, which was a single-payer, truly universal healthcare plan. Then when Obama agrees with the GOP so some form of healthcare reform can get passed, suddenly it's "Obamacare", and the worst thing ever, according to the GOP.

Fark the GOP and their BS. We should have single-payer, universal healthcare, like most of the rest of the First World nations do. But instead we are stuck with this system that is basically a handout to for-profit health insurers, and the GOP get to blame the Dems for it, when it was their idea in the first place!

Gop never insisted on it, blue dog democrats did. Every significant GOP amendment was struck down by liberals.


So which of the GOP amendments that were rejected advocated single-payer? Most of the ones I remember were umteen variations on repeal/delay with no actual workable plan offered up as an alternative.
 
2014-01-10 08:17:15 PM  
What the L?
 
2014-01-10 08:20:13 PM  

CtrlAltDestroy: Here's a hint to set you on the right path: the single most common reason for personal bankruptcy is health care induced debt. Doing absolutely nothing wrong can lead to you being crippled for life, either literally or metaphorically. Someone else crashes into you in an intersection, genetically related cancer, etc. If someone is unhealthy or buried in debt for no action of their own they are unable to be a functioning member of society.


Except this is bad data produced by "researchers" who are interested in pushing their position, not in the truth.

The truth is the majority of bankruptcies include at least one medical bill.

TNel: Ahh the old percent scam. 2.2% profit on 100,000 is low but 2.2% on 10 million is huge. You claim supermarkets but most large scale stores sell millions per month. The added cost to give insurance an living wage would barely scratch that 2.2%. Small business are different and most of them are exempt from ACA anyway.


The bigger the company the more it would cost to provide the insurance.  Percentage is the right way to look at these things.
 
2014-01-10 08:23:57 PM  

MyRandomName: LordJiro: Thunderpipes: nyseattitude: farkstorm: Most of the people affected already have insurance. You can stay on mommy's & daddy's insurance until you are 26 years old, long enough to finish college and get a full time job. If you can't get full-time employment at 26 years old, you should have paid better attention in high school. Now suffer the consequences of your own failures.

Do you enjoy repeating right wing lies or just lying in general?

How, in any way shape or form, is this not correct? You are why this country fails. Stupid libs, making crap up.

For one thing, Republicans have gutted the public school system, and high school leaves many students unprepared for college. For another, college is expensive, and many families cannot afford it, even with scholarships.

And again, a high school diploma USED to get you a half-decent full-time job, not a dead-end fast food job that doesn't even pay enough for a roof over your head without government aid; those were largely reserved for dropouts.

Spending pet pupil in the US is the highest in the world. It is triple what it was in 1980. Does "gutted" mean something different to liberals. Maybe it means administration now takes half of all school funds. Who are those admins... liberals.


Of course the rest of the first word does not include teacher and administrator health insurance in their education costs, which not coincidentally have been rising well above inflation since the 1980s.  Apples and oranges.
 
2014-01-10 09:32:37 PM  

emarica: Why is heath care tied to employment in the USA?


It's not.  When I was working as a contractor I purchased medical insurance on the open market.  So can you.

Get out sometime... Basements are meant for storage.
 
2014-01-10 09:38:43 PM  

Enemabag Jones: The Larch
Zombalupagus: Solution: Require insurance for all employees. Suddenly places will want to have people work full time again.
Better solution: make employer provided health insurance illegal.
I keep reading about how employers want to choose what kind of health insurance their employees are allowed to purchase. Apparently, some employers are even going to the Supreme Court based on some sort of insane legal theory that their employees are the legal property of their employer and that employers should get to make health care decisions for their employers.
Since it's employer provided health insurance is obviously such a problem, we should get rid of it.

I see the Affordable Healthcare Act as an opportunity. While I would love to have a great job where I can visit a doctor with a $50 co-pay on the cheap, I think it is great that people can buy decent insurance without insane loopholes. No bullshiat preconditions, six month wait for specialists, or be denied for coverage if someone forgets something minor on their health insurance forms.

I could be self-employed or work a series of temp jobs and not have to worry about the 60 or 90 days rules. I am free from having to work one full time job dedicated to one employer.

For the "I've got mine" crowd angry that this could change their healthcare, there were events going on outside their window that were pretty insane.


Newsflash:  You were free to do that before Obamacare.
 
2014-01-10 10:03:51 PM  
You know the only answer to all of this mess is dont be a worker. Working class is about the worst possible place to be in the U.S.
 
2014-01-10 11:02:04 PM  

Ontos: Enemabag Jones: The Larch
Zombalupagus: Solution: Require insurance for all employees. Suddenly places will want to have people work full time again.
Better solution: make employer provided health insurance illegal.
I keep reading about how employers want to choose what kind of health insurance their employees are allowed to purchase. Apparently, some employers are even going to the Supreme Court based on some sort of insane legal theory that their employees are the legal property of their employer and that employers should get to make health care decisions for their employers.
Since it's employer provided health insurance is obviously such a problem, we should get rid of it.

I see the Affordable Healthcare Act as an opportunity. While I would love to have a great job where I can visit a doctor with a $50 co-pay on the cheap, I think it is great that people can buy decent insurance without insane loopholes. No bullshiat preconditions, six month wait for specialists, or be denied for coverage if someone forgets something minor on their health insurance forms.

I could be self-employed or work a series of temp jobs and not have to worry about the 60 or 90 days rules. I am free from having to work one full time job dedicated to one employer.

For the "I've got mine" crowd angry that this could change their healthcare, there were events going on outside their window that were pretty insane.

Newsflash:  You were free to do that before Obamacare.


I did that before Obamacare.

I just didn't have health insurance.

Now I do.  I'm happy about that.

/I'd be happier about single payer.
 
Displayed 264 of 264 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report