"Obamacare"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-01-2014, 04:02 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 06:23 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Unintended consequence of Obamacare.

I have a small business. I employ a total of 65 people, 1/3rd are part time. Health Insurance premiums run approximately $583 per person, per month. Now before, I was allowed to ask employees to pay 10% of their gross salary toward their health insurance, up to $150 per insured individual. I stipulated in their employment contract that if they got "exceeds expectations" on their employee reviews, and consistently came into work, and were loyal to me in terms of working, I gave back all the money they paid toward their health insurance, plus 20% of their salary as a bonus, if the company saw profits.

Now, thanks to obamacare, I can only ask an employee to pay 10% of their HOUSEHOLD income, which could mean that they don't help me pay for their health insurance at all...they get that free ride...whether they deserved it or not. That sounds fair.

I also used to give my part time employees health care as well, with the same requirement that they pay a portion of that out of their paycheck.

However, now that the overall premiums are increasing by at least 10%, I can no longer afford to give these part timers health insurance. I do not even have the option of making them pay more for this insurance, being that its household income requirement and all.

Now, Obama considers anything over 50 employees to be a bigger business. So I guess I have the option of letting go 15 people so that 50 can see bonus'. Bottomline, Obamacare is eating away at my profits...profits that I am not greedily stuffing into my pocket, but profits that I share with my employees that EARN it through hard work and dedication.

Its sad, but a lot of small business are facing very difficult decision due to Obamacare.

If I do have to lay off people...I am going to do something I saw on Facebook. I'm going to find everyone who has an Obama sticker on their car. They will be the first ones to go...since they wanted "change" and all.

thanks for sharing your story.

English is not my native language.
that awkward moment between the Premortal Existence and your Resurrection
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2014, 06:43 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2014 06:51 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: "Obamacare"
This is coming from a lifelong Gumbymint employee so more than a couple grains of salt are warranted.

(21-01-2014 06:23 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Now before, I was allowed to ask employees to pay 10% of their gross salary toward their health insurance, up to $150 per insured individual. ... Now, thanks to obamacare, I can only ask an employee to pay 10% of their HOUSEHOLD income, which could mean that they don't help me pay for their health insurance at all...they get that free ride...whether they deserved it or not. That sounds fair.

I ain't following you here. Seems like 10% of their household income in every case will be equal to or greater than the gross salary you pay them. ... Ah, think I got it 10%/$150 for each insured individual.

(21-01-2014 06:23 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Unintended consequence of Obamacare.

I have a small business. I employ a total of 65 people, 1/3rd are part time. Health Insurance premiums run approximately $583 per person, per month. Now before, I was allowed to ask employees to pay 10% of their gross salary toward their health insurance, up to $150 per insured individual. I stipulated in their employment contract that if they got "exceeds expectations" on their employee reviews, and consistently came into work, and were loyal to me in terms of working, I gave back all the money they paid toward their health insurance, plus 20% of their salary as a bonus, if the company saw profits.

Now, thanks to obamacare, I can only ask an employee to pay 10% of their HOUSEHOLD income, which could mean that they don't help me pay for their health insurance at all...they get that free ride...whether they deserved it or not. That sounds fair.

I also used to give my part time employees health care as well, with the same requirement that they pay a portion of that out of their paycheck.

However, now that the overall premiums are increasing by at least 10%, I can no longer afford to give these part timers health insurance. I do not even have the option of making them pay more for this insurance, being that its household income requirement and all.

Now, Obama considers anything over 50 employees to be a bigger business. So I guess I have the option of letting go 15 people so that 50 can see bonus'. Bottomline, Obamacare is eating away at my profits...profits that I am not greedily stuffing into my pocket, but profits that I share with my employees that EARN it through hard work and dedication.

Its sad, but a lot of small business are facing very difficult decision due to Obamacare.

If I do have to lay off people...I am going to do something I saw on Facebook. I'm going to find everyone who has an Obama sticker on their car. They will be the first ones to go...since they wanted "change" and all.

I think you have a number of options available if you get creative. You could send them all to an exchange for their healthcare and still promise to reimburse them for their premiums if they met your conditions laundered in the form of the "performance bonus" you already give. Or you could send just the part-time employees to an exchange and still make the same commitment to them. If you are their sole source of income they may very well do better there and may actually reduce your cost in the form of this "performance bonus". If I were a small business owner, I'd be running all sorta numbers to see what is best for both the company and the employees. You may very well find some combination which reduces your costs and benefits your employees.

This is coming from a lifelong Gumbymint employee so more than a couple grains of salt are warranted.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2014, 08:08 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(22-01-2014 06:43 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  This is coming from a lifelong Gumbymint employee so more than a couple grains of salt are warranted.

(21-01-2014 06:23 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Now before, I was allowed to ask employees to pay 10% of their gross salary toward their health insurance, up to $150 per insured individual. ... Now, thanks to obamacare, I can only ask an employee to pay 10% of their HOUSEHOLD income, which could mean that they don't help me pay for their health insurance at all...they get that free ride...whether they deserved it or not. That sounds fair.

I ain't following you here. Seems like 10% of their household income in every case will be equal to or greater than the gross salary you pay them. ... Ah, think I got it 10%/$150 for each insured individual.

(21-01-2014 06:23 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Unintended consequence of Obamacare.

I have a small business. I employ a total of 65 people, 1/3rd are part time. Health Insurance premiums run approximately $583 per person, per month. Now before, I was allowed to ask employees to pay 10% of their gross salary toward their health insurance, up to $150 per insured individual. I stipulated in their employment contract that if they got "exceeds expectations" on their employee reviews, and consistently came into work, and were loyal to me in terms of working, I gave back all the money they paid toward their health insurance, plus 20% of their salary as a bonus, if the company saw profits.

Now, thanks to obamacare, I can only ask an employee to pay 10% of their HOUSEHOLD income, which could mean that they don't help me pay for their health insurance at all...they get that free ride...whether they deserved it or not. That sounds fair.

I also used to give my part time employees health care as well, with the same requirement that they pay a portion of that out of their paycheck.

However, now that the overall premiums are increasing by at least 10%, I can no longer afford to give these part timers health insurance. I do not even have the option of making them pay more for this insurance, being that its household income requirement and all.

Now, Obama considers anything over 50 employees to be a bigger business. So I guess I have the option of letting go 15 people so that 50 can see bonus'. Bottomline, Obamacare is eating away at my profits...profits that I am not greedily stuffing into my pocket, but profits that I share with my employees that EARN it through hard work and dedication.

Its sad, but a lot of small business are facing very difficult decision due to Obamacare.

If I do have to lay off people...I am going to do something I saw on Facebook. I'm going to find everyone who has an Obama sticker on their car. They will be the first ones to go...since they wanted "change" and all.

I think you have a number of options available if you get creative. You could send them all to an exchange for their healthcare and still promise to reimburse them for their premiums if they met your conditions laundered in the form of the "performance bonus" you already give. Or you could send just the part-time employees to an exchange and still make the same commitment to them. If you are their sole source of income they may very well do better there and may actually reduce your cost in the form of this "performance bonus". If I were a small business owner, I'd be running all sorta numbers to see what is best for both the company and the employees. You may very well find some combination which reduces your costs and benefits your employees.

This is coming from a lifelong Gumbymint employee so more than a couple grains of salt are warranted.

Girly,

Thanks for the suggestions. My accountants are running numbers.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 11:35 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
Really pathetic, Cathym. During our previous exchange on this thread, I challenged you with dozens of questions that backed you into a corner so that you couldn't even answer, and eventually gave up even trying and said 'you win'. So what do you then do? You go and give me negative feedback claiming I'm willfully ignorant regarding laws, etc. Talk about a sore loser. I DARE you to copy/paste one thing I wrote where you can provide some credible 3rd party source showing my statement was inaccurate.

By contrast, the crazy nonsense you posted is unequivocally false. For example, when I wrote that investing $700/month with a 7% annual ROI would be worth $121k after 10 years, you wrote that "my math was way off", so I challenged you "If my math is so wrong, please, tell us what the real number is. I'm waiting" and you replied "I will do the math for you when I get home to my computer. I'm on my mobile right now. Fair enough?" I agreed. Naturally, I'm still waiting for your number. It's safe to assume that you got help from someone who understands how to do a fv calculation and explained to you that my number was accurate, but rather than being an adult and keeping your promise to respond to this challenge, you lash out at me, like I'm somehow a bad person because I am able to do math. Really pathetic, and very closed minded. If you want, I can list at least 20 similar examples during our debate that day, where, like the fv calculation, you ran off with your tail between your legs because your facts were wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 01:54 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
(30-09-2013 06:21 PM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  Now, my understanding is that this is a major boom for insurance companies. Depending on how shaky #3 is (are there any obvious loopholes?), whether it's government money, or private money, they're getting it. This seems wildly criminal (depending how shaky #3 is), I know i'm missing something here. So help?

Since insurance companies pushed for it, they at least thought it would help them, and it probably will. You know how every company out there does its best to manipulate earnigns reports to boost the stock price...ok, so ACA has a clause that the federal government will share losses 50% with them up to an 8% loss, and 80% after that.

....my bet is, they will all show such losses from now on, while somehow, paying out massive dividends as if by magic.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 11:14 AM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2014 11:18 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: "Obamacare"
(24-01-2014 11:35 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I DARE you to copy/paste one thing I wrote where you can provide some credible 3rd party source showing my statement was inaccurate.

challenge accepted.


(21-01-2014 04:21 PM)frankksj Wrote:  There was an example in California several years ago of an elderly guy who owned several acres of land adjacent to a national park. So they raided the place, and the guy thought it was a burglary and was groggy after surgery, came out with a gun, and the cops shot him dead .... But what if you were the one getting shot in your front yard because you wouldn't sell your house?

Right there. "The guy thought it was a burglary and he was groggy after surgery, came out with a gun and the cops shot him dead."

You are equating him being shot to what you would consider a violation of his 4th amendment rights.

Secondly, there is absolutely no stories that would suggest that you were even remotely accurate in your facts.

I did find a news story of an elderly man in CA that was shot by police...but thats because he was waiving a gun at them. http://ktla.com/2013/11/17/officer-invol...z2rQczeSwe

The police in CA, and pretty much everywhere else, the right to use deadly force if you point a gun at them.

Do you understand cause and effect? He waived a gun at police = he gets shot.

not Cops violated 4th amendment = he gets shot.


(24-01-2014 11:35 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Ah yes, the math problem. You are correct using your math, assuming a constant 7% ROI. But thats not what you said originally. You said an AVERAGE ROI, which would mean that 7% wasn't constant throughout the year. And since I said that the economy right now isn't kicking back those returns for conservative investments, whatever calculation you did using bank rate.com investment calculators are rather simplistic.

Even if I granted you the 7%, which I don't, the first 5 years of this investment would be below 7, leaving the last 5 years needing interest rates of 8,9.5, 10,10.5,12% and higher. to equal an average of 7%, having given the principal + interest, less time to actually accumulate.

Assuming an interest rate at 2,3.5,4,4.5,6,8,9.5,10,10.5,12% which is more realistic to this economy, you end up with $105,915.84, after 10 years. Not quite the number you were thinking. But nice try though.



Your negative rep - and funny how I'm not the ONLY person to negative rep you - is because you make wild arguments that often have zero relevance to the topic. You are all out confirmation bias, based on your extreme tendency to go for conspiracy theories.

In your little world of self insurance, you forget that your scenario results in zero risk being EVER realized, which is an unreasonable assumption, given that you have a 12% chance of being involved in a fatal car accident. In general, its a bad idea to own things that depreciate in value. If you invested wisely, you should rollover those funds into another asset that appreciates...not paying for auto body repair for a car that is a depreciating asset. All things considered, you are better off buying auto insurance, investing the difference from the $8400 a year ($700 a month), and putting those capital gains towards home improvement.

Now go away, Frank. I don't care to waste anymore time on you.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 01:20 PM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2014 03:33 PM by frankksj.)
RE: "Obamacare"
(25-01-2014 11:14 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 11:35 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I DARE you to copy/paste one thing I wrote where you can provide some credible 3rd party source showing my statement was inaccurate.
challenge accepted.

Out of the hundreds of issues we debated, you no doubt picked the one that you felt proved your point best. And let's recap that issue... I tell you about an incident where the National Park Service wanted to confiscate a man's property, so they fabricated a claim that they saw marijuana on his property so that they could take his land through asset forfeiture laws rather than buying it, they raided his home, and when the man heard his wife screaming, he was groggy after surgery, came out with a gun, and the police shot him.

Rather than telling me you doubted the truth of this story and asking me to substantiate it (which I would have), you said nothing about the subject, but rather FALSELY assumed I was talking about an unrelated incident in Bel Aire, and therefore, gave me negative reputation for making up false stories. Well, genius, I was referring to Donald P Scott. From wikipedia:: "On October 2, 1992, 31 officers from entered the Scott's 200-acre ranch. They planned to arrest Scott for allegedly running a 4,000-plant marijuana plantation. When deputies broke down the door to Scott's house, Scott's wife would later tell reporters, she screamed, 'Don't shoot me. Don't kill me.' That brought Scott staggering out of the bedroom, blurry-eyed from a cataract operation—holding a .38 caliber Colt snub-nosed revolver over his head. When he emerged at the top of the stairs, holding his gun over his head, the officers told him to lower the gun. As he did, they shot him to death.... Later [right after killing an innocent man in cold blood] the lead agent in the case...posed for photographs smiling arm-in-arm outside Scott's cabin. Despite a subsequent search of Scott's ranch using helicopters, dogs, searchers on foot, and a high-tech Jet Propulsion Laboratory device for detecting trace amounts of sinsemilla, no marijuana—or any other illegal drug—was found."

There was a lawsuit over this, and "The report of the ... District Attorney ... concluded that the police lied to obtain the search warrant, that there had never been any marijuana cultivation on the property, and that the raid was motivated by a desire to forfeit the multi-million dollar ranch." (link) So you wrote: "Do you understand cause and effect? He waived a gun at police = he gets shot. Not Cops violated 4th amendment = he gets shot." Read the fucking district attorney's report. The very judge who issued the search warrant agreed that the cops who blatantly lied to him to get a search warrant, and that they never had any evidence or probably cause, and that if the cops were honest he never would have issued the search warrant. Your blind devotion to government explains why the cops were able to violate a man's 4th amendment rights, shoot him dead in cold blood leaving a widow and father-less son, and then right after wards pose for a trophy picture in front of the man's house, without fear of public backlash. They know you lemmings will support them no matter what they do.

So out of the hundreds of points we debated, you picked the one where you most sure that you were right and I was wrong, and in the end.... You were wrong after all and my facts were correct all along, and you accused me of fabricating stories without any evidence at all, and because you were backed into a corner and lacked the humility to say "Ok, maybe you have a point", you just lash out and give me negative reputation. Yes, you're right that many other posters on the forum have done the same thing. For example, very early on I told cjlr that the ONLY time I would ever disagree with him on a policy is if he was advocating using threats of force to coerce people into doing things against their will AND he was advocating doing it at the national level so that people didn't even have the opportunity to flee if they found it too oppressive. Just like you, he insisted I was full of shit. So dozens of times I pressured him to come up with JUST ONE example that was an exception to my rule. I tried asking politely. I tried taunting him. But he never could come up with even one example so, like you, he just went and gave me negative reputation for having the audacity to back him into a corner. And ditto with several others on this forum.

So the fact that there are other closed-minded sore losers on this forum who behave like you does NOT mean that you guys are right.

And re: the math issue and the 7% ROI, after insulting me that I cannot do basic math, YES, my numbers were correct all along, and when you said my numbers were way off, it showed a limit of your math skills--not mine. Now you're trying to defend yourself by making up a hypothetical that the ROI wasn't constant, and you arbitrarily decide that in the first years the ROI was artificially low, at only 2% ROI, ending with a 12% ROI in the last year, you do come up with a different number. However this was NOT what we were debating. You just moved the goal post. And your assumption is absurd since we're talking about a hypothetical example where the starting point could be any year, so it's just as likely the experiment starts when the ROI is 12%, in which the numbers would be a lot higher.

THIS IS WHY I said you must be a Keynesian economist. THIS is a classic Keynesian technique: manipulating the data by making false assumptions in order to try to make the numbers fit some pre-defined ideology. You start with the ideology, then you search for formulas and numbers to support it. If an Austrian economist was asked what the 10 year return on a $700/mo investment with 7% ROI is, we'd just throw out the obvious, unaltered, answer. But, in Keynesian fashion, you go around in circles trying to find outlandish ways to manipulate the data so it yields the answer you were hoping for: namely that the 10 year return is < $121k. No Austrian or monetarist thinks like this. We don't start with the result and try to find a formula that gives us the result we want. Rather, we use logic and reason to find the best formula we can, and then we accept whatever the result is, and if the result conflicts with our ideology, we simply adjust our ideology, rather than keep massaging the formula until you get the result you wanted.

I can even give you links where Paul Krugman, one of the most famous Nobel-prize winning Keynesian economists, does the exact same thing. It's a trait inherent to Keynesianism in my experience.

(25-01-2014 11:14 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Now go away, Frank. I don't care to waste anymore time on you.

Gosh, I wonder why.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 06:32 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
I have nothing of value to add to this but I just wanted to say this: I checked out of this thread some time ago because I just don't have the time to read through each of Frank's 5,000 word essays that he just pours out one after the other.

Seriously, what do you do that you have this much free time to just sit on the internet and argue with people? How is that even possible?

Ok, I'm out. Feel free to respond with 5 posts of each 5,000 words or so telling me how I'm using force or whatever. I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2014, 11:23 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
(25-01-2014 06:32 PM)BnW Wrote:  Seriously, what do you do that you have this much free time to just sit on the internet and argue with people? How is that even possible?

I'm an international porn superstar. What do you do?

You're right, though, that this is pointless arguing and not productive debating. For example, in a useful debate you have to decide what exactly you're debating. Early on I told cjlr the single defining issue of libertarianism is letting people exercise free will, and if the government is going to deny people free will, it should be done by the state/local government so people can relocate if the laws are too oppressive. Cjlr insisted this was not the sole issue separating him from libertarians, so I repeatedly asked him to identify one exception to the rule, at first asking politely, and then more aggressively. It's impossible to have a productive debate if we don't first identify what we're debating! He was backed into a corner, unable to identify an exception to the rule, but similarly unwilling to acknowledge that the issue we were debating was his desire to to deny people free will with national laws. So he just gave negative reputation for having the audacity to corner him like that. Ditto with Chas, and now Cathy, who was especially laughable because we were debating really basic black & white stuff, like the future ROI on an investment of $700/mo @ 7%. Once I gave the formulas proving my numbers were right, she too just gives negative reputation and refuses to engage. You're right that my "5,000 word essays" accomplished nothing and were a waste of time. The reason I did it is because I enjoy a good productive debate, I like having my views challenged, it keeps me on my toes. But when you make a solid point and your opponent is unable to rebut it, but rather than acknowledging you have a point and moving on to the next issue, they just skulk away and give you negative reputation, there's really no point in continuing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2014, 01:26 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(26-01-2014 11:23 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I'm an international porn superstar. What do you do?

I'm Batman.

And, when I'm not beating the shit out of criminals I'm making the world safe for billionaires by providing legal cover for people who are defrauding the middle class and then evicting widows and orphans. I used to have trouble sleeping at night but then I realized that rich people who lie, steal and cheat are not criminals, they are "job creators" and, as such, should be able to do whatever the fuck they want because they only have societies best interests at heart. And, I know this is true because both political parties are in 100% agreement on this.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BnW's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: