Obamacare cost...

[Pelado]

Forever 21, the clothing store, told staff last month in a memo leaked to the press that it planned to cut hours and reclassify some full-time workers as part- time. The move, which the company denied had anything to do with President Barack Obama's health reforms, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), will nevertheless help it avoid a mandate under the legislation requiring companies with 50 or more employees to offer those working 30 hours a week or more health insurance. Earlier this month, Seaworld, which operates 11 entertainment parks across the US, capped hours for part time workers at 28, down from 32, according to the Orlando Sentinel.

Other retailers, such as Trader Joe's and Home Depot have said they will no longer provide medical coverage for part-time employees, and will shift them instead to the public healthcare exchanges which open Tuesday, 1 October. Some employers have said their health costs will rise as a result of various provisions of the ACA, which takes full effect in 2015, when larger companies have to provide health benefits to full time workers or pay a $2,000 per-person fine.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...void-obamacare

I don't understand why these companies don't just slash other expenses.

[Katy Lied]

I'm confused. Tons of articles today are telling me that this is a great thing, and republican fears are ungrounded. Am I really on the wrong side of history?

[Pelado]

Real Clear Politics lists a whopping 243 polls taken on Obamacare since its passage, and the results have been rather amazing — and consistent. Fully 95 percent of those polls (231 of 243) have shown that the American people oppose Obamacare, while only 4 percent (10 of 243) have shown that they support it. (The other 2 polls — 1 percent — have shown a neutral result.) Of those nearly 250 polls (a rather large sample size), more than two-thirds (171 of 243) have shown double-digit opposition.

Nor can Obamacare supporters take solace in more recent polling. RCP lists 31 polls on Obamacare in the past six months. All show that Americans oppose President Obama’s signature legislation. More than three-quarters of those polls (24 of 31) have shown double-digit opposition. The most recent poll — a CNN poll, which is the only poll taken since Ted Cruz’s filibuster — shows 19-point opposition to Obamacare (with 38 percent supporting Obamacare and 57 percent opposing it) and 40-point opposition among independents (27 percent support, 67 percent opposition).

Here’s a quick question: If 95 percent of all polls across three and a half years, and 100 percent of polls in the past six months, had shown support for Obamacare — with a supermajority of polls showing double-digit support — do you think the mainstream press might mention that with some regularity?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...rey-h-anderson

[All-American]

I'm confused. Tons of articles today are telling me that this is a great thing, and republican fears are ungrounded. Am I really on the wrong side of history?

I dunno. What does the CBO say?

[VirginiaCougar]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...rey-h-anderson

Yes. Next I'd like them to show the consistent polling data testing various elements of Obamacare or even more extreme measures without using the word Obamacare or ACA. One thing Conservatives have done quite well is demonize the term, equating it with all kinds of things. But just about all the polling data that offers elements of the plan as an alternative to Obamacare or independently tend to do quite well and have for a long time.

In fact, I strongly suspect and have heard that some Cruz allies in the Senate actually publicly stated that a reason they are pushing so hard and taking such extra-Constitutional steps now is that they know when implemented many elements (not all) of Obamacare will become quite popular. They know the public opinion data will shift quickly when the apocalypse doesn't occur and a few positives are felt.

[calicoug]

Uh no it won't....you can't be denied for a preexisting condition, so this increases the likelihood that people will just wait until they are sick to purchase the insurance...which is stupid because at that point it ins't insurance it is a subsidy.

I guess they will wait until they are sick to buy insurance... and then hope that their sickness comes during the open enrollment period. Otherwise...

[calicoug]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...void-obamacare

I don't understand why these companies don't just slash other expenses.

Well that does it. Your limited anecdotal evidence (which even in your own post says isn't related to the ACA) outweighs aggregated economic data. Silly economists. They should listen to your stories more.

[calicoug]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...rey-h-anderson

Of course, you neglect to omit that a large portion of those opposing the law oppose it because it doesn't go far enough (and not because they think it should be repealed). But I'm sure the Republican strategy right now will prove them to be right. I'm sure AA is already busy unskewing the polling on the shutdown for all of us.

[All-American]

Of course, you neglect to omit that a large portion of those opposing the law oppose it because it doesn't go far enough (and not because they think it should be repealed). But I'm sure the Republican strategy right now will prove them to be right. I'm sure AA is already busy unskewing the polling on the shutdown for all of us.

I'm just waiting for you to tell us that the polling data is great news, as the law is about ten percent less unpopular than they thought it would be.

[Moliere]

The one thing I find interesting is the liberal embracing of obamacare. If we revisit the history of how we got stuck with it, you'd find the only way we end up where we are is because of the Dems infighting while they held a supermajority and Kennedy's ill timed death. Otherwise, we'd likely have a bipartisan bill or no bill at all...or if Kennedy doesn't die we might have something closer to universal health care.

[VirginiaCougar]

The one thing I find interesting is the liberal embracing of obamacare. If we revisit the history of how we got stuck with it, you'd find the only way we end up where we are is because of the Dems infighting while they held a supermajority and Kennedy's ill timed death. Otherwise, we'd likely have a bipartisan bill or no bill at all.

To me, the most interesting thing is that ACA is pretty much all GOP ideas from just a few years ago - ideas my own party actively promoted and pushed as Republican values. Go read the Heritage report (not their revision) and other arguments in the face of Hillarycare. Ideas expressed again in Romneycare. Now those same ideas, which we all agreed upon have shifted and even the notion of health care access itself is considered an anathema. Its more than ironic and quite sad what has happened. I'd love for some elements of Obamacare to change, but I also remember advocating strongly in the political portion of my career for those ideas back in the Clinton era - now I am being kicked out of the party as a Socialist/Marxist "Liberal" for the same ideas.

We've really got to stop this radicalization of the party. As David Brooks mentioned on his NPR show (linked a few pages above) - this whole effort is an attempt by folks like Cruz and Lee to fundamentally change and capture the party. I think even they would agree with that argument. I really hope that doesn't happen. I want the party of Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, Eisenhower, President Reagan, even George HW Bush back. I don't want this to be the party of McCarthy, Bastiat, Limbaugh, Rand, Beck, Lee, the John Birch Society, etc. I am not a Democrat, but I will have nothing to do with that type of GOP party (neither its New Conservatism or Libertarian variants). Fundamentalist political movements of all types, scare the hell out me. Here in the US or anywhere elsewhere.

[calicoug]

The one thing I find interesting is the liberal embracing of obamacare. If we revisit the history of how we got stuck with it, you'd find the only way we end up where we are is because of the Dems infighting while they held a supermajority and Kennedy's ill timed death. Otherwise, we'd likely have a bipartisan bill or no bill at all...or if Kennedy doesn't die we might have something closer to universal health care.

Liberals would tell you the bill has many flaws and many areas that could have been improved. They will also tell you it is a huge improvement over where we were. In other words, I think they have a fairly realistic view of the law. Relative to where the opposition stands, I suppose that could be called "embracing" the law, given that the only political alternative appears to be shutting down the government and/or forcing the government to default on its debt in an attempt to kill the law.

[calicoug]

I'm just waiting for you to tell us that the polling data is great news, as the law is about ten percent less unpopular than they thought it would be.

Nah. I think it's pretty established by now that no matter what polling actually says and no matter how many pollsters say it, you are going to read what you want out of it anyways. Sort of how you and your party are operating on most political questions today.

I'll satisfy myself with being realistic about the polling. It's not good for ACA, but it's not nearly as bad as you think it is or want it to be.

[Uncle Ted]

138300_600.jpg

[Moliere]

Liberals would tell you the bill has many flaws and many areas that could have been improved. They will also tell you it is a huge improvement over where we were. In other words, I think they have a fairly realistic view of the law. Relative to where the opposition stands, I suppose that could be called "embracing" the law, given that the only political alternative appears to be shutting down the government and/or forcing the government to default on its debt in an attempt to kill the law.

You sure love theatrics. We are no where close to defaulting on our debt and that's not the goal of any GOP member except maybe the most extreme.

Embracing the law is putting it very well. I for one would like to see how it plays out. I'd probably prefer a base level of single payer system with the ability for secondary insurance, but at least the Dems didn't something big to try and help curb the health care issue.