Obamacare cost...

[Uncle Ted]

What the hell? The IRS Union doesn't even like Obamacare?!?

The union that represents IRS employees is urging its members to write to their congressmen to help get the union out of Obamacare.


“I am a federal employee and one of your constituents. I am very concerned about legislation that has been introduced by Congressman Dave Camp to push federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and into the insurance exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act (ACA),” according to a form letter drafted by leaders of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), which represents IRS employees.


NTEU members currently get health coverage through FEHBP, which represents federal employees, but Republican House Ways and Means chairman and Michigan Republican Rep. Dave Camp seeks to obliterate that program and push legislation that would put federal employees into Obamacare exchanges.


“If the ObamaCare exchanges are good enough for the hardworking Americans and small businesses the law claims to help, then they should be good enough for the president, vice president, Congress, and federal employees,”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/26/ir...#ixzz2aY6bsavS



Where the hell is Cali? I need him to tell me that everything is going to be OK.

[byu71]

What the hell? The IRS Union doesn't even like Obamacare?!?


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/26/ir...#ixzz2aY6bsavS

Where is Cali?

Not just Cali. I have always thought there were a number of folks on this board who were Obama supporters and supporters of Obamacare. Have they gone the way of those who now think it isn't so hot? We got our first signal right after the bill was passed and Nanci P. started arranging waivers for people in her district.

[Eddie]

“If the ObamaCare exchanges are good enough for the hardworking Americans and small businesses the law claims to help, then they should be good enough for the president, vice president, Congress, and federal employees,”

I'll give him an AMEN! How often does congress pass laws that they then except themselves from? I think it should be an EXTREMELY rare thing and only related to things that would keep them from being able to do their jobs (like I'm OK with them getting away with some traffic violations if the fear is that traffic enforcement officers of diverse political opinions might pull them over and impede them from getting to the capitol in time for an important vote.)

[calicoug]

I'll give him an AMEN! How often does congress pass laws that they then except themselves from? I think it should be an EXTREMELY rare thing and only related to things that would keep them from being able to do their jobs (like I'm OK with them getting away with some traffic violations if the fear is that traffic enforcement officers of diverse political opinions might pull them over and impede them from getting to the capitol in time for an important vote.)

Good grief. They didn't exempt themselves from the law. In fact, the law actually imposes more requirements on members of Congress and their staff than most Americans have to deal with. We really live in a post-fact world.

The exchanges are for people who don't have group plans available to them (i.e., individual purchasers). That shouldn't include members of Congress (who are covered by a group plan) but because Republicans freaked out and said the exchanges should apply to Congress, Democrats called their bluff and said "okay." Now the exchanges cover Congress and their staff (to my knowledge the only group plan members who are required to participate in the exchange). There are lots of issues transitioning members of Congress out of their existing federally created group plan into a new non-group plan, but that hardly means they are "excepted" from the law as you say.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

They need to repeal the employer mandate right now. I think there would be a political consensus towards doing it. Sure some on the far left and far right would balk at repeal for different reasons, but the employer mandate is really hurting people right now. Chances are many of us know someone whose hours have been cut. Underemployment is a real issue. The nominal unemployment rate that's put out there doesn't tell the whole story while the rate including those who have left the workforce or are underemployed is really bad right now.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...-are-part-time

[All-American]

They need to repeal the employer mandate right now. I think there would be a political consensus towards doing it. Sure some on the far left and far right would balk at repeal for different reasons, but the employer mandate is really hurting people right now. Chances are many of us know someone whose hours have been cut. Underemployment is a real issue. The nominal unemployment rate that's put out there doesn't tell the whole story while the rate including those who have left the workforce or are underemployed is really bad right now.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...-are-part-time

You are incorrect. This year, we are off to the best private-sector jobs growth since 1999.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...vate-sector-j/

[All-American]

By the way, in case anybody is thinking of using this to talk about how well the economy is doing, please not that the words "Part time" are not included on that web site.

[il Padrino Ute]

It will never make it to the floor of the do-nothing Senate, but the House voted to tell the IRS to stay the hell away from enforcing Obamacare.

[Omaha 680]

You are incorrect. This year, we are off to the best private-sector jobs growth since 1999.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...vate-sector-j/

"Mostly true". LOL. As you point out they don't mention a thing about the kinds of jobs being created.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Part time jobs account for 97% of the job creation in 2013.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/0...l#.UgAbC6xWLzN

Welcome to the new normal until they repeal the employer mandate.

Remember when we were talking about those fishy job reports from last fall? It turns out they weren't fishy at all, the BLS got things right. The underemployment figures stayed the same or got bigger while the bottom line figure fell. Basically almost all of the new jobs being created are part time (thus inflating the numbers one way -- what should be three full time jobs turn into four or even five part time jobs). But on top of that people with existing jobs get their hours cut, and to take up the hours slack, employers hire someone else. The bottom line number doesn't count people whose hours are cut, but it sure counts the extra people brought on board to work those hours that have been cut from the other employees.

This is a disaster. Good luck trying to get multiple part time jobs. You can't juggle two 30 hour work weeks. Chances are your employers aren't going to want to accommodate your schedule so you can make it to your other job. Two 20 hour weeks are difficult but can be pulled off. But I believe employers are going to want 30 hour weeks when they would have preferred hiring full time workers in the first place. The additional overhead and administrative cost of dealing with four employees instead of three is bad enough, but they're really not going to want to deal with six part timers for every three.

[Uncle Ted]

Part time jobs account for 97% of the job creation in 2013.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/0...l#.UgAbC6xWLzN

Welcome to the new normal until they repeal the employer mandate.

Remember when we were talking about those fishy job reports from last fall? It turns out they weren't fishy at all, the BLS got things right. The underemployment figures stayed the same or got bigger while the bottom line figure fell. Basically almost all of the new jobs being created are part time (thus inflating the numbers one way -- what should be three full time jobs turn into four or even five part time jobs). But on top of that people with existing jobs get their hours cut, and to take up the hours slack, employers hire someone else. The bottom line number doesn't count people whose hours are cut, but it sure counts the extra people brought on board to work those hours that have been cut from the other employees.

This is a disaster. Good luck trying to get multiple part time jobs. You can't juggle two 30 hour work weeks. Chances are your employers aren't going to want to accommodate your schedule so you can make it to your other job. Two 20 hour weeks are difficult but can be pulled off. But I believe employers are going to want 30 hour weeks when they would have preferred hiring full time workers in the first place. The additional overhead and administrative cost of dealing with four employees instead of three is bad enough, but they're really not going to want to deal with six part timers for every three.

I read something similar on Zero Hedge but said that it was 77%...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...-are-part-time

In any case, part time employment seems to be the new norm.

[calicoug]

Part time jobs account for 97% of the job creation in 2013.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/0...l#.UgAbC6xWLzN

Welcome to the new normal until they repeal the employer mandate.

Remember when we were talking about those fishy job reports from last fall? It turns out they weren't fishy at all, the BLS got things right. The underemployment figures stayed the same or got bigger while the bottom line figure fell. Basically almost all of the new jobs being created are part time (thus inflating the numbers one way -- what should be three full time jobs turn into four or even five part time jobs). But on top of that people with existing jobs get their hours cut, and to take up the hours slack, employers hire someone else. The bottom line number doesn't count people whose hours are cut, but it sure counts the extra people brought on board to work those hours that have been cut from the other employees.

This is a disaster. Good luck trying to get multiple part time jobs. You can't juggle two 30 hour work weeks. Chances are your employers aren't going to want to accommodate your schedule so you can make it to your other job. Two 20 hour weeks are difficult but can be pulled off. But I believe employers are going to want 30 hour weeks when they would have preferred hiring full time workers in the first place. The additional overhead and administrative cost of dealing with four employees instead of three is bad enough, but they're really not going to want to deal with six part timers for every three.

Interesting. So your belief is that employers with more than 50 employees have significant need for full-time employees, but that they aren't willing to fill that need because of ancillary health care costs?

[imanihonjin]

Interesting. So your belief is that employers with more than 50 employees have significant need for full-time employees, but that they aren't willing to fill that need because of ancillary health care costs?

Of course there are going to be a number of employers who say it will cost me $100x to employ 75 employees with benefits but only $80x if I hire 50 part timers and 45 full timers to do the same job. Yeah I may incur some extra administrative costs and it will be pain managing that many more people, but I save $20x.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Interesting. So your belief is that employers with more than 50 employees have significant need for full-time employees, but that they aren't willing to fill that need because of ancillary health care costs?

It's not simply my belief, the employment figures speak for themselves. Loud and clear. So does Obama delaying the implementation of the employer mandate.

[calicoug]

It's not simply my belief, the employment figures speak for themselves. Loud and clear. So does Obama delaying the implementation of the employer mandate.

Correlation does not equal causation.