I am all for affordable health care and health care for everyone.
A couple of things are wrong with this that catch my eye.
Some employers are only hiring part time, temporary employees because they can't afford the premiums, ie, subway, walmart,
In the article is mentions "The federal government will help pay premiums" That is you, me and every other working, tax paying citizen. Not a magic pot of money.
Expanding Medicare, and Medicaid, same thing.
Perhaps if more taxpayers understood better how much corporate welfare is costing them, they might get after the freeloaders like Walmart.
One study from the state of California, showed that the U.S. government subsidizes the billionaire Walmart owners who have more wealth than 30% of Americans. Turns out Walmart’s low-paid employees require $86 million in government assistance annually in California alone. Multiply similar amounts by 50 states and suddenly the cheap prices at Walmart may not seem like such a good deal after all.
If other large California retailers adopted Wal-Mart’s wage and benefits standards, it would cost taxpayers an additional $410 million a year in public assistance to employees.
The problem isn’t that the rich are rich. The problem is that the rich, like Alice Walton are getting rich at the expense of the taxpayers
Read more about the hidden cost of Walmart jobs to you the taxpayer. http://www.dsausa.org/lowwage/walmart...
Most Americans don’t understand the extent to which they are subsidizing billionaires like the Waltons who have more wealth than 30% of Americans. We make up the difference for what they don’t pay their workers in living wages.
"Obama Care -What's to come-It's not all bad:"
The estimates are that it MAY benefit 13% of the population. That's M-A-Y.
It sticks it to the remaining 87%.
It may not be all bad for the 13%. For the rest of us, it STINKS.
I think more than 13% will benefit from Obama Care...Elderly, pre conditions, no more caps on care and etc...keep living..we will all find ourselves in the 13%..
That was the estimate by the Obama administration when the law was proposed. I've seen nothing to change or challenge it since then.
And don't forget these:
...and then you have the current and future doctors bailing because of the impact of ObamaCare on their "livelihood," as well as business as a whole making things benefits-wise a whole lot WORSE because of ObamaCare. Max Baucus was correct: ObamaCare is a train wreck waiting to happen.
Now the President is challenging the Constitution by trying to delay - WITHOUT ANY LEGAL AUTHORITY - a key provision of the law referred to as the "employer mandate." The Republicans are absolutely correct to challenge this - in court if necessary. We've had too much of the Nancy Pelosi philosophy that you have to enact bills into law BEFORE you know that is in them and what the effect will be. The Dems rammed this through and now the country is seeing that a fiasco it is and what a disaster it will be.
I say: Let things play out. This is the President's second term, and ObamaCare is his signature piece of legislation.
It looks to be FUBAR to me.
I know of 2 women in their 50's that just lost there job! It appears that unemployment insurance is a lot cheaper than Obama Care! Now, what are these 2 women to do to pay their bills? No other company is going to hire them! It cost more for women than men when it comes to insurance...
What should they do..
Update their resume
File for Unemployment
Take advantage of the WIA program and update their skills.
Complete 2 applications daily and attend social networking events in the community.
50 is the new 30..
PN, that is the stupidest remark that I've ever heard. They can do everything you just suggested, and still not get hired because of their age... Insurance rates have tripled since ObamaCare! It's cheaper to hire part time young drop outs than college educated people. "PLUS" college educated people are going to pay the tax, rather then pay for old folks care under ObamaCare. The tax is a "HELL" of a lot cheaper than "OBAMACARE".
@Sheran- I'm not into pettiness. I don't call people out of their name nor do I go on a tangent when people don't agree with me. If I offended you, I apologize.
Neither am I into pettiness! I'm telling you the truth about "ObamaCare" The link you just posted is "IF THEY CHOOSE TO HIRE ME". It's still cheaper for these companies to hire young rather than old! "PLUS" the younger will pay the "TAX" rather than "ObamaCare".
@Sheran, if they choose to hire me is a true statement for any job seeker-regardless of age. Employers are looking for someone to do the job..If you believe that your not marketable because of age-you've lost the battle. The person has to go in prepared,polished and ready to sell themselves. If your 50plus...you don't have to present that..Go in fresh, bright, up to date attire and energized..that makes a big difference. I develop Work Force Development programs/trainings.
PN, other than covering pre-existing conditions and covering your kids for healthcare until 26, this bill is dead in the water and these two good things cannot compensate for all the bad things that have been covered over the years.
PN, here’s a blog that I posted about 4 years ago about a bill the Republicans presented to Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats but was sent to committee and never reached the floor for a vote:
History will surely recognize our first dictator or boy king in chief as our commander in chief along with being the first black POTUS from 2009-2016.
President Obama doesn't have the authority by the constitution to change a law that has already been passed and signed by him into law. This is separation of powers founded by the founders to prevent a future King James.
By the US Constitution he needs Congressional approval to do so, his powers are to sign legislation into law and then to enforce them, period!
PN, IT is a true statement! Do the math! If you have a 50 year old employee who's insurance has tripled in price as an employer what would you do? Take cuts into your income?
(1) Take the loss.
(2) Fire the employee?
Hey Funk. No Fair. Boy King is Mine. For W. First used it after Republicans stole Fla and Made W. Prez. even tho he lost the popular vote.
...and in related news - in case you missed it:
The IRS has ruled that President Obama can write off his second term so far as a total loss.
Even alluding that 13% will be better off is misguided optimism at best. It is also very easy to provide employment advice while you are still employed. In this day and age a great attitude and the willingness does not mean sustainable employment. Obamacare is and will continue to be a train wreck that continues to over tax the 47% That possess a full time job.
@HMJC- If you read the entire article- it also suggested-polishing up skills or seeking a new field altogether.
I think things will turn around for the POTUS. Congress rating is lower than the POTUS...Your worried about the POTUS legacy.. Student loans are doubling..students pay more interest on loans than banks...Enough of this gang mentality in congress...
I for one am not "worried" about POTUS' legacy. HE should be worried about his legacy. Bad legislation doesn't get better with age - its problems only become more evident.
ObamaCare is Mr. Obama's signature legislation. He mortgaged the future of this country by dedicating his first term to it. It is BAD LEGISLATION. This becomes more evident day by day.
Not sure when obamas accolytes will finally admit that this cats only legacy is that he was the first almost black president. Couple that with driving a wedge right down the middle of our country and as you said, countless failed polices and legislation.
HMJC: I expect no admissions. What we have here is blind loyalty.
TOT: I don't know.....I think Carter still has my vote for worst - at least in the 20th Century. There were some pretty bad ones in the 1900s. Andrew Johnson and Warren G. Harding come to mind. Distance in time tends to alter our vision of past persons and events - especially if we didn't live during those days.
Despite the "scandals" and the civil liberties outrage, I still like what Mr. Obama has done in the areas of homeland security and foreign affairs (mainly defense/military). He has been Dubya II on homeland security, and our extraction of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan - coupled with refusing to engage in the Middle East squabbles which have erupted during his presidency - IMHO - are the correct answers.
If he would only stop stepping on his crank when it comes to domestic affairs and the economy....