• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Work hours cut due to ObamaCare

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
So, who paid for their healthcare before Obamacare ?

hint- everyone.

Why should everyone subsidize the Olive Garden or its employees ?
some did not have health plans.

ObamaCare is forcing plans - they are to costly to the employer; find a way around it.
This is what has happened.

A person loses 10-25% of their paycheck and still has no medical coverage.
that percentage could get them the basics.
Now they will have to go on the back of the subsidized plans provided by the taxpayer.

Who is being benefited and penalized as a result.
Worker has less hours
Taxpayer now picks up the subsidized costs
Employment numbers falsely increase due to partime employment

Why should everyone subsidize the Olive Garden or its employees ?
they should not have to; ObamaCare is not forcing the taxpayers to.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,399
1,510
126
hm...my company is going to Mercer to manage our plans...

The survey, which was conducted by national insurance brokerage Mercer, found that 67 percent of retail and hospitality employers are inclined to change their workforce strategy in some way so that fewer employees meet the 30 hours a week threshold for being insured.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,423
614
126
i thought it was how many employees the business had that decided when the business had to offer healthcare, not how many hours they worked that classifed them pt/ft.

guess i was wrong?

edit: oh I didnt read page 2 and NS1's post.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,649
3,199
126
No it would not, not in the US as it exists today. The Masters and Prophets in DC can't get this simple thing right, could not anticipate the consequences, refused to do the necessary research and show no signs of being willing to do so. There is no project too big or small that is not secondary to political concerns here and by giving these people complete irrevocable control it will fix everything? That's True Believer thinking.
Moving to single payer and taxing everyone for it, would eliminate the games you can play. Perhaps this is the Democrat's master stroke, forcing such a ruinous solution as Obamacare -that Universal is the only 'clear' step forward.

Perhaps they knew how to get us there all along, one step at a time.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
The systems you cite are amenable to top down regulatory control. Medicine is not. There are conflicting and complex concerns with every situation. There is no algorithmic regulatory approach which is what you will wind up with.

What system, what "book" of regulations will substitute for medical judgement? You might reply that that isn't what single payer is, but I'll state categorically that you are wrong. Cost containment and political influence will be the priorities. When the government through medicare badgers providers because they aren't giving a medication indicated to someone in a geriatric facility that's good? Why should providers have to spend hours again and again saying the the medication isn't working or is being harmful time and again? What bureaucrat is qualified to make that call? That's what happens now. Regulations trump all other concerns by pain of punishment. If the patient suffers or dies the regulations must be followed. This isn't a case where a doc might subvert insurance rules to help a patient and perhaps get his payment taken back, this would be committing a crime. That's how it works and if you think politicians can keep their hands out of actual practice you'll have a hard time finding where they won't "help".

That little biblical language piece is not a dig, it's the mentality of those who do not understand the disconnect between politics and practice. There won't be funding without control, and control without political aim, and punishment for those who follow conscience over regulation. This isn't France or some other country where the health care system evolved over time with their society and government. This is a take over.

You want that? Fine. Here's my terms (not that anyone will pay attention)

First, remove politicians from formulating health care policy. Have a panel of experts nominated by professional organizations who are noted for their character and capability. That would be physicians, pharmacists, nurses, all kinds of practitioners who have high standards and have proven effective. Do the same with consumer advocates. Choose those who know the system, who have demonstrated a concern for the patient. Get actuaries who understand real world costs. Technical experts in information technology. People who are able to integrate complex systems, and throw in the kitchen sink while we are at it. Give it the imperative we did to the Manhattan Project and the authority to examine government experts and question the bureaucrats and private sector providers and insurance representatives. Give them teeth.

Task them with these goals.

First- Determine the true state of American health care. Who has insurance, who does not and why. Do not let politicians interfere at all in this process.

Second- Find out what the expectations of the public are. What do people believe vs reality. What is the level of understand in the public, private and government segments. Do not let politicians interfere at all in this process.

Third- Examine and question the status quo. What is right and wrong with what we have. Dig down in the levels of our society to determine why that is. What are reasonable expectations given real world resources and Constitutional constraints. Do not let politicians interfere at all in this process.

Fourth- Determine what provides the best care outcomes and what costs are associated with that. People here cry about costs in a vacuum of ignorance. I don't care about Europe. I care about care here. What can be done to contain costs while giving quality care? Is there a regulatory issue so government is hurting this? Are the procedures redundant? Are we disseminating knowledge as effectively as possible? What can be done to provide those who make decisions the knowledge of a patients history and treatment in a timely and complete way? What about legal concerns? Does fear of lawsuits cause unnecessary testing? Is there corruption at any level influencing this? What can be done? What are the options here? How do we do this where there are regulatory conflicts or matters of conflicting best interests? Do not let politicians interfere at all in this process.

Fifth- How does this all fit together? What are our best options for reform and financing? How do we reconcile this with Constitutional rights of all involved? What will practioners have to change? The government? What about the people themselves? How do we adjust these considerations for best outcome? What will the real costs be and how are they distributed? What are the limitations on what one ought to expect? What will it cost for end of life treatment? Who decides who will pull the plug? What are the limits? How will ethical concerns be handled? Do not let politicians interfere at all in this process.

Sixth- Get everyone together and hammer out language with legislative experts to minimize the wiggle room for Congress in these documents, and to play a series of "what if's" to minimize the law of unintended consequences. Do not let politicians interfere al all with this process.

Seventh- Give all this material to Congress and make it public at the same time. Do not give DC advance notice to prepare to dismember the effort for partisan purposes. Provide a spokesman or a group tasked to give answers to the public, the government and private concerns. Do not let the politicians interfere at all with this process.

Eight- Give this panel, commission, whatever you call it, the ability to question publicly what is being done by Congress. Make sure there are no "closed door" sessions. This whole process must be done in an open way and neither Republican or Democratic parties hack away unseen.

At this point the politicians can interfere with the best possible policies or approve them. If the latter happens let me know and I'll back single payer/UHC whatever you call it.

This isn't rocket science. No, it's far far more complex. I am the Evil One. I do not believe in the True Faith.

I think your ideas are good ones, in a few minutes on a message board you have offered some decent framing for a single payer system.

I also agree we have to fix the systemic issues with how our government and political process operate.

Simply because we have systemic issues with government and our political process should not be a reason we cannot have a single payer system.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Moving to single payer and taxing everyone for it, would eliminate the games you can play. Perhaps this is the Democrat's master stroke, forcing such a ruinous solution as Obamacare -that Universal is the only 'clear' step forward.

Perhaps they knew how to get us there all along, one step at a time.
and destroy everything alone the way?
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,155
9
81
The systems you cite are amenable to top down regulatory control. Medicine is not. There are conflicting and complex concerns with every situation. There is no algorithmic regulatory approach which is what you will wind up with.

What system, what "book" of regulations will substitute for medical judgement? You might reply that that isn't what single payer is, but I'll state categorically that you are wrong. Cost containment and political influence will be the priorities. When the government through medicare badgers providers because they aren't giving a medication indicated to someone in a geriatric facility that's good? Why should providers have to spend hours again and again saying the the medication isn't working or is being harmful time and again? What bureaucrat is qualified to make that call? That's what happens now. Regulations trump all other concerns by pain of punishment. If the patient suffers or dies the regulations must be followed. This isn't a case where a doc might subvert insurance rules to help a patient and perhaps get his payment taken back, this would be committing a crime. That's how it works and if you think politicians can keep their hands out of actual practice you'll have a hard time finding where they won't "help".

That little biblical language piece is not a dig, it's the mentality of those who do not understand the disconnect between politics and practice. There won't be funding without control, and control without political aim, and punishment for those who follow conscience over regulation. This isn't France or some other country where the health care system evolved over time with their society and government. This is a take over.

You want that? Fine. Here's my terms (not that anyone will pay attention)

First, remove politicians from formulating health care policy. Have a panel of experts nominated by professional organizations who are noted for their character and capability. That would be physicians, pharmacists, nurses, all kinds of practitioners who have high standards and have proven effective. Do the same with consumer advocates. Choose those who know the system, who have demonstrated a concern for the patient. Get actuaries who understand real world costs. Technical experts in information technology. People who are able to integrate complex systems, and throw in the kitchen sink while we are at it. Give it the imperative we did to the Manhattan Project and the authority to examine government experts and question the bureaucrats and private sector providers and insurance representatives. Give them teeth.

Task them with these goals.

First- Determine the true state of American health care. Who has insurance, who does not and why. Do not let politicians interfere at all in this process.

Second- Find out what the expectations of the public are. What do people believe vs reality. What is the level of understand in the public, private and government segments. Do not let politicians interfere at all in this process.

Third- Examine and question the status quo. What is right and wrong with what we have. Dig down in the levels of our society to determine why that is. What are reasonable expectations given real world resources and Constitutional constraints. Do not let politicians interfere at all in this process.

Fourth- Determine what provides the best care outcomes and what costs are associated with that. People here cry about costs in a vacuum of ignorance. I don't care about Europe. I care about care here. What can be done to contain costs while giving quality care? Is there a regulatory issue so government is hurting this? Are the procedures redundant? Are we disseminating knowledge as effectively as possible? What can be done to provide those who make decisions the knowledge of a patients history and treatment in a timely and complete way? What about legal concerns? Does fear of lawsuits cause unnecessary testing? Is there corruption at any level influencing this? What can be done? What are the options here? How do we do this where there are regulatory conflicts or matters of conflicting best interests? Do not let politicians interfere at all in this process.

Fifth- How does this all fit together? What are our best options for reform and financing? How do we reconcile this with Constitutional rights of all involved? What will practioners have to change? The government? What about the people themselves? How do we adjust these considerations for best outcome? What will the real costs be and how are they distributed? What are the limitations on what one ought to expect? What will it cost for end of life treatment? Who decides who will pull the plug? What are the limits? How will ethical concerns be handled? Do not let politicians interfere at all in this process.

Sixth- Get everyone together and hammer out language with legislative experts to minimize the wiggle room for Congress in these documents, and to play a series of "what if's" to minimize the law of unintended consequences. Do not let politicians interfere al all with this process.

Seventh- Give all this material to Congress and make it public at the same time. Do not give DC advance notice to prepare to dismember the effort for partisan purposes. Provide a spokesman or a group tasked to give answers to the public, the government and private concerns. Do not let the politicians interfere at all with this process.

Eight- Give this panel, commission, whatever you call it, the ability to question publicly what is being done by Congress. Make sure there are no "closed door" sessions. This whole process must be done in an open way and neither Republican or Democratic parties hack away unseen.

At this point the politicians can interfere with the best possible policies or approve them. If the latter happens let me know and I'll back single payer/UHC whatever you call it.

This isn't rocket science. No, it's far far more complex. I am the Evil One. I do not believe in the True Faith.


Oh and let everyone know whats in it before they vote on it...

it should be public knowledge. Not over complicated to confuse people.

otherwise that is a good start.
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
Obamacare has never been the end game. Neo-conservatives make the false assumption that this is all the Democrats intend to do with health care. No my friends, this is merely the first step. The end game is single payer, and the way to get there is to show people how utterly ridiculous it is to have our health care plans largely managed by our employers. It's burdensome and archaic compared to what the result of the modernized world is doing. Obamacare will accelerate this process dramatically by making it harder and harder for employers to maintain the status quo.

One can argue over the short term effects being negative here, but I do believe it is worth the cost if we can finally move the country to a single payer system. We've tried health care reform in this country for almost 2-3 decades now, and Obama is the first president who has ever achieved significant reform. He's laying the ground work that future presidents will build upon.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,299
349
126
Obamacare raises employment by lowering the quality of employment (more part time).

Obama pointing to BLS employment % gets him reelected, this paves the way to reforming Obamacare to single payer.

We collapse into anarchy under the weight of single payer system treating every case of ice cream, oreos, and frying literally everything in sight.
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
Contrary to what you might think I'm a firm believer in free markets and trade.

I don't believe health care is a market where the free markets will ever work to produce the best solution though. The fundamental reason I believe this is true is because health care is not something you can freely decide you don't want without major consequences (compared to say a TV or cell phone).

When you are sick and dying you have no choice, you need health care. There is nowhere else to go unless you want to die. Now couple this with a for profit health care system, what incentives do they have to keeping costs low? What incentives do they have not to coordinate and collude with one another to keep an absolute floor below which no insurer will go? It's not like people will ever stop buying their products or look elsewhere, they literally have nowhere else to go.

For this reason, I believe government managed single payer health care is the only effective way to keep costs down. We see with Medicare already that they have lower operating costs than ANY private insurer in the country. We need to get rid of this notion that the government can't do anything right, that's such a defeatist POV and I feel sad for Americans that truly believe this.
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
Obamacare raises employment by lowering the quality of employment (more part time).

Obama pointing to BLS employment % gets him reelected, this paves the way to reforming Obamacare to single payer.

We collapse into anarchy under the weight of single payer system treating every case of ice cream, oreos, and frying literally everything in sight.
Private insurers are already doing this to you today. They have their own death panels that decide what they will/won't insure. You're simply choosing to not see the reality in front of you.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,299
349
126
Private insurers are already doing this to you today. They have their own death panels that decide what they will/won't insure. You're simply choosing to not see the reality in front of you.
As long as a lot of treatment is still refused, then maybe we won't collapse under the weight of it all. If they expect to fund more treatment than what happens now, then I'll expect a collapse.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,990
84
91
Businesses in the US have been doing this for decades. Schedule workers as many hours as you can, but just under the threshold where you will have to pay them any real benefits. That is NOT the fault of "Obamacare", nor is it an argument against it. All this demonstrates is that healthcare coverage should be completely divorced from one's employer. YMMV on how such a system is set up.
 

SheHateMe

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2012
7,251
20
81
As long as a lot of treatment is still refused, then maybe we won't collapse under the weight of it all. If they expect to fund more treatment than what happens now, then I'll expect a collapse.
That's a good plan. Make it so everyone has insurance..but just make sure the insurance companies deny coverage for treatments for more people than they already are. This way, there is balance!
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,040
1
81
Before that it was the tax payer.
And it will still be the tax payer. You really expect that to change?

All you've done is add more middle men and regulations...both of which add cost for everyone.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,877
4,209
126
One can argue over the short term effects being negative here, but I do believe it is worth the cost if we can finally move the country to a single payer system. We've tried health care reform in this country for almost 2-3 decades now, and Obama is the first president who has ever achieved significant reform. He's laying the ground work that future presidents will build upon.
I offer the opinion that deceiving people to believe something which it is not is wrong. When I offered my version as to the approach to health care reform, why was I shouted down by people who had their hopes invested in Obamacare? Why did those who claim they want a good system say the work wasn't needed, that the politicians know how to craft laws, ignoring that law and regulation is the final result, not reform in itself? Why was I told that all the above was already done and that people in DC knew it? That it was a waste of time? Why does Obama and the Dems, or anyone else involved in this matter get credit for not exercising due diligence? For not considering consequences of their actions, which my early teenage son foresaw? Laying groundwork? For what? For assuming control in ignorance?

No, if you want HEALTH CARE reformed, and that includes all aspects, why do you support the slipshod? If I were in a debate with any politician you care to name, including Obama I would rip them to shreds and shame them. I don't want to hear about Republican obstruction. They are as inept and backward thinking as any one else in government. Why can't we have the quality of health care others enjoy? Because the system which governs it, private and public will not have it. They want control, money, votes.

Hell, let's give aircraft design to Congress too. Have them design planes by regulation and politics. I dare you to set foot on the results, but yet you want to put your fate into the hands of people who never will know you? Tell me what Obama knows about Alzheimer's? What about allocation of resources for the aging demographic? Regulatory streamlining? What does he know about HIPAA? How about conflicts between that and information sharing? How does the legal system unique to our land influence the practice of medicine?

The sum of the knowledge of those you wish to control medicine isn't a fraction of what needs to be understood, and what they think they know is mostly wrong based on their success so far.

Let people who understand these things do the work properly, then let Congress act. Don't make the latter default surgeons.
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,877
4,209
126
That's a good plan. Make it so everyone has insurance..but just make sure the insurance companies deny coverage for treatments for more people than they already are. This way, there is balance!
So when the government denies covering a treatment that is reasonable to you?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,877
4,209
126
Death Panels, eh?


:whiste:
No.
You think government plans do not deny treatment? They have Fairly Land panels which spread Pixy dust throughout the land?

"Denied" applies now, in this real world, right here in both private and government insurance.

Death panels is the best you can do? Seriously?
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
No.
You think government plans do not deny treatment? They have Fairly Land panels which spread Pixy dust throughout the land?

"Denied" applies now, in this real world, right here in both private and government insurance.

Death panels is the best you can do? Seriously?
So what? NO health care system will ever be perfect and cover all treatments to all people.

A single payer system does a better job of covering more people and providing them access to better care at a cheaper price. This is not deniable.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,877
4,209
126
So what? NO health care system will ever be perfect and cover all treatments to all people.

A single payer system does a better job of covering more people and providing them access to better care at a cheaper price. This is not deniable.
Then why don't people want to make sure it's the best possible system before irreversably turning it over to those who do not understand it? It is completely deniable that EVERY single payer system MUST do as you say. You want me to compile a list of political screw ups of what should have been straightforward to handle? Things much simpler, like Afghanistan, or NASA funding and mandates?

Go over my list of "to do's" and tell me why my proposals are inferior to a political process making the decisions?

You want single payer? Then insist that it be done right, that we won't have to wait that it's enacted to consider consequences. That Democrats and Republicans fighting to subvert the others is better than reasoned, dedicated, proved experts who ought to do this?

Don't be one of The True Believers. We don't need pseudoreligion.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,861
2
0
Sorry, businesses were doing this long before Obama was a senator from Illinois, much less President. But that's okay, go ahead and spread the FUD.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,908
44
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Work hours cut due to ObamaCare

Link


So if they cut 30 hrs from workers and add an additional worker - does this count as a net gain for employment (part time worker) or a loss for the existing workers due to ObamaCare rules?

It is not anything w/ respect to the economic conditions but strictly due to governmental mandates on how a business is to be run :thumbsdown:
Awesome

All these employees should thank the Messiah because their quality of life will improve all around thanks to ObamaCare. :thumbsup:
 

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
23,157
1,255
126
Hey... I used to have a shitty "part time" job while in college that only gave me 39 hours a week every week, because they would have to offer me overtime and benefits if I worked 40 or more.

You know what my solution to this "problem" was? I got my degree and got a better job. Maybe these restaurant workers should do the same thing! If Olive Garden and Red Lobster can't get decent employees anymore for minimum wage and no benefits, maybe they'll start offering better pay and benefits.
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
Then why don't people want to make sure it's the best possible system before irreversably turning it over to those who do not understand it? It is completely deniable that EVERY single payer system MUST do as you say. You want me to compile a list of political screw ups of what should have been straightforward to handle? Things much simpler, like Afghanistan, or NASA funding and mandates?

Go over my list of "to do's" and tell me why my proposals are inferior to a political process making the decisions?

You want single payer? Then insist that it be done right, that we won't have to wait that it's enacted to consider consequences. That Democrats and Republicans fighting to subvert the others is better than reasoned, dedicated, proved experts who ought to do this?

Don't be one of The True Believers. We don't need pseudoreligion.
What does that actually mean though?

Republicans don't want single payer. Their input is meaningless at this point.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY