Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

All of PACEDOG'S Obamacare threads combined into one (in case anyone actually reads these)

+7
boards of FL
VectorMan
Nekochan
Joanimaroni
ZVUGKTUBM
knothead
Markle
11 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Go down  Message [Page 3 of 6]

Guest


Guest

Many cash-strapped cities and counties facing the prospect of shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars in new health-care costs under the Affordable Care Act are opting instead to reduce the number of hours their part-time employees work.
 
obamacare-300x199_image_982wThe decisions to cut employee hours come 16 months before employers — including state and local governments — will be required to offer health-care coverage to employees who work at least 30 hours a week. Some local officials said the cuts are happening now either because of labor contracts that must be negotiated in advance, or because the local governments worry that employees who work at least 30 hours in the months leading up to the January 2015 implementation date would need to be included in their health-care plans.
 
On Tuesday, Middletown Township, N.J. said it would reduce the hours of 25 part-time workers to avoid up to $775,000 in increased annual health-care costs. Earlier this month, Bee County, Tex., said it would limit its part-time workers to 24 hours per week when the new fiscal year starts Oct. 1.
 
Last month, department heads in Brevard County, Fla., were told to plan similar cuts in advance of the 2015 deadline. Brevard County Insurance Director Jerry Visco estimated the new mandate would cost the county $10,000 per part-time employee — or $1.38 million a year if all 138 part-time employees who work more than 30 hours a week are covered, he told Florida Today. The Brevard County libraries have already cut hours for 37 employees.

Additionally...

As of June 2013, U.S. median household income has fallen by 4.4 percent since the "economic recovery" began in June 2009, Sentier said. And it is now 6.1 percent below the pre-crisis December 2007 level.

During the recovery, the unemployment rate and the duration of joblessness remained high, dragging down the median annual household income to its low point of $50,722 in August 2011.

Based on our data, almost every group is worse off now than it was four years ago, with the exception of households with householders 65 to 74 years old, said Gordon Green of Sentier Research.

 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/08/22/local-governments-cutting-hours-over-obamacare-costs/?clsrd

knothead

knothead

I'm just speaking for myself but my instincts tell me you are a tired and frustrated person who has not figured out that your rants are for the most part completely disregarded because of your caustic nature. I don't think many actually care what you think. . . .

Guest


Guest

knothead wrote:I'm just speaking for myself but my instincts tell me you are a tired and frustrated person who has not figured out that your rants are for the most part completely disregarded because of your caustic nature.  I don't think many actually care what you think. . . .
Because you can't defend his loser policies....

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

knothead wrote:I'm just speaking for myself but my instincts tell me you are a tired and frustrated person who has not figured out that your rants are for the most part completely disregarded because of your caustic nature.  I don't think many actually care what you think. . . .
It would be better if PD would consolidate his Obamacare rants into just one thread, instead of making up multiple threads and expecting all of us libs to comment on every one.

Since they are mostly ignored, one would think that would provide a big fat clue as to why his threads receive few comments. Content is everything on the Internet, you know.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

Well crap dog you posted 3 or 4 threads of Delta, University of Va, UPS and some bs county in central Florida. All have union's, so I thought you were a union rep bitching about all the big corp's not covering spouses if they had other coverage offered some where else. Here's an excerpt of one:

Last month, department heads in Brevard County, Fla., were told to plan similar cuts in advance of the 2015 deadline. Brevard County Insurance Director Jerry Visco estimated the new mandate would cost the county $10,000 per part-time employee — or $1.38 million a year if all 138 part-time employees who work more than 30 hours a week are covered, he told Florida Today. The Brevard County libraries have already cut hours for 37 employees.

Well look at that sentence that says they will have to cover part time who work over 30 hours a week. I had to laugh at that, no one on large group has ever been considered part time over 30 hours a week, it's under 30 they are part time.

It's too bad part of the law require's employer's to cover kids up to 26, now that is stupid, because the only reason to cover them before the law was because some were uninsurable, but now it won't matter because everyone can get it.

I have many small groups under 50 that have never offered coverage to any dependent, just employee only. It's a union thing that large employer's offered coverage to spouse and dependent's.

Now explain why an employer should offer coverage to the family?

These people cutting down to part time may not help them a bit. There is a test to determine that, so to speak to part timer's equal one full timer, but then again it really get's complicated at that point.

I do have to admit the employer mandate is a sack of crap and very complicated and could be the delaying was simply a way to slowly back a way from it.

By the way a very stupid article in editorial today by Rubio and most of it is fiction. The clown with the supermarket that says it's going to hurt his senior employee's is also wacko, if a person is on any government backed insurance, ie Medicare you take them out of any equation for individual or group insurance.


So now you have some response's, but I'm not a liberal nor conservative.

PBulldog2

PBulldog2

doubtingthomas wrote:Well crap dog you posted 3 or 4 threads of Delta, University of Va, UPS and some bs county in central Florida. All have union's, so I thought you were a union rep bitching about all the big corp's not covering spouses if they had other coverage offered some where else. Here's an excerpt of one:

Last month, department heads in Brevard County, Fla., were told to plan similar cuts in advance of the 2015 deadline. Brevard County Insurance Director Jerry Visco estimated the new mandate would cost the county $10,000 per part-time employee — or $1.38 million a year if all 138 part-time employees who work more than 30 hours a week are covered, he told Florida Today. The Brevard County libraries have already cut hours for 37 employees.

Well look at that sentence that says they will have to cover part time who work over 30 hours a week. I had to laugh at that, no one on large group has ever been considered part time over 30 hours a week, it's under 30 they are part time.

It's too bad part of the law require's employer's to cover kids up to 26, now that is stupid, because the only reason to cover them before the law was because some were uninsurable, but now it won't matter because everyone can get it.

I have many small groups under 50 that have never offered coverage to any dependent, just employee only. It's a union thing that large employer's offered coverage to spouse and dependent's.

Now explain why an employer should offer coverage to the family?

These people cutting down to part time may not help them a bit. There is a test to determine that, so to speak to part timer's equal one full timer, but then again it really get's complicated at that point.

I do have to admit the employer mandate is a sack of crap and very complicated and could be the delaying was simply a way to slowly back a way from it.

By the way a very stupid article in editorial today by Rubio and most of it is fiction. The clown with the supermarket that says it's going to hurt his senior employee's is also wacko, if a person is on any government backed insurance, ie Medicare you take them out of any equation for individual or group insurance.


So now you have some response's, but I'm not a liberal nor conservative.
DT, I just posted in another forum that some local corporations are advertising two permanent part-time positions (with identical hiring qualifications) in the same specific section of the corporation. The company gets two part-timers to fill one prior full-time position, with no need to offer health insurance to either new employee.

Are you saying there is a test to determine if large employers are making use of this employment strategy?

Guest


Guest

Yes, PB there is but I'd have to find it to post it. It's very complicated and I don't have it memorized, it can or cannot be a smart strategy. There's a specific formula and since I don't deal in large group have put it in the back of my mind. It either is you take all pt employee's hours in a month and divide by 120 or130 to determine how many of those pt qualify as ft and that is to determine the penalty which in a lot of cases can end up being less than offering health insurance. That is good strategy for hiring new employee's but could open up a whole can of worms for reducing current full time employee's to part time with the sole intention of denying health insurance. The employer may be violating ERISA rules which is a $25,000 fine per person. There smarter than me CPA's and Tax attorney's may be finding a way around this. Then you have self funded group's and that's a whole different set of rules except they have to have minimum essential coverage. I can talk individual and small group under 50 all day long. The DOL can help you on this. Wish I could have been more help on this and if I find some specific information from a CPA that know's it pretty good in another forum I will copy and paste it.

You talk about one part of the law that I believe no one understands, even the government and this would be it. In seminar's the information sometime's is not the same as the seminar or webinar before it.

In some instance's the employer may be doing the spouse getting kicked off a favor. They may be able to get it cheaper from their employer and if they are not employed may just qualify for a subsidy.

Oh is that other forum Eric's? If so I have lost the url and don't know how to get in. I am a member and have a completely different name there.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


That's the problem with tying health care coverage to employment.

And the only reason I'm responding to this thread at all is that other people that I respect have posted here. Otherwise, your thread title is an insult in itself, and doesn't invite discourse but only a furtherance of your inane delusions.

Guest


Guest

Here you go PB a final IRS rule that show's how complicated this really is, I don't believe it addresses your specific question though.

http://www.gbophb.org/TheWell/Root/HFLX/4523.pdf

Here's one that addresses it:

http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/the-i-r-s-interprets-the-employer-mandate-and-businesses-have-questions/?partner=yahoofinance&_r=1

Now you see why it's so complicated?

It is a cluster F and although some on here think I am all for this, I am only somewhat for the individual mandate, it may help some people and purely for selfish reason's and this is to keep my job. I also started posting about the PPACA do help educate and try to help you all differentiate facts from bs. What a pity that some of our elected reps in Florida are now trying to scare senior's over this. At one time I kind of liked Rubio, never liked Miller or Scott, but Scott has been keeping fairly quiet. The reason he's keeping quiet is he now realizes that his business he has in trust will lose business, that is exactly why he tried to get the legislature to accept the Medicaid money.

Guest


Guest

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
knothead wrote:I'm just speaking for myself but my instincts tell me you are a tired and frustrated person who has not figured out that your rants are for the most part completely disregarded because of your caustic nature.  I don't think many actually care what you think. . . .
It would be better if PD would consolidate his Obamacare rants into just one thread, instead of making up multiple threads and expecting all of us libs to comment on every one.

Since they are mostly ignored, one would think that would provide a big fat clue as to why his threads receive few comments. Content is everything on the Internet, you know.
Z, most of the top replied threads on this board are PD's threads. fyi;) 

knothead

knothead

Z, most of the top replied threads on this board are PD's threads. fyi;)

*********************************************************

Statistically, you could very well be correct in that assertion . . . . I would assert PD posts far more threads than most with many not getting any responses and many are filled with posts disagreeing with his position but it is really irrelevant. Smile

Guest


Guest

knothead wrote:Z, most of the top replied threads on this board are PD's threads. fyi;)

*********************************************************

Statistically, you could very well be correct in that assertion . . . . I would assert PD posts far more threads than most with many not getting any responses and many are filled with posts disagreeing with his position but it is really irrelevant. Smile
No, not irrelevant.

This is a message board. You simply can not only count the replies that YOU or your opinion agrees with. They are still replies, hence they count. tongue 

knothead

knothead

. wrote:
knothead wrote:Z, most of the top replied threads on this board are PD's threads. fyi;)

*********************************************************

Statistically, you could very well be correct in that assertion . . . . I would assert PD posts far more threads than most with many not getting any responses and many are filled with posts disagreeing with his position but it is really irrelevant. Smile
No, not irrelevant.

This is a message board. You simply can not only count the replies that YOU or your opinion agrees with. They are still replies, hence they count. tongue 
******************** **********************************

You made an assertion: PD had 'the most replied posts', correct? If PD post 100X more than Mr. Dot (you) or I then it would be statistically probable he would have 'more replied posts' . . . . it's not complicated but it is irrelevant and has virtually no meaning good or bad. PD is a serial poster and that's cool if he chooses to do that.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

knothead wrote:
. wrote:
knothead wrote:Z, most of the top replied threads on this board are PD's threads. fyi;)

*********************************************************

Statistically, you could very well be correct in that assertion . . . . I would assert PD posts far more threads than most with many not getting any responses and many are filled with posts disagreeing with his position but it is really irrelevant. Smile
No, not irrelevant.

This is a message board. You simply can not only count the replies that YOU or your opinion agrees with. They are still replies, hence they count. tongue 
******************** **********************************

You made an assertion: PD had 'the most replied posts', correct? If PD post 100X more than Mr. Dot (you) or I then it would be statistically probable he would have 'more replied posts' . . . . it's not complicated but it is irrelevant and has virtually no meaning good or bad.  PD is a serial poster and that's cool if he chooses to do that.
I think it is really "Ms Dot"

"Serial Poster" That is a good one! He'll be one to watch as the 2014 midterms come closer.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

knothead wrote:
. wrote:
knothead wrote:Z, most of the top replied threads on this board are PD's threads. fyi;)

*********************************************************

Statistically, you could very well be correct in that assertion . . . . I would assert PD posts far more threads than most with many not getting any responses and many are filled with posts disagreeing with his position but it is really irrelevant. Smile
No, not irrelevant.

This is a message board. You simply can not only count the replies that YOU or your opinion agrees with. They are still replies, hence they count. tongue 
******************** **********************************

You made an assertion: PD had 'the most replied posts', correct? If PD post 100X more than Mr. Dot (you) or I then it would be statistically probable he would have 'more replied posts' . . . . it's not complicated but it is irrelevant and has virtually no meaning good or bad.  PD is a serial poster and that's cool if he chooses to do that.
We are not connecting. You are attempting to add value to what YOU see personally as irrelevant on how you count post.

I am simply being simple. Z made a comment about no one replied to PD's post. That is statistically incorrect, people do reply to his threads. It doesn't matter if they agree or disagree, they are still replying. Like now, we are on PD's thread engaging in comments. because this is a message board. its what we do.

Here's the thing. Z or you and even others. I do not see many of you making topics for people to engage in thought on. I don't see many topics coming from you all at all.

You guys should be thankful to the people who make topics that you disagree with which allows you to state your views. Or why else be here?

There is no other reason to be here as we all have been around here for a while and I can attest this is a shitty dating site.

So if you or Z do not like PD's topics, please feel free to start threads. Other than that. Z was inaccurate with his comment and you were trying to measure it in some fuzzy lefty way lol

knothead

knothead

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
knothead wrote:
. wrote:
knothead wrote:Z, most of the top replied threads on this board are PD's threads. fyi;)

*********************************************************

Statistically, you could very well be correct in that assertion . . . . I would assert PD posts far more threads than most with many not getting any responses and many are filled with posts disagreeing with his position but it is really irrelevant. Smile
No, not irrelevant.

This is a message board. You simply can not only count the replies that YOU or your opinion agrees with. They are still replies, hence they count. tongue 
******************** **********************************

You made an assertion: PD had 'the most replied posts', correct? If PD post 100X more than Mr. Dot (you) or I then it would be statistically probable he would have 'more replied posts' . . . . it's not complicated but it is irrelevant and has virtually no meaning good or bad.  PD is a serial poster and that's cool if he chooses to do that.
I think it is really "Ms Dot"

"Serial Poster" That is a good one! He'll be one to watch as the 2014 midterms come closer.
******************************************************

Sorry bout the gender Ms. Dot . . . . we won't have to wait for the mid-terms as he is a prolific poster and that's why we're here, right?

Guest


Guest

PD's posts about Obama are old and boring. I do not waste my typing fingers replying.

knothead

knothead

Dreamsglore wrote:PD's posts about Obama are old and boring. I do not waste my typing fingers replying.
********************************************************

I agree . . . . read my first post here . . . . . he's a broken record!

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

knothead wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:PD's posts about Obama are old and boring. I do not waste my typing fingers replying.
********************************************************

I agree . . . . read my first post here . . . . . he's a broken record!
He and Markle are definitely not members of the Barrack Hussein Obama fan club....

What ever happened to No Chain and Newswatcher? They left and are hating on Obama over at that other forum. LOL!

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

The only people rooting for Obama are the ones looking for more handouts.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

PACEDOG#1 wrote:The only people rooting for Obama are the ones looking for more handouts.
We don't necessarily root for Obama, but we sure get a laugh out of watching you hate on him. Razz

It's like an obcession with you....

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

knothead

knothead

The only people rooting for Obama are the ones looking for more handouts.


*********************************************************

The only thing I'm rooting for is America and all its citizens . . . . . I do not understand the 'handout' dig as it certainly does not apply to myself.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 6]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum