"Obamacare" will not reach 1/2 of low wage workers.
59 replies, posted
Unbelievable. Poor people in Republican states should be rioting, their elected leaders are LITERALLY leaving them to get sick and die for the crime of being poor.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;42412773]Unbelievable. Poor people in Republican states should be rioting, their elected leaders are LITERALLY leaving them to get sick and die for the crime of being poor.[/QUOTE]
They've been deluded into thinking that it's all a socialist muslim plot.
[QUOTE=Explosions;42412797]They've been deluded into thinking that it's all a socialist muslim plot.[/QUOTE]
Islam is a socialist plot.
btw this is the list of states who don't want to expand
[IMG]http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/files/8713/7841/9102/9-6-13-US-Map-Medicaid-Expansion-952x690.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;42411852]
It's cheaper for them to hire more workers with limited hours than it is to pay for health insurance for a smaller number of workers.[/QUOTE]
lmao no it's not. it's so fucking expensive to keep part-time workers versus full-time which is why hardly anyone is cutting hours due to the aca.
So how do the subsidies work? Since these people aren't getting medicaid but have to get insurance they can still get a subsidy right since that wasn't tied to the medicaid expansion?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42415707]lmao no it's not. it's so fucking expensive to keep part-time workers versus full-time which is why hardly anyone is cutting hours due to the aca.[/QUOTE]
Why would full-time be cheaper? Training isn't a big deal at all for low-end, minimum wage, workers. For example, I had about 16 hours of training (total cost of $128) for my fast food work. Those training hours were mostly filling out paperwork and watching dumb training videos that the corporation forced the managers to have new hires watch.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42415901]Why would full-time be cheaper? Training isn't a big deal at all for low-end, minimum wage, workers. For example, I had about 16 hours of training (total cost of $128) for my fast food work. Those training hours were mostly filling out paperwork and watching dumb training videos that the corporation forced the managers to have new hires watch.[/QUOTE]
training, administration, and management. you need a lot more paperwork for each new worker and someone has to fill out that paperwork. this includes their taxes, ensuring that they are paid properly, people to supervise and ensure proper time clocking. more individuals working at a place generally puts a very heavy load on the system. fast food tends to be an exception.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42415921]training, administration, and management. you need a lot more paperwork for each new worker and someone has to fill out that paperwork. this includes their taxes, ensuring that they are paid properly, people to supervise and ensure proper time clocking. more individuals working at a place generally puts a very heavy load on the system. fast food tends to be an exception.[/QUOTE]
This is why book keepers exist. They're used to huge volumes of paperwork and basically have it down to a science. I've known many book keepers and they've all told me that high turnover and large volumes of employees aren't really an issue, especially since software exists to manage most of it for them. One book keeper can basically manage hundreds of people with little problems.
And as for training expenses, it's mostly irrelevant. When you have low wage jobs like fast food, retail ,manual labor, etc. there's generally an existing pool of people that already know how to do those jobs because they've done them before. People in fast food and retail switch between different fast food chains and retail stores fairly regularly for a variety of reasons.
Something from long ago: "A country must export more than they import".
Perhaps if the US would start manufacturing things for once (More than we are already anyway) ... We'd have shit tons of money (And jobs) then we'd be able afford something like Obamacare....
[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;42417822]Something from long ago: "A country must export more than they import".
Perhaps if the US would start manufacturing things for once (More than we are already anyway) ... We'd have shit tons of money (And jobs) then we'd be able afford something like Obamacare....[/QUOTE]
True, but the thing is that takes a long time until it starts paying for itself. And no one really wants to take the time to do it.
[QUOTE=areolop;42409137]This has yet to be shown.
[/QUOTE]
The majority of people I know who work low-wage jobs have this as the case. I'm pretty sure this is something that is happening.
[editline]5th October 2013[/editline]
My main opposition to the ACA is that it really isn't helping those who need it. Couldn't afford health insurance? Well now you have to buy it or pay ~100$ a month! Was going to take the cheapest option? Now more expensive! Wanted to keep your hours? Well now you company is cutting them! Barely living paycheck to paycheck? Fuck you!
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42418061']My main opposition to the ACA is that it really isn't helping those who need it. Couldn't afford health insurance? Well now you have to buy it or pay ~100$ a month! Was going to take the cheapest option? Now more expensive! Wanted to keep your hours? Well now you company is cutting them! Barely living paycheck to paycheck? Fuck you![/QUOTE]
Yes but remember that was just Republicans meddling with the program. The Democrats care about the poor.
It's been said time and time again, if you absolutely can not afford insurance you get an exception
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42418061']The majority of people I know who work low-wage jobs have this as the case. I'm pretty sure this is something that is happening.
[editline]5th October 2013[/editline]
[B]My main opposition to the ACA is that it really isn't helping those who need it. Couldn't afford health insurance? Well now you have to buy it or pay ~100$ a month![/B] Was going to take the cheapest option? Now more expensive! Wanted to keep your hours? Well now you company is cutting them! Barely living paycheck to paycheck? Fuck you![/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Poor people excluded from the Medicaid expansion will not be subject to fines for lacking coverage. In all, about 14 million eligible Americans are uninsured and living in poverty, the Times analysis found.[/QUOTE]
people don't read articles, welp.
also
[url]http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/09/obamacare_explained_questions_answered_about_how_and_why_to_sign_up_and.2.html[/url]
[QUOTE][B]If the policy costs more than 10 percent of your annual income or you don’t pay any federal taxes, you won’t have to pay a penalty anyway.[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;42420005]people don't read articles, welp.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry but that's bullshit. There's still a huge chunk of people who aren't willing or capable of getting Medicaid, or Medicare, who are not in that up to 133% of poverty line, and who otherwise are not capable or willing of buying health insurance.
This is still mandating that the majority of people who otherwise would not be capable/willing to purchase health insurance (medicaid is not free for most people) would still need to, and if they would otherwise choose not to (which most of them haven't up to this point because they aren't willing or comfortably capable of paying for the insurance) then they are therefore fined, because they would now be eligible.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42420216']I'm sorry but that's bullshit. There's still a huge chunk of people who aren't willing or capable of getting Medicaid, or Medicare, who are not in that up to 133% of poverty line, and who otherwise are not capable or willing of buying health insurance.
This is still mandating that the majority of people who otherwise would not be capable/willing to purchase health insurance (medicaid is not free for most people) would still need to, and if they would otherwise choose not to (which most of them haven't up to this point because they aren't willing or comfortably capable of paying for the insurance) then they are therefore fined, because they would now be eligible.[/QUOTE]
no offense man but really, EVERYONE gets sick, if you choosing not to pay and can, thats rather fucked up, as for the ones that can't due to money, i agree with you its bad, this thing is still a step in the right direction for you americans to get a real healthcare system like the NHS, or several others, even our brazilian SUS(horribly fucked up and underfunded) is better than having nothing.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42418061']The majority of people I know who work low-wage jobs have this as the case. I'm pretty sure this is something that is happening.
[editline]5th October 2013[/editline]
My main opposition to the ACA is that it really isn't helping those who need it. Couldn't afford health insurance? Well now you have to buy it or pay ~100$ a month! Was going to take the cheapest option? Now more expensive! Wanted to keep your hours? Well now you company is cutting them! Barely living paycheck to paycheck? Fuck you![/QUOTE]
the main problem is that medicaid is only expanded for people who reach 138% of the fpl. that's about $15,000-16,000 a year. that's not only incredibly low, that's only slightly above minimum wage, full time in my state. if you make anything more than minimum wage, then you can kiss your medicaid goodbye and start subtracting a $100 "tax" from your monthly paycheck because the government thinks that your poverty-wage is wealthy enough to start paying for healthcare on your own.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42420216']I'm sorry but that's bullshit. There's still a huge chunk of people who aren't willing or capable of getting Medicaid, or Medicare, who are not in that up to 133% of poverty line, and who otherwise are not capable or willing of buying health insurance.
This is still mandating that the majority of people who otherwise would not be capable/willing to purchase health insurance (medicaid is not free for most people) would still need to, and if they would otherwise choose not to (which most of them haven't up to this point because they aren't willing or comfortably capable of paying for the insurance) then they are therefore fined, because they would now be eligible.[/QUOTE]
I agree that the principle of the mandate is flawed and that it's ultimately a bad thing that was only thrown in to appease insurance lobbyists. However, on top of Medicaid there are specific subsidies, and, once again, if you still can't afford it you get an exception.
Just remember, Mitt Romney invented the socialized healthcare in MA. But oh no! When the president tried to go national with it hes against it.
[QUOTE=Explosions;42411876]ha[/QUOTE]
As someone who works one of those jobs, he's absolutely right. I'm lucky to get 27 hours a week because corporate refuses to pay for our healthcare. I have 20 friggin' people on my shift when we used to only have 11, because they want more employees working less hours.
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42420727]I agree that the principle of the mandate is flawed and that it's ultimately a bad thing that was only thrown in to appease insurance lobbyists. However, on top of Medicaid there are specific subsidies, and, once again, if you still can't afford it you get an exception.[/QUOTE]
The entire system doesn't work without the mandate. So if the mandate is stupid than the entire idea is stupid.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42428291]The entire system doesn't work without the mandate. So if the mandate is stupid than the entire idea is stupid.[/QUOTE]
conservative rhetoric, it could easily work without it, everyone's been accepting that as "fact" but there's plenty of dissenting opinion
The states that aren't participating in medicare benefits for low-income families undoubtibly will or likely suffer their elected officials never being re-elected into office again once ACA goes into full effect for a while.
Assuming ACA works to GREAT benefit for low-income families in states that aren't trying to block some of its measures, of course. Because then low income families will wonder why they are living in a state that is basically the north korea of the USA for them compared to living in the next state over.
I.E. next door "liberal" state has improverished people getting really good medical support from government, yet your state gets you shit. There is a snowballs chance in hell that whoever is blocking it will remain in power again through the next election, because poor-er people will universally be against you regardless of their political affiliation, and 17 million people is a good chunk of voters - MOTIVATED voters at that. And state elections are all pretty much direct democracy - you directly vote the people in that manage your state laws.
It'll be really interesting to see how their stances change once ACA goes into full effect. It wouldn't surprise me that in 4 years a large chunk of these 17 million people without ACA's medicaid/medicare benefits will find themselves getting the support they should be getting.
Assuming ACA actually sticks around.
idk, conservatives are pretty good at getting the poor to vote against their own favor
cheesy-ass quote but:
[QUOTE]Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42415859]So how do the subsidies work? Since these people aren't getting medicaid but have to get insurance they can still get a subsidy right since that wasn't tied to the medicaid expansion?[/QUOTE]
If medicare expenses will be more than 9.5% of your total income you are completely exempt from ACA penalties and don't have to get medicare, but you'll still be offered options. Chances are, you'll also qualify to have 100% of your medicare expenses subsidized by the government as well (I for example, fall into this category since I make below poverty line).
If you make less than 400% or so of the proverty line (aka less than $45k a year) then your health care costs will be subsidized by the US govt, but you still have to get healthcare.
If you make less than $25k a year, your health care costs are going to be heavily subsidized by the US govt, but you still have to get healthcare.
Jobs that are dropping you below 30 hours a week to exempt you from the healthcare mandate are almost always bullshit, where the business owners are forcing their political affiliation on you or so they can line their pockets with more greed/money. This is because the healthcare mandate on jobs doesn't actually require them to pay for your healthcare, they just have to offer healthcare through their business to you as an option. There might be some overhead costs to set this up and have it automatically come out of your paycheck, but any job that is seriously threatened by this was pretty much on the verge of going out of business anyways or deserves to go out of business. Most of the time though its just because the owner of said company is a greedy little shit.
I.E. my place of employment, a local pizza chain, has always offered healthcare to us ANYWAYS and I'm just a minimum wage worker. Of course the healthcare is stupid expensive so I don't bother paying for it (about 75% of my paycheck would go to it if I opted in, its more there for the people on salaried positions), but thats all companies have to do to for healthcare - provide a means to getting healthcare directly through your job, they don't even have to pay for it.
Also, lets assume I made 25k a year, or 218% over poverty line. My health care costs would likely be (as a single adult with no kids or dependants or sharing of expenses) around $125/mo for the basic plan or $144/mo for a standard plan after subsidies. If I had kids, dependents, other people pay-sharing on the plan, etc that cost would be way lower. These are just estimates though and there could be lower plans offered.
[editline]6th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42418061']The majority of people I know who work low-wage jobs have this as the case. I'm pretty sure this is something that is happening.
[editline]5th October 2013[/editline]
My main opposition to the ACA is that it really isn't helping those who need it. Couldn't afford health insurance? Well now you have to buy it or pay ~100$ a month! Was going to take the cheapest option? Now more expensive! Wanted to keep your hours? Well now you company is cutting them! Barely living paycheck to paycheck? Fuck you![/QUOTE]
Except none of this is true (see above)
are there any figures on the subsidies? How much will be provided?
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42431573]are there any figures on the subsidies? How much will be provided?[/QUOTE]
It largley depends on your state, income, dependants, people pay-sharing on the plan, etc
See: [url]http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/[/url]
Feel free to play around with that. It's not fool proof and your actual coverage could vary.
If you live in the US and think you might need to get healthcare, you can actually apply for plans right now. The ACA bill goes into effect right at the start of 2014, though you have until 3-4 months after when tax season starts to actually file for medicare or be exempted from on your income report you do (the govt determines if you require health care or not through your income taxes you file every year. the fine will be low for not having healthcare in the 2014 and I think the 2015 tax season. if you don't file income taxes you don't have to pay healthcare because the mandate is determined by what you turn in on your taxes)
My main important question is how do they determine if you're an individual or part of a family
My girlfriend's dad doesn't give her any real financial support but he still claims her as dependent on taxes, is this what determines it?
And if so, if she was claimed last year but plans on getting independent status next time, can she file for medicaid as an independent now?
actually do you mind if I PM you, you seem to know your stuff
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42431699]My main important question is how do they determine if you're an individual or part of a family
My girlfriend's dad doesn't give her any real financial support but he still claims her as dependent on taxes, is this what determines it?
And if so, if she was claimed last year but plans on getting independent status next time, can she file for medicaid as an independent now?
actually do you mind if I PM you, you seem to know your stuff[/QUOTE]
I don't really know too much about that. I'm pretty sure if she is claimed by her dad then she's covered on whatever her dad does.
If she claims herself she will be only her on her income taxes and thus probably get her healthcare subsidized fully if she even has to get any at all
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.