New Obamacare Rule: Employers Cannot Drop Employee Coverage

I pay for my healthcare, all that the government is doing is asking you to pay for your healthcare, and even then if you are unable to maintain gainful employment, if you are disabled or a minor, you don't have to pay for your health care....

Why shouldn't you have to pay for your healthcare?

 

It is a big burden for an employer to take on. Every small employer who requires full time employees is paying the $2000 penalty instead of carrying them. I assume the new law only applies to large corporations.

I had almost hoped everyone would pay the penalty and drop coverage as it might move things more quickly to a one payer system.

Oh well.

 

The govt pays the lion's share of the premiums for those who get subsidies under Obamacare. Not the person getting the subsidy. That means the taxpayer is paying for it.

 

Of course not. They are already embarrassed enough as it is.

 

I have paid for my own insurance without help from anyone for 38 years. So again, why should I pay for yours or any one else's?
a bunch of lazy slackers/mooches who contribute nothing are worthless........wouldn't you agree?

 

The Navy is not a private employer.

 

I think obama and pals could generate more support for their ideas, if they kept their lies down to one a day.

 

Taxcutter says:
Don't be astonished if people start getting laid off over this. Faced with the immense cost of ObamaTax, companies have to ask themselves: "Do we REALLY NEED this dude, or can he be sent down the road?"

With unemployment at 1933 levels, do we really need a federal policy that force millions more to be let go?

 

Cause other people dont have too, its just the people who work for a living, who have to pay up...

Liberals love to discourage behaviors through taxation, like smoking cigarettes.....




.

 

Solving simple poverty would make that a more rational choice; after all, what excuse could a person have for not taking better care of themselves if they cannot claim to be in poverty.

 

Theres no such thing as "solving poverty".

We declared war on poverty 50 years ago, and spent trillions, only to be in the exact same place we were 50 years ago.

 

Did you know that is an appeal to ignorance? It doesn't take rocket science, and we have already been to the moon and back. The infrastructure already exists in our republic.

 

and yet some people simply choose to be poor.

 

Usually, only the religious subscribe to poverty on an at-will basis.

 

Nonsense. There are plenty of people who don't want a complicated lifestyle, who work as little as possible to sustain their existence and enable a maximum amount of leisure time. They wouldn't take a job offering them more money for harder work even if it were offered to them. Most often, and as is just, those willing to work harder, learn more, and become more are rewarded more than those who just settle for the status quo. Poverty is an option. It's nearly always an option. And it's a mindset too born of a lack of ambition and a misguided belief that their station in life can be blamed on somebody else.

 

No, not really. Everyone makes choices in life that will lead them to one or the other.

If you choose a path that will eventually lead you into poverty, its your fault.

Thats called freedom.

 

You are not taking into account any rate of unemployment; it could be considered a fallacy of composition or special pleading.

- - - Updated - - -

How does that work with Any rate of unemployment, even if everyone has a doctorate?

 

Not everyone has a doctorate. Your typical crackhead made a decision to "try" crack, and thus restricted themselves to a life of poverty.

 

I wonder what the rate of unemployment would be if we didn't keep extending benefits?

 

I do believe that benefits being extended longer and longer just enables people to "ride the system" longer.

While I myself was unemployed for many months no by choice, I only accepted 1 week's unemployment just to help a little bit. I rode out the employment gap on my savings. I don't support the benefits being taken instantly, but I do support it slowly being removed. Like after 6 months, each month a 20% reduction in benefits. The slow reduction of income makes it easier, and gives more time to find a job.

If you are just THAT unemployable that you can't get a job in a year, you either aren't trying, are turning down offers of jobs you don't want, or have some other circumstance barring you from being employed which taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for.

 

They CAN drop employees no one is saying they can't but they must pay the penalty which I suspect is a lot more than paying for their insurance but companies can opt to do so.

If it was me I would just move the jobs to another state and fire the former workers if they didn't want to move and not offer insurance to the new workers just maybe more pay and other things. That should get passed this rule.

 

With this law, what they can't do is subsidize the insurance like they do now without a huge tax penalty.

 

So why shouldn't you pay for your health care?

- - - Updated - - -

Just pay for your own, that's all you need to do....and you're all set with ObamaCare...I'll bet you kept your plan, too

- - - Updated - - -

You really don't get it do you?
Seaman's relief act of 1798 didn't apply to the Navy, it applied to seaman working on privately owned vessels engaged in trade...

 

So it's not fair to unemployed smokers?

 

this post is sheer ignorance.
So, who pays for yours?
Could you pay the price without your subsidies?