Trumpcare, not Obamacare, could be a job killer

[moe]

When Obamacare was approved, it was believed by quite a few industry analysts (myself included) that it would be a job killer. The employer mandate – which imposes fines of $2,000 to $3,000 per full-time-equivalent employee who isn't offered health coverage options or who has to pay too much of his or her income to cover premium expenses – was seen as a deterrent to job creation. Rather than face possible fines, it was believed that businesses would either reduce their workforce to part-time or simply lay off workers to combat rising healthcare expenses.

In reality, neither of these scenarios came to fruition. A Kaiser Family Foundation report found that Obamacare led 7% of employers with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees to bump part-time workers to full-time, whereas just 2% did the opposite. Low interest rates and an improving economy can take some of the credit, but Obamacare was certainly not a job killer, based on this report.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...not-obamacare-could-be-a-job-killer/96613366/

 

[Mntneer]

When Obamacare was approved, it was believed by quite a few industry analysts (myself included) that it would be a job killer. The employer mandate – which imposes fines of $2,000 to $3,000 per full-time-equivalent employee who isn't offered health coverage options or who has to pay too much of his or her income to cover premium expenses – was seen as a deterrent to job creation. Rather than face possible fines, it was believed that businesses would either reduce their workforce to part-time or simply lay off workers to combat rising healthcare expenses.

In reality, neither of these scenarios came to fruition. A Kaiser Family Foundation report found that Obamacare led 7% of employers with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees to bump part-time workers to full-time, whereas just 2% did the opposite. Low interest rates and an improving economy can take some of the credit, but Obamacare was certainly not a job killer, based on this report.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...not-obamacare-could-be-a-job-killer/96613366/

And how many of that "7%" bumped part-time workers to full-time but cut overall workforce? Does that Kaiser report examine that?

 

[dave]

When Obamacare was approved, it was believed by quite a few industry analysts (myself included) that it would be a job killer. The employer mandate – which imposes fines of $2,000 to $3,000 per full-time-equivalent employee who isn't offered health coverage options or who has to pay too much of his or her income to cover premium expenses – was seen as a deterrent to job creation. Rather than face possible fines, it was believed that businesses would either reduce their workforce to part-time or simply lay off workers to combat rising healthcare expenses.

In reality, neither of these scenarios came to fruition. A Kaiser Family Foundation report found that Obamacare led 7% of employers with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees to bump part-time workers to full-time, whereas just 2% did the opposite. Low interest rates and an improving economy can take some of the credit, but Obamacare was certainly not a job killer, based on this report.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...not-obamacare-could-be-a-job-killer/96613366/

Sounds logical. You should talk to someone at those companies between 50-100 employees about their deductibles and premiums.

 

[wvu2007]

Not going to happen racist Moe.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

When Obamacare was approved, it was believed by quite a few industry analysts (myself included) that it would be a job killer. The employer mandate – which imposes fines of $2,000 to $3,000 per full-time-equivalent employee who isn't offered health coverage options or who has to pay too much of his or her income to cover premium expenses – was seen as a deterrent to job creation. Rather than face possible fines, it was believed that businesses would either reduce their workforce to part-time or simply lay off workers to combat rising healthcare expenses.

In reality, neither of these scenarios came to fruition. A Kaiser Family Foundation report found that Obamacare led 7% of employers with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees to bump part-time workers to full-time, whereas just 2% did the opposite. Low interest rates and an improving economy can take some of the credit, but Obamacare was certainly not a job killer, based on this report.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...not-obamacare-could-be-a-job-killer/96613366/

I know we laid off a lot "tenured" folks and brought in a bunch young underpaid know nothings. Balanced the sheets though, well after the layoff planned for next month it will.

 

[atlkvb]

When Obamacare was approved, it was believed by quite a few industry analysts (myself included) that it would be a job killer. The employer mandate – which imposes fines of $2,000 to $3,000 per full-time-equivalent employee who isn't offered health coverage options or who has to pay too much of his or her income to cover premium expenses – was seen as a deterrent to job creation. Rather than face possible fines, it was believed that businesses would either reduce their workforce to part-time or simply lay off workers to combat rising healthcare expenses.

In reality, neither of these scenarios came to fruition. A Kaiser Family Foundation report found that Obamacare led 7% of employers with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees to bump part-time workers to full-time, whereas just 2% did the opposite. Low interest rates and an improving economy can take some of the credit, but Obamacare was certainly not a job killer, based on this report.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...not-obamacare-could-be-a-job-killer/96613366/

The article didn't mention anything about all of the waivers that were granted to businesses in the first few years of the Law to help them avoid the mandates & staggering costs, it also did not mention how many were either partially or totally subsidized in the premiums they had to pay to maintain coverage.

Additionally, most of the real costs of the Law were delayed until this current year...many cost controls on premiums were eliminated yet Insurance actuarials had to publish their anticipated rate increases at least a year in advance in order to give policy holders a chance to decide which care options they could afford.

The Dems thought they were being clever hiding all of these costs by choosing to delay their implementation until 2017, but the effect was to show these staggering rate increases to insurers and policy holders just as they were going to the polls in 2016. That sent shock waves through both Democrat and Republican voters, and probably more than her lying or corrupt cheating, or the Russians, had more to do with Hillary's defeat than any other single factor.

I didn't read about any of that in your article. But it's the USA today which is firmly planted on the Left so why would you expect them to report any of this?