ObamaCare aka "Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act" (1 Viewer)

[jamny]

So unintended consequences can never be blamed on the bill that created them?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So unintended consequences can never be blamed on the bill that created them?

Barack H. Obama, 'The Unintended Consequence President."

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Federal Reserve Bank take on trends in part-time employment:

We have shown that part-time work is not unusually high relative to levels observed in the past, most notably in the aftermath of the early 1980s recession. However, while the availability of young workers age 16 to 24 in the labor force is declining, the prevalence of part-time work has increased in that group. In addition, part-time work has been rising among selected groups of prime-age workers age 25 to 54, primarily those with limited education. Moreover, involuntary part-time work, that is, part-time work for economic reasons, remains high. These factors have fueled speculation that elevated rates of part-time work may be here to stay. However, it is more probable that the continued high incidence of individuals working part time for economic reasons reflects a slow recovery of the jobs lost during the recession rather than permanent changes in the proportion of part-time jobs.

An alternative interpretation of the persistent high level of involuntary part-time work due to an inability to find full-time work is that it reflects employer anticipation of the 30-hour cutoff for mandatory employee health benefits under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010. Media stories have suggested that some employers are only hiring part-time workers to minimize the cost of expanded health coverage. This phenomenon will probably continue, although perhaps at a slower pace due to the recently announced delay in implementation of the employer mandate to 2015.

In any event, both the impact of the law so far and the ultimate effect are likely to be small. Before the law was passed, most large employers already faced IRS rules that prevented them from denying available health benefits to full-time workers. These rules gave employers an incentive to create part-time jobs to avoid rising health benefit costs. Moreover, recent research suggests that the ultimate increase in the incidence of part-time work when the ACA provisions are fully implemented is likely to be small, on the order of a 1 to 2 percentage point increase or less (Graham-Squire and Jacobs 2013). This is consistent with the example of Hawaii, where part-time work increased only slightly in the two decades following enforcement of the state’s employer health-care mandate (Buchmueller, DiNardo, and Valletta 2011).

Rob Valletta is a research advisor in the Economic Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

Leila Bengali is a research associate in the Economic Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

 

[BassNBrew]

5+ years in we are so past the welfare discussion. The days of Clinton (D) and the economy that thrived on that kind of thing is a faded memory. Basically the government is printing money and the whole discussion is how to get it to print less than it wants. The sad thing is Obama ran on deficit reduction, debt reduction, outrage over the economy.

The labor force particpation rate is around 63%, the worst since the 70's. 1/3 of America is out of work. It's not a concern of this administration.

Why are Republicans opposing the Rebuild America Jobs Act?

Well, I donm't know, I've happily turned off the news for a while. What should I know about it?

I'm guessing it involves spending and the GOP is against every spending bill without correlative cuts?

Here's an idea: if Obama just decided he was going to spend on infrastructrue and just infrastructure, one of the great themes of his 08 campaign, I might buy into that. But a very small percentage of the surprlus went into that, so I'm supposed to believe that's going to happen now? I know we are 16 trill in debt and I see homeless people on the street down here and we can't get our levees funded, so where in the heck is this bloomin' money going?

So you are whining about the Obama Administration not caring about jobs, but you don't even know about the job bills that they support but can't get Republican approval? LOFL

I guess he didn't do the math.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

5+ years in we are so past the welfare discussion. The days of Clinton (D) and the economy that thrived on that kind of thing is a faded memory. Basically the government is printing money and the whole discussion is how to get it to print less than it wants. The sad thing is Obama ran on deficit reduction, debt reduction, outrage over the economy.

The labor force particpation rate is around 63%, the worst since the 70's. 1/3 of America is out of work. It's not a concern of this administration.

Why are Republicans opposing the Rebuild America Jobs Act?

Well, I donm't know, I've happily turned off the news for a while. What should I know about it?

I'm guessing it involves spending and the GOP is against every spending bill without correlative cuts?

Here's an idea: if Obama just decided he was going to spend on infrastructrue and just infrastructure, one of the great themes of his 08 campaign, I might buy into that. But a very small percentage of the surprlus went into that, so I'm supposed to believe that's going to happen now? I know we are 16 trill in debt and I see homeless people on the street down here and we can't get our levees funded, so where in the heck is this bloomin' money going?

So you are whining about the Obama Administration not caring about jobs, but you don't even know about the job bills that they support but can't get Republican approval? LOFL

I guess he didn't do the math.

That's true.

How many X million people are companies now being asked (forced) to cover now?

And what is the cost to them for that?

And are they going to just take that cost and like it? Or are they going to recoup it somehow?

 

[Johnny Rock]

We put off worrying about cutting hours under 30 until 1/1/2014 with the one year reprieve for large employers. We'll add a few key Assistant Managers to full time status and the rest will be restricted. We have around 375 emps.

That 19,000 number is laughable to me. The number of people used to getting 30-40+ hours per week as part-timer's who will be kept under 30 hours at one job (and possibly forced to juggle a second job to get more hours) will be in the millions IMO.

 

[DrJ]

We put off worrying about cutting hours under 30 until 1/1/2014 with the one year reprieve for large employers. We'll add a few key Assistant Managers to full time status and the rest will be restricted. We have around 375 emps.

That 19,000 number is laughable to me. The number of people used to getting 30-40+ hours per week as part-timer's who will be kept under 30 hours at one job (and possibly forced to juggle a second job to get more hours) will be in the millions IMO.

The market for illegals is going to go through the roof.

 

[matttyl]

ObamaCare: 258 Employers Cut Work Hours, Jobs So Far

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-258-employers-cut-hours-120200975.html

258 out of hundreds of thousands

They were the ones ahead of the coming curve, and the ones who best understood the situation.....

Quote from article:

One useful bit of information that can be gleaned from the list is that 110 of the reports of reduced hours came in May and June alone. This flurry of activity has subsided significantly since the White House announced on July 2 a one-year delay of employer penalties.

The take-away: Many employers were only just beginning to understand and respond to ObamaCare's regulations that were confusing and late in coming. This suggests another flurry of work-hour reductions can be expected next spring — assuming the mandate is still expected to come into force. That's because penalties for 2015 will be based on staffing levels starting in the second half of 2014 — at the latest.

OMG. Just think, when that 258 number explodes by 100 fold, it will be .9% of all US employers.

BENGHAZZZZZIIIIII!!!!!

You have to realize that the list is comprised of large employers, those who typically have over 100, maybe in the thousands of employees. Typically only about 1.8% of all US "employers" are that large, so having a list of 258 of them (and growing, and likely would have been continuing to grow had the large employer mandate not been delayed as specifically said in the article) is isgnificant.

So when we're talking about "only" ~100k companies of that size in the US, a brand new list of 258 and growing companies, some with thousands of people affected isn't a small thing at all. We're talking about entire school districts, restaurant chains, and very large employers like Wal-Mart, Lands-End and Regal entertainment.

We're not talking about "mom and pop" style companies here.

 

[TobiasFunke]

ObamaCare: 258 Employers Cut Work Hours, Jobs So Far

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-258-employers-cut-hours-120200975.html

258 out of hundreds of thousands

They were the ones ahead of the coming curve, and the ones who best understood the situation.....

Quote from article:

One useful bit of information that can be gleaned from the list is that 110 of the reports of reduced hours came in May and June alone. This flurry of activity has subsided significantly since the White House announced on July 2 a one-year delay of employer penalties.

The take-away: Many employers were only just beginning to understand and respond to ObamaCare's regulations that were confusing and late in coming. This suggests another flurry of work-hour reductions can be expected next spring — assuming the mandate is still expected to come into force. That's because penalties for 2015 will be based on staffing levels starting in the second half of 2014 — at the latest.

OMG. Just think, when that 258 number explodes by 100 fold, it will be .9% of all US employers.

BENGHAZZZZZIIIIII!!!!!

You have to realize that the list is comprised of large employers, those who typically have over 100, maybe in the thousands of employees. Typically only about 1.8% of all US "employers" are that large, so having a list of 258 of them (and growing, and likely would have been continuing to grow had the large employer mandate not been delayed as specifically said in the article) is isgnificant.

So when we're talking about "only" ~100k companies of that size in the US, a brand new list of 258 and growing companies, some with thousands of people affected isn't a small thing at all. We're talking about entire school districts, restaurant chains, and very large employers like Wal-Mart, Lands-End and Regal entertainment.

We're not talking about "mom and pop" style companies here.

Can you show me where in the article it clarifies that we're only talking about large employers, "those who typically over 100, maybe in the thousands of employees"? All I see is the number 258 and the clarification that the figure includes "more than 200 public sector employers." If you're so concerned about public sector employees losing hours and in some cases jobs, where's your outrage about the sequester, which is having a MUCH more significant and direct impact on public sector hours and jobs?

 

[TobiasFunke]

I think it's time to give up this talking point. As with the nonsense several weeks ago about Congress "exempting itself from Obamacare," it's clear that this doesn't mean what you thought it meant.

 

[Joe T]

So reducing hours to 29.5 per week = "killed 19,000" jobs? C'mon, maaaaaan,

19k people getting reduced hours, while 100+ million get better health coverage, it's a no brainer.

this schtick is surpassing LHUCKS at this point.

 

[tommyGunZ]

So reducing hours to 29.5 per week = "killed 19,000" jobs? C'mon, maaaaaan,

19k people getting reduced hours, while 100+ million get better health coverage, it's a no brainer.

this schtick is surpassing LHUCKS at this point.

Yet further evidence that you still don't understand a law you constantly whine about.

 

[tommyGunZ]

ObamaCare: 258 Employers Cut Work Hours, Jobs So Far

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-258-employers-cut-hours-120200975.html

258 out of hundreds of thousands

They were the ones ahead of the coming curve, and the ones who best understood the situation.....

Quote from article:

One useful bit of information that can be gleaned from the list is that 110 of the reports of reduced hours came in May and June alone. This flurry of activity has subsided significantly since the White House announced on July 2 a one-year delay of employer penalties.

The take-away: Many employers were only just beginning to understand and respond to ObamaCare's regulations that were confusing and late in coming. This suggests another flurry of work-hour reductions can be expected next spring — assuming the mandate is still expected to come into force. That's because penalties for 2015 will be based on staffing levels starting in the second half of 2014 — at the latest.

OMG. Just think, when that 258 number explodes by 100 fold, it will be .9% of all US employers.

BENGHAZZZZZIIIIII!!!!!

You have to realize that the list is comprised of large employers, those who typically have over 100, maybe in the thousands of employees. Typically only about 1.8% of all US "employers" are that large, so having a list of 258 of them (and growing, and likely would have been continuing to grow had the large employer mandate not been delayed as specifically said in the article) is isgnificant.

So when we're talking about "only" ~100k companies of that size in the US, a brand new list of 258 and growing companies, some with thousands of people affected isn't a small thing at all. We're talking about entire school districts, restaurant chains, and very large employers like Wal-Mart, Lands-End and Regal entertainment.

We're not talking about "mom and pop" style companies here.

Can you show me where in the article it clarifies that we're only talking about large employers, "those who typically over 100, maybe in the thousands of employees"? All I see is the number 258 and the clarification that the figure includes "more than 200 public sector employers." If you're so concerned about public sector employees losing hours and in some cases jobs, where's your outrage about the sequester, which is having a MUCH more significant and direct impact on public sector hours and jobs?

We've reached the end of the matrix when conservatives are whining about the horrors of Obamacare making gov't smaller.

 

[Joe T]

So reducing hours to 29.5 per week = "killed 19,000" jobs? C'mon, maaaaaan,

19k people getting reduced hours, while 100+ million get better health coverage, it's a no brainer.

this schtick is surpassing LHUCKS at this point.

Yet further evidence that you still don't understand a law you constantly whine about.

So reducing hours to 29.5 per week = "killed 19,000" jobs? C'mon, maaaaaan,

19k people getting reduced hours, while 100+ million get better health coverage, it's a no brainer.

this schtick is surpassing LHUCKS at this point.

Yet further evidence that you still don't understand a law you constantly whine about.

great work in here. You are reeling them in.

 

[pantagrapher]

The Biggest Study Yet Of ObamaCare Premiums Indicates That Insurance Will Be Cheaper Than Expected

By Matthew Yglesias

|

Posted Thursday, Sept. 5, 2013, at 10:07 AM

Here's some good news for Americans who are currently uninsured, who currently buy insurance on the individual marketplace, or who think it's possible that at some point over the course of their life they might have to or want to switch jobs—the premiums charged for insurance plans on the Affordable Care Act exchanges will likely be cheaper than forecast by the Congressional Budget Office.





Since the level of subsidies available to families of modest means is keyed in part to the price of insurance premiums, this is also good news for anyone who pays taxes or uses non-health care public services.
The news comes to us from the Kaiser Family Foundation which recently completed the most comprehensive survey yet of what Obamacare plans will actually cost. Answering this basic question is frustratingly difficult. Premiums will vary based on your age and the size of your family. Premiums will also vary from place to place. And then subsidy levels will vary based on your income, the size of your family, and the local premiums. With all those variables in place, it's impossible to give a quick summary answer to the question "what will it cost." Instead you need to go step-by-step through each state and run a series of calculations. That's what Kaiser did, creating the highest-quality survey we've seen yet. Unfortunately, there are still tons of places where premium data isn't available so these preliminary conclusions might end up being off-base. But the news from what we do know is good.
Here's their bottom line:
While premiums will vary significantly across the country, they are generally lower than expected. For example, we estimate that the latest projections from the Congressional Budget Office imply that the premium for a 40-year-old in the second lowest cost silver plan would average $320 per month nationally. Fifteen of the eighteen rating areas we examined have premiums below this level, suggesting that the cost of coverage for consumers and the federal budgetary cost for tax credits will be lower than anticipated.

The big question, of course, is will this hold up as more data from more states becomes available.

 

[tommyGunZ]

The Biggest Study Yet Of ObamaCare Premiums Indicates That Insurance Will Be Cheaper Than ExpectedBy Matthew Yglesias

|

Posted Thursday, Sept. 5, 2013, at 10:07 AM

Here's some good news for Americans who are currently uninsured, who currently buy insurance on the individual marketplace, or who think it's possible that at some point over the course of their life they might have to or want to switch jobs—the premiums charged for insurance plans on the Affordable Care Act exchanges will likely be cheaper than forecast by the Congressional Budget Office.
Since the level of subsidies available to families of modest means is keyed in part to the price of insurance premiums, this is also good news for anyone who pays taxes or uses non-health care public services.
The news comes to us from the Kaiser Family Foundation which recently completed the most comprehensive survey yet of what Obamacare plans will actually cost. Answering this basic question is frustratingly difficult. Premiums will vary based on your age and the size of your family. Premiums will also vary from place to place. And then subsidy levels will vary based on your income, the size of your family, and the local premiums. With all those variables in place, it's impossible to give a quick summary answer to the question "what will it cost." Instead you need to go step-by-step through each state and run a series of calculations. That's what Kaiser did, creating the highest-quality survey we've seen yet. Unfortunately, there are still tons of places where premium data isn't available so these preliminary conclusions might end up being off-base. But the news from what we do know is good.
Here's their bottom line:
While premiums will vary significantly across the country, they are generally lower than expected. For example, we estimate that the latest projections from the Congressional Budget Office imply that the premium for a 40-year-old in the second lowest cost silver plan would average $320 per month nationally. Fifteen of the eighteen rating areas we examined have premiums below this level, suggesting that the cost of coverage for consumers and the federal budgetary cost for tax credits will be lower than anticipated.
The big question, of course, is will this hold up as more data from more states becomes available.

 

[snogger]

The Biggest Study Yet Of ObamaCare Premiums Indicates That Insurance Will Be Cheaper Than ExpectedBy Matthew Yglesias

|

Posted Thursday, Sept. 5, 2013, at 10:07 AM

Here's some good news for Americans who are currently uninsured, who currently buy insurance on the individual marketplace, or who think it's possible that at some point over the course of their life they might have to or want to switch jobs—the premiums charged for insurance plans on the Affordable Care Act exchanges will likely be cheaper than forecast by the Congressional Budget Office.
Since the level of subsidies available to families of modest means is keyed in part to the price of insurance premiums, this is also good news for anyone who pays taxes or uses non-health care public services.
The news comes to us from the Kaiser Family Foundation which recently completed the most comprehensive survey yet of what Obamacare plans will actually cost. Answering this basic question is frustratingly difficult. Premiums will vary based on your age and the size of your family. Premiums will also vary from place to place. And then subsidy levels will vary based on your income, the size of your family, and the local premiums. With all those variables in place, it's impossible to give a quick summary answer to the question "what will it cost." Instead you need to go step-by-step through each state and run a series of calculations. That's what Kaiser did, creating the highest-quality survey we've seen yet. Unfortunately, there are still tons of places where premium data isn't available so these preliminary conclusions might end up being off-base. But the news from what we do know is good.
Here's their bottom line:
While premiums will vary significantly across the country, they are generally lower than expected. For example, we estimate that the latest projections from the Congressional Budget Office imply that the premium for a 40-year-old in the second lowest cost silver plan would average $320 per month nationally. Fifteen of the eighteen rating areas we examined have premiums below this level, suggesting that the cost of coverage for consumers and the federal budgetary cost for tax credits will be lower than anticipated.
The big question, of course, is will this hold up as more data from more states becomes available.

That is the question.

As Forbes points out:

The relevant Obamacare insurance filings are still unavailable in 37 states

Less then one month until the signup begins and still missing data from 37 states.

While these mostly-blue states will see an average premium increase of 24 percent, the impact of Obamacare is highly variable. Nine of the states will see increases on average, and five will see decreases on average. New Mexico, Vermont, South Dakota, and Connecticut will see the steepest rate hikes: on average, 130, 97, 83, and 59 percent, respectively. Four states will see meaningful declines in rates: Maine (71 percent), Colorado (34 percent), Ohio (30 percent), and New York (27 percent).

 

[humpback]

The Biggest Study Yet Of ObamaCare Premiums Indicates That Insurance Will Be Cheaper Than ExpectedBy Matthew Yglesias

|

Posted Thursday, Sept. 5, 2013, at 10:07 AM

Here's some good news for Americans who are currently uninsured, who currently buy insurance on the individual marketplace, or who think it's possible that at some point over the course of their life they might have to or want to switch jobs—the premiums charged for insurance plans on the Affordable Care Act exchanges will likely be cheaper than forecast by the Congressional Budget Office.
Since the level of subsidies available to families of modest means is keyed in part to the price of insurance premiums, this is also good news for anyone who pays taxes or uses non-health care public services.
The news comes to us from the Kaiser Family Foundation which recently completed the most comprehensive survey yet of what Obamacare plans will actually cost. Answering this basic question is frustratingly difficult. Premiums will vary based on your age and the size of your family. Premiums will also vary from place to place. And then subsidy levels will vary based on your income, the size of your family, and the local premiums. With all those variables in place, it's impossible to give a quick summary answer to the question "what will it cost." Instead you need to go step-by-step through each state and run a series of calculations. That's what Kaiser did, creating the highest-quality survey we've seen yet. Unfortunately, there are still tons of places where premium data isn't available so these preliminary conclusions might end up being off-base. But the news from what we do know is good.
Here's their bottom line:
While premiums will vary significantly across the country, they are generally lower than expected. For example, we estimate that the latest projections from the Congressional Budget Office imply that the premium for a 40-year-old in the second lowest cost silver plan would average $320 per month nationally. Fifteen of the eighteen rating areas we examined have premiums below this level, suggesting that the cost of coverage for consumers and the federal budgetary cost for tax credits will be lower than anticipated.
The big question, of course, is will this hold up as more data from more states becomes available.

Says the clown who started a thread saying "Obamacare works" based on preliminary numbers from one state.

 

[timschochet]

The Biggest Study Yet Of ObamaCare Premiums Indicates That Insurance Will Be Cheaper Than ExpectedBy Matthew Yglesias

|

Posted Thursday, Sept. 5, 2013, at 10:07 AM

Here's some good news for Americans who are currently uninsured, who currently buy insurance on the individual marketplace, or who think it's possible that at some point over the course of their life they might have to or want to switch jobs—the premiums charged for insurance plans on the Affordable Care Act exchanges will likely be cheaper than forecast by the Congressional Budget Office.
Since the level of subsidies available to families of modest means is keyed in part to the price of insurance premiums, this is also good news for anyone who pays taxes or uses non-health care public services.
The news comes to us from the Kaiser Family Foundation which recently completed the most comprehensive survey yet of what Obamacare plans will actually cost. Answering this basic question is frustratingly difficult. Premiums will vary based on your age and the size of your family. Premiums will also vary from place to place. And then subsidy levels will vary based on your income, the size of your family, and the local premiums. With all those variables in place, it's impossible to give a quick summary answer to the question "what will it cost." Instead you need to go step-by-step through each state and run a series of calculations. That's what Kaiser did, creating the highest-quality survey we've seen yet. Unfortunately, there are still tons of places where premium data isn't available so these preliminary conclusions might end up being off-base. But the news from what we do know is good.
Here's their bottom line:
While premiums will vary significantly across the country, they are generally lower than expected. For example, we estimate that the latest projections from the Congressional Budget Office imply that the premium for a 40-year-old in the second lowest cost silver plan would average $320 per month nationally. Fifteen of the eighteen rating areas we examined have premiums below this level, suggesting that the cost of coverage for consumers and the federal budgetary cost for tax credits will be lower than anticipated.
The big question, of course, is will this hold up as more data from more states becomes available.

If this is true, it's good news.

I wasn't for Obamacare, but now it's here and we're stuck with it. We're not going to get rid of it. Therefore, we should all hope that it works as projected or better than projected.

It's one thing to predict that bad stuff is going to happen. But if you're actually rooting for Obamacare to fail at this point, then you're rooting for our healthcare system to fail, and for people to suffer. Shame on you.

 

[tommyGunZ]

The Biggest Study Yet Of ObamaCare Premiums Indicates That Insurance Will Be Cheaper Than ExpectedBy Matthew Yglesias

|

Posted Thursday, Sept. 5, 2013, at 10:07 AM

Here's some good news for Americans who are currently uninsured, who currently buy insurance on the individual marketplace, or who think it's possible that at some point over the course of their life they might have to or want to switch jobs—the premiums charged for insurance plans on the Affordable Care Act exchanges will likely be cheaper than forecast by the Congressional Budget Office.
Since the level of subsidies available to families of modest means is keyed in part to the price of insurance premiums, this is also good news for anyone who pays taxes or uses non-health care public services.
The news comes to us from the Kaiser Family Foundation which recently completed the most comprehensive survey yet of what Obamacare plans will actually cost. Answering this basic question is frustratingly difficult. Premiums will vary based on your age and the size of your family. Premiums will also vary from place to place. And then subsidy levels will vary based on your income, the size of your family, and the local premiums. With all those variables in place, it's impossible to give a quick summary answer to the question "what will it cost." Instead you need to go step-by-step through each state and run a series of calculations. That's what Kaiser did, creating the highest-quality survey we've seen yet. Unfortunately, there are still tons of places where premium data isn't available so these preliminary conclusions might end up being off-base. But the news from what we do know is good.
Here's their bottom line:
While premiums will vary significantly across the country, they are generally lower than expected. For example, we estimate that the latest projections from the Congressional Budget Office imply that the premium for a 40-year-old in the second lowest cost silver plan would average $320 per month nationally. Fifteen of the eighteen rating areas we examined have premiums below this level, suggesting that the cost of coverage for consumers and the federal budgetary cost for tax credits will be lower than anticipated.
The big question, of course, is will this hold up as more data from more states becomes available.

If this is true, it's good news.

I wasn't for Obamacare, but now it's here and we're stuck with it. We're not going to get rid of it. Therefore, we should all hope that it works as projected or better than projected.

It's one thing to predict that bad stuff is going to happen. But if you're actually rooting for Obamacare to fail at this point, then you're rooting for our healthcare system to fail, and for people to suffer. Shame on you.

The fat lady is warming up on the "OBAMACARE IS GOING TO BANKRUPT AMERICA" narrative that the Joe Tea Party folks have been screaming for almost 4 years now.

 

[Joe T]

For the record, I've never once thought or stated that Obamacare is going to bankrupt America. I've been in the camp that we have no idea what is going to happen in terms of cost or care. I'm also in the camp that people that spout out predictions like 100+ million people will receive improved healthcare are blowhards that ultimately have no idea what will happen either.

HTH

 

[tommyGunZ]

For the record, I've never once thought or stated that Obamacare is going to bankrupt America. I've been in the camp that we have no idea what is going to happen in terms of cost or care. I'm also in the camp that people that spout out predictions like 100+ million people will receive improved healthcare are blowhards that ultimately have no idea what will happen either.

HTH

Again, if you don't understand how the consumer protections in your healthcare plan make your coverage stronger, that's an ignorance problem on your end.

 

[Joe T]

For the record, I've never once thought or stated that Obamacare is going to bankrupt America. I've been in the camp that we have no idea what is going to happen in terms of cost or care. I'm also in the camp that people that spout out predictions like 100+ million people will receive improved healthcare are blowhards that ultimately have no idea what will happen either.

HTH

Again, if you don't understand how the consumer protections in your healthcare plan make your coverage stronger, that's an ignorance problem on your end.

The consumer protections are irrelevant.

You are predicting a known outcome of this bill: 100+ million people will receive improved healthcare. Knowing that outcome for certain is an impossibility at this stage.

HTH

 

[matttyl]

ObamaCare: 258 Employers Cut Work Hours, Jobs So Far

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-258-employers-cut-hours-120200975.html

258 out of hundreds of thousands

They were the ones ahead of the coming curve, and the ones who best understood the situation.....

Quote from article:

One useful bit of information that can be gleaned from the list is that 110 of the reports of reduced hours came in May and June alone. This flurry of activity has subsided significantly since the White House announced on July 2 a one-year delay of employer penalties.

The take-away: Many employers were only just beginning to understand and respond to ObamaCare's regulations that were confusing and late in coming. This suggests another flurry of work-hour reductions can be expected next spring — assuming the mandate is still expected to come into force. That's because penalties for 2015 will be based on staffing levels starting in the second half of 2014 — at the latest.

OMG. Just think, when that 258 number explodes by 100 fold, it will be .9% of all US employers.

BENGHAZZZZZIIIIII!!!!!

You have to realize that the list is comprised of large employers, those who typically have over 100, maybe in the thousands of employees. Typically only about 1.8% of all US "employers" are that large, so having a list of 258 of them (and growing, and likely would have been continuing to grow had the large employer mandate not been delayed as specifically said in the article) is isgnificant.

So when we're talking about "only" ~100k companies of that size in the US, a brand new list of 258 and growing companies, some with thousands of people affected isn't a small thing at all. We're talking about entire school districts, restaurant chains, and very large employers like Wal-Mart, Lands-End and Regal entertainment.

We're not talking about "mom and pop" style companies here.

Can you show me where in the article it clarifies that we're only talking about large employers, "those who typically over 100, maybe in the thousands of employees"? All I see is the number 258 and the clarification that the figure includes "more than 200 public sector employers." If you're so concerned about public sector employees losing hours and in some cases jobs, where's your outrage about the sequester, which is having a MUCH more significant and direct impact on public sector hours and jobs?

Did you see the list posted above of the 258 (and growing) companies?!

Arizona State University, Ball State U, Dave and Busters, University of Alabama, White Castle, WalMart, Indiana University, school systems, NEMF Trucking, Christopher Newport University, College of William and Mary, Norfolk State University, Virginia Community College system, Virginia Commonwealth University, Land's End, Wendy's, Five Guys, Pillar Hotels and Resorts.....

These are all large companies.

 

[TobiasFunke]

ObamaCare: 258 Employers Cut Work Hours, Jobs So Far

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-258-employers-cut-hours-120200975.html

258 out of hundreds of thousands

They were the ones ahead of the coming curve, and the ones who best understood the situation.....

Quote from article:

One useful bit of information that can be gleaned from the list is that 110 of the reports of reduced hours came in May and June alone. This flurry of activity has subsided significantly since the White House announced on July 2 a one-year delay of employer penalties.

The take-away: Many employers were only just beginning to understand and respond to ObamaCare's regulations that were confusing and late in coming. This suggests another flurry of work-hour reductions can be expected next spring — assuming the mandate is still expected to come into force. That's because penalties for 2015 will be based on staffing levels starting in the second half of 2014 — at the latest.

OMG. Just think, when that 258 number explodes by 100 fold, it will be .9% of all US employers.

BENGHAZZZZZIIIIII!!!!!

You have to realize that the list is comprised of large employers, those who typically have over 100, maybe in the thousands of employees. Typically only about 1.8% of all US "employers" are that large, so having a list of 258 of them (and growing, and likely would have been continuing to grow had the large employer mandate not been delayed as specifically said in the article) is isgnificant.

So when we're talking about "only" ~100k companies of that size in the US, a brand new list of 258 and growing companies, some with thousands of people affected isn't a small thing at all. We're talking about entire school districts, restaurant chains, and very large employers like Wal-Mart, Lands-End and Regal entertainment.

We're not talking about "mom and pop" style companies here.

Can you show me where in the article it clarifies that we're only talking about large employers, "those who typically over 100, maybe in the thousands of employees"? All I see is the number 258 and the clarification that the figure includes "more than 200 public sector employers." If you're so concerned about public sector employees losing hours and in some cases jobs, where's your outrage about the sequester, which is having a MUCH more significant and direct impact on public sector hours and jobs?

Did you see the list posted above of the 258 (and growing) companies?!

Arizona State University, Ball State U, Dave and Busters, University of Alabama, White Castle, WalMart, Indiana University, school systems, NEMF Trucking, Christopher Newport University, College of William and Mary, Norfolk State University, Virginia Community College system, Virginia Commonwealth University, Land's End, Wendy's, Five Guys, Pillar Hotels and Resorts.....

These are all large companies.

No, I don't see the list. But the places you listed (20 of 258) are almost all in the public sector. So I'll ask again- why do you care about the loss of these public sector employee hours/jobs but not the far more significant loss of hours/jobs due to the sequester?

You haven't posted ONCE in the thread on the sequester cuts that have directly reduced hours and eliminated jobs for hundreds of thousands of Americans, but when Obamacare indirectly impacts hours and jobs for a MUCH smaller number of Americans, all of a sudden it's a national tragedy? You understand that this makes your sudden concern for the welfare of the American public sector employee seem incredibly hollow, right?

 

[pantagrapher]

What will be amusing is 10 years from now, republicans objecting to the term "Obamacare" because they want the credit.

 

[matttyl]

No, I don't see the list. But the places you listed (20 of 258) are almost all in the public sector. So I'll ask again- why do you care about the loss of these public sector employee hours/jobs but not the far more significant loss of hours/jobs due to the sequester?

You haven't posted ONCE in the thread on the sequester cuts that have directly reduced hours and eliminated jobs for hundreds of thousands of Americans, but when Obamacare indirectly impacts hours and jobs for a MUCH smaller number of Americans, all of a sudden it's a national tragedy? You understand that this makes your sudden concern for the welfare of the American public sector employee seem incredibly hollow, right?

Is this not the thread to discuss Obamacare?

I'm honestly not as knowledgeable about the sequester and it's trickle down effects, so why would you want me to post there?

 

[TobiasFunke]

No, I don't see the list. But the places you listed (20 of 258) are almost all in the public sector. So I'll ask again- why do you care about the loss of these public sector employee hours/jobs but not the far more significant loss of hours/jobs due to the sequester?

You haven't posted ONCE in the thread on the sequester cuts that have directly reduced hours and eliminated jobs for hundreds of thousands of Americans, but when Obamacare indirectly impacts hours and jobs for a MUCH smaller number of Americans, all of a sudden it's a national tragedy? You understand that this makes your sudden concern for the welfare of the American public sector employee seem incredibly hollow, right?

Is this not the thread to discuss Obamacare?

I'm honestly not as knowledgeable about the sequester and it's trickle down effects, so why would you want me to post there?

That's the whole point- if you were remotely as concerned about the welfare of public sector workers as you are pretending to be here, you would be knowledgeable about the sequester. Neither you or Investor's Business Daily give a #### about those people, you're just using them to make a (very weak) argument in opposition to legislation you don't like.

 

[Aerial Assault]

No, I don't see the list. But the places you listed (20 of 258) are almost all in the public sector. So I'll ask again- why do you care about the loss of these public sector employee hours/jobs but not the far more significant loss of hours/jobs due to the sequester?

You haven't posted ONCE in the thread on the sequester cuts that have directly reduced hours and eliminated jobs for hundreds of thousands of Americans, but when Obamacare indirectly impacts hours and jobs for a MUCH smaller number of Americans, all of a sudden it's a national tragedy? You understand that this makes your sudden concern for the welfare of the American public sector employee seem incredibly hollow, right?

Is this not the thread to discuss Obamacare?I'm honestly not as knowledgeable about the sequester and it's trickle down effects, so why would you want me to post there?

It's either so you can spread your awesome wisdom to more of those who need it, or so you look like less of a hypocritical doofus.

 

[tommyGunZ]

What will be amusing is 10 years from now, republicans objecting to the term "Obamacare" because they want the credit.

Yep. Obamacare won't even be a part of Eric Cantor's vernacular, while his use of "Affordable Care Act" will increase 1000 fold.

 

[Jackstraw]

For the record, I've never once thought or stated that Obamacare is going to bankrupt America. I've been in the camp that we have no idea what is going to happen in terms of cost or care. I'm also in the camp that people that spout out predictions like 100+ million people will receive improved healthcare are blowhards that ultimately have no idea what will happen either.

HTH

Every single person who has private health care benefits from significant protections in the ACA. End of lifetime maximums. No recisions. No copays on preventative care. Children on insurance up to age 26. Rebates when the companies spend to little on actual care. No denials for preexisting conditions. Those are a BFD. Not a ridiculous statement whatsoever.

 

[tommyGunZ]

For the record, I've never once thought or stated that Obamacare is going to bankrupt America. I've been in the camp that we have no idea what is going to happen in terms of cost or care. I'm also in the camp that people that spout out predictions like 100+ million people will receive improved healthcare are blowhards that ultimately have no idea what will happen either.

HTH

Every single person who has private health care benefits from significant protections in the ACA. End of lifetime maximums. No recisions. No copays on preventative care. Children on insurance up to age 26. Rebates when the companies spend to little on actual care. Not a ridiculous statement whatsoever.

Yep. Joe T is one of those "keep yer gumberment hands off my Medicare!" folks.

 

[matttyl]

For the record, I've never once thought or stated that Obamacare is going to bankrupt America. I've been in the camp that we have no idea what is going to happen in terms of cost or care. I'm also in the camp that people that spout out predictions like 100+ million people will receive improved healthcare are blowhards that ultimately have no idea what will happen either.

HTH

Every single person who has private health care benefits from significant protections in the ACA. End of lifetime maximums. No recisions. No copays on preventative care. Children on insurance up to age 26. Rebates when the companies spend to little on actual care. No denials for preexisting conditions. Those are a BFD. Not a ridiculous statement whatsoever.

Not true at all. I myself have private health care insurance. I don't have any lifetime maximum on my plan. I've never had any rescission. I don't have any children to cover up to age 26. I've had the coverage for years and thus have no pre-existing condition limitations what so ever. Sure I can get a refund if the carrier doesn't spend 80% on actual expenses, and my rebate last year was less than $1. You call that "significant protections in the ACA" which will likely (as I'm "young" and have the best health level available) cost me twice as much?! Really?

 

[matttyl]

No, I don't see the list. But the places you listed (20 of 258) are almost all in the public sector. So I'll ask again- why do you care about the loss of these public sector employee hours/jobs but not the far more significant loss of hours/jobs due to the sequester?

You haven't posted ONCE in the thread on the sequester cuts that have directly reduced hours and eliminated jobs for hundreds of thousands of Americans, but when Obamacare indirectly impacts hours and jobs for a MUCH smaller number of Americans, all of a sudden it's a national tragedy? You understand that this makes your sudden concern for the welfare of the American public sector employee seem incredibly hollow, right?

Is this not the thread to discuss Obamacare?I'm honestly not as knowledgeable about the sequester and it's trickle down effects, so why would you want me to post there?

It's either so you can spread your awesome wisdom to more of those who need it, or so you look like less of a hypocritical doofus.

So if I went to that thread which I admittedly know less about than this one (because I actually work in the health insurance industry) and say "sequester sucks", that would make my points here for valid and less hypocritical? Yeah, ok.

 

[TobiasFunke]

No, I don't see the list. But the places you listed (20 of 258) are almost all in the public sector. So I'll ask again- why do you care about the loss of these public sector employee hours/jobs but not the far more significant loss of hours/jobs due to the sequester?

You haven't posted ONCE in the thread on the sequester cuts that have directly reduced hours and eliminated jobs for hundreds of thousands of Americans, but when Obamacare indirectly impacts hours and jobs for a MUCH smaller number of Americans, all of a sudden it's a national tragedy? You understand that this makes your sudden concern for the welfare of the American public sector employee seem incredibly hollow, right?

Is this not the thread to discuss Obamacare?I'm honestly not as knowledgeable about the sequester and it's trickle down effects, so why would you want me to post there?

It's either so you can spread your awesome wisdom to more of those who need it, or so you look like less of a hypocritical doofus.

So if I went to that thread which I admittedly know less about than this one (because I actually work in the health insurance industry) and say "sequester sucks", that would make my points here for valid and less hypocritical? Yeah, ok.

No, your points here would be less hypocritical if you actually cared about the welfare of public sector workers enough that you had engaged in discussion of the sequester in the first place. It's too late now; the hypocrisy is obvious.

 

[matttyl]

No, I don't see the list. But the places you listed (20 of 258) are almost all in the public sector. So I'll ask again- why do you care about the loss of these public sector employee hours/jobs but not the far more significant loss of hours/jobs due to the sequester?

You haven't posted ONCE in the thread on the sequester cuts that have directly reduced hours and eliminated jobs for hundreds of thousands of Americans, but when Obamacare indirectly impacts hours and jobs for a MUCH smaller number of Americans, all of a sudden it's a national tragedy? You understand that this makes your sudden concern for the welfare of the American public sector employee seem incredibly hollow, right?

Is this not the thread to discuss Obamacare?I'm honestly not as knowledgeable about the sequester and it's trickle down effects, so why would you want me to post there?

It's either so you can spread your awesome wisdom to more of those who need it, or so you look like less of a hypocritical doofus.

So if I went to that thread which I admittedly know less about than this one (because I actually work in the health insurance industry) and say "sequester sucks", that would make my points here for valid and less hypocritical? Yeah, ok.

No, your points here would be less hypocritical if you actually cared about the welfare of public sector workers enough that you had engaged in discussion of the sequester in the first place. It's too late now; the hypocrisy is obvious.

So posting = caring? And therefor not posting = not caring? I care very much about, and have many thoughts on the Syria situation, but I haven't posted there either.

I posted in the thread that affects me most on a day to day basis, and the one where I thought I could bring the most to the discussion.

 

[TobiasFunke]

No, I don't see the list. But the places you listed (20 of 258) are almost all in the public sector. So I'll ask again- why do you care about the loss of these public sector employee hours/jobs but not the far more significant loss of hours/jobs due to the sequester?

You haven't posted ONCE in the thread on the sequester cuts that have directly reduced hours and eliminated jobs for hundreds of thousands of Americans, but when Obamacare indirectly impacts hours and jobs for a MUCH smaller number of Americans, all of a sudden it's a national tragedy? You understand that this makes your sudden concern for the welfare of the American public sector employee seem incredibly hollow, right?

Is this not the thread to discuss Obamacare?I'm honestly not as knowledgeable about the sequester and it's trickle down effects, so why would you want me to post there?

It's either so you can spread your awesome wisdom to more of those who need it, or so you look like less of a hypocritical doofus.

So if I went to that thread which I admittedly know less about than this one (because I actually work in the health insurance industry) and say "sequester sucks", that would make my points here for valid and less hypocritical? Yeah, ok.

No, your points here would be less hypocritical if you actually cared about the welfare of public sector workers enough that you had engaged in discussion of the sequester in the first place. It's too late now; the hypocrisy is obvious.

So posting = caring? And therefor not posting = not caring? I care very much about, and have many thoughts on the Syria situation, but I haven't posted there either.

I posted in the thread that affects me most on a day to day basis, and the one where I thought I could bring the most to the discussion.

Right. And when the subject is health care and health insurance coverage, that's the case. But the subject here is the impact on hours, and jobs mostly in the public sector. You pretended to care about that. Do you? Are you vehemently opposed to the sequester? Maybe you are and just haven't bothered to say so. But we don't know and you're not saying, so we're going off what we do know about you (and what we assume based on the political views of other people who oppose Obamacare, which admittedly may not be fair to you).

Imagine there was some huge new education law, and there was a long debate about it and a thread that was on the front page of the FFA all the time. Meanwhile, there's a separate discussion of some other legislation on a completely different matter that, as it turns out, arguably has some much less significant indirect impact on education beyond the intent of the legislation. If all of a sudden I came into the second thread saying "won't someone PLEASE think of the children!!!!" after I didn't bother to discuss or even inform myself about the education law, wouldn't your assumption be that I was completely FOS?

 

[Joe T]

For the record, I've never once thought or stated that Obamacare is going to bankrupt America. I've been in the camp that we have no idea what is going to happen in terms of cost or care. I'm also in the camp that people that spout out predictions like 100+ million people will receive improved healthcare are blowhards that ultimately have no idea what will happen either.

HTH

Every single person who has private health care benefits from significant protections in the ACA. End of lifetime maximums. No recisions. No copays on preventative care. Children on insurance up to age 26. Rebates when the companies spend to little on actual care. No denials for preexisting conditions. Those are a BFD. Not a ridiculous statement whatsoever.

Another massive exaggeration. I'd be better off putting you guys on ignore. I'm sure there are no downsides either. You guys are on a roll today.

 

[Joe T]

For the record, I've never once thought or stated that Obamacare is going to bankrupt America. I've been in the camp that we have no idea what is going to happen in terms of cost or care. I'm also in the camp that people that spout out predictions like 100+ million people will receive improved healthcare are blowhards that ultimately have no idea what will happen either.

HTH

Every single person who has private health care benefits from significant protections in the ACA. End of lifetime maximums. No recisions. No copays on preventative care. Children on insurance up to age 26. Rebates when the companies spend to little on actual care. Not a ridiculous statement whatsoever.

Yep. Joe T is one of those "keep yer gumberment hands off my Medicare!" folks.

I'm not sure what that means, but I'm guessing it is another failed attempt to frame a straw argument that I've never in my life made. Good luck with that continued effort.

 

[matttyl]

Right. And when the subject is health care and health insurance coverage, that's the case. But the subject here is the impact on hours, and jobs mostly in the public sector. You pretended to care about that. Do you? Are you vehemently opposed to the sequester? Maybe you are and just haven't bothered to say so. But we don't know and you're not saying, so we're going off what we do know about you (and what we assume based on the political views of other people who oppose Obamacare, which admittedly may not be fair to you).

Imagine there was some huge new education law, and there was a long debate about it and a thread that was on the front page of the FFA all the time. Meanwhile, there's a separate discussion of some other legislation on a completely different matter that, as it turns out, arguably has some much less significant indirect impact on education beyond the intent of the legislation. If all of a sudden I came into the second thread saying "won't someone PLEASE think of the children!!!!" after I didn't bother to discuss or even inform myself about the education law, wouldn't your assumption be that I was completely FOS?

No, I rarely assuming things as many you are more directly connected to, and can bring more information about the "other legislation" than you can about the education law.

And no, the subject here is not about the impact on hours or jobs. It's about Obamacare (aka the horribly named "Affordable" Care Act). The job loss and hours lost are yet another "unintended consequence" of it. Why are you caring so much about me and my thoughts about other things, and not about the topic at hand?

 

[TobiasFunke]

FWIW I googled "Investors Business Daily sequestration." Every single opinion piece I saw was pro-sequestration, and most of them were aimed at downplaying the impacts of the cuts and ridiculing Obama for his statements on those impacts. So even if your concerns about public sector workers are not hypocritical, it's pretty clear that your source's concerns are.

 

[Joe T]

No, I don't see the list. But the places you listed (20 of 258) are almost all in the public sector. So I'll ask again- why do you care about the loss of these public sector employee hours/jobs but not the far more significant loss of hours/jobs due to the sequester?

You haven't posted ONCE in the thread on the sequester cuts that have directly reduced hours and eliminated jobs for hundreds of thousands of Americans, but when Obamacare indirectly impacts hours and jobs for a MUCH smaller number of Americans, all of a sudden it's a national tragedy? You understand that this makes your sudden concern for the welfare of the American public sector employee seem incredibly hollow, right?

Is this not the thread to discuss Obamacare?I'm honestly not as knowledgeable about the sequester and it's trickle down effects, so why would you want me to post there?

It's either so you can spread your awesome wisdom to more of those who need it, or so you look like less of a hypocritical doofus.

So if I went to that thread which I admittedly know less about than this one (because I actually work in the health insurance industry) and say "sequester sucks", that would make my points here for valid and less hypocritical? Yeah, ok.

No, your points here would be less hypocritical if you actually cared about the welfare of public sector workers enough that you had engaged in discussion of the sequester in the first place. It's too late now; the hypocrisy is obvious.

So posting = caring? And therefor not posting = not caring? I care very much about, and have many thoughts on the Syria situation, but I haven't posted there either.

I posted in the thread that affects me most on a day to day basis, and the one where I thought I could bring the most to the discussion.

Right. And when the subject is health care and health insurance coverage, that's the case. But the subject here is the impact on hours, and jobs mostly in the public sector. You pretended to care about that. Do you? Are you vehemently opposed to the sequester? Maybe you are and just haven't bothered to say so. But we don't know and you're not saying, so we're going off what we do know about you (and what we assume based on the political views of other people who oppose Obamacare, which admittedly may not be fair to you).

Imagine there was some huge new education law, and there was a long debate about it and a thread that was on the front page of the FFA all the time. Meanwhile, there's a separate discussion of some other legislation on a completely different matter that, as it turns out, arguably has some much less significant indirect impact on education beyond the intent of the legislation. If all of a sudden I came into the second thread saying "won't someone PLEASE think of the children!!!!" after I didn't bother to discuss or even inform myself about the education law, wouldn't your assumption be that I was completely FOS?

In simpler terms, he's saying you can't be pro-jobs and pro-sequester. Obviously not true, but its fun for him to mix and match issues.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Right. And when the subject is health care and health insurance coverage, that's the case. But the subject here is the impact on hours, and jobs mostly in the public sector. You pretended to care about that. Do you? Are you vehemently opposed to the sequester? Maybe you are and just haven't bothered to say so. But we don't know and you're not saying, so we're going off what we do know about you (and what we assume based on the political views of other people who oppose Obamacare, which admittedly may not be fair to you).

Imagine there was some huge new education law, and there was a long debate about it and a thread that was on the front page of the FFA all the time. Meanwhile, there's a separate discussion of some other legislation on a completely different matter that, as it turns out, arguably has some much less significant indirect impact on education beyond the intent of the legislation. If all of a sudden I came into the second thread saying "won't someone PLEASE think of the children!!!!" after I didn't bother to discuss or even inform myself about the education law, wouldn't your assumption be that I was completely FOS?

No, I rarely assuming things as many you are more directly connected to, and can bring more information about the "other legislation" than you can about the education law.

And no, the subject here is not about the impact on hours or jobs. It's about Obamacare (aka the horribly named "Affordable" Care Act). The job loss and hours lost are yet another "unintended consequence" of it. Why are you caring so much about me and my thoughts about other things, and not about the topic at hand?

You brought up the subject of public sector hours and jobs, not me. If you want to drop it to return to the "topic at hand" that's fine by me.

 

[Joe T]

Is this the healthcare thread or the Sequester thread?

 

[matttyl]

In simpler terms, he's saying you can't be pro-jobs and pro-sequester. Obviously not true, but its fun for him to mix and match issues.

I'm having a hard enough time wrapping my head around one issue, sorry.

 

[Joe T]

You brought up the subject of public sector hours and jobs, not me.

 

[matttyl]

You brought up the subject of public sector hours and jobs, not me. If you want to drop it to return to the "topic at hand" that's fine by me.

The topic at hand is Obamacare, and all of the effects it's having. One of those is jobs and hours lost, it's simple as that. There are others as well, those have also been discussed here. If you want to go talk about the sequester, according to you there is an appropriate place to do so....I suggest you go there so we can stay on point here.

 

[TobiasFunke]

You brought up the subject of public sector hours and jobs, not me. If you want to drop it to return to the "topic at hand" that's fine by me.

The topic at hand is Obamacare, and all of the effects it's having. One of those is jobs and hours lost, it's simple as that. There are others as well, those have also been discussed here. If you want to go talk about the sequester, according to you there is an appropriate place to do so....I suggest you go there so we can stay on point here.

Sorry, but you don't get to duck hypocrisy by making (or linking to) an argument about a subject and then claiming that you don't want to discuss it further because there's somewhere else to talk about it. Either you care about the welfare of public sector workers or you don't. IBD obviously doesn't and are transparently hypocritical. I don't know where you stand on it, but you posted the article so it's fair game.

 

[BassNBrew]

Received information from Blue Cross yesterday that my current plan is no longer an option under ACA and that I will have to change plans. They stated details would be coming, but my rates could increase drastically but they would have some low cost plans available. They also said that the gov't might cover anywhere from 0% to 100% of my monthly premium directly to them but that I would be required to chose the silver plan if I go that route. Details supposedly available October 1.

 

[Sand]

Walgreens dumps 180,000 workers' health plans. Oof.