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

[matttyl]

Not to get in the way of a good solid, toothy conservative meme, but . . . UPS is only indicating that they won't insure spouses who are eligible to get insurance from their own jobs. Any spouse who can't do so won't be dropped. (Some companies have such a rule in place already concerning spouses who can get covered by their own jobs.)

I know, I know, that doesn't quite make for the same breathless, Obama-hating story, but them's the breaks.

Though it will be forcing families to deal with 2 seperate deductibles rather than one family deductible. If these spouses already had a better option through their own employers, they would have taken it. Instead, they will now be forced to take this less desirable option.

"If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it", yeah right.

As has already been pointed out to you in this thread, UPS is not being forced to do anything: it is choosing to do this. The president does not control that. Instead of yet another Obama-directed attack, why aren't you railing against a corporate giant, which is swimming in profits, nickel and diming its employees?

Of course, they could also go on to one of the exchanges, but you don't want to talk about that.

The fact that UPS - an organization run by a rabid rightwinger - cites the ACA as the reason for its decision does not mean that it's true. They would almost certainly have done this anyway as a result of the search for the almighty corporate buck. Again, doesn't trouble you, right?

I do think it's funny that now you're retreating to the "hey, but there are two deductibles now!!!!1111" position when I'm pretty sure that wasn't the meaty headline you were going for at first.

The President's actions have caused such a huge increase in prices that UPS made this decision to soften that blow. Had many of these mandates not gone into place, UPS' costs wouldn't have increased so rapidly, and they wouldn't have made this decision. So yes, Obama (or the law named for him) caused this. It has been cited directly as the cause not only at UPS, but at other employers as well - a trend that will only continue.

Yes, they can go onto the exchange and have less overall coverage (due to extra deductibles and extra out of pocket costs for the premium) - or they can go onto their own employer plan (if they have one) and have the same outcome.

Actually, that was my position all along - at least in part. The ACA will now "not allow" someone to be without coverage. So while they won't have what the have had prior, they will now have something different. Something they likely already had the option of (their own employer coverage) but choose not to participate in because it wasn't as good of an option. Thus this law has forced these employees to deal with a less desirable option for their health insurance.

 

[matttyl]

I do think it's funny that now you're retreating to the "hey, but there are two deductibles now!!!!1111" position when I'm pretty sure that wasn't the meaty headline you were going for at first.

As if this is the only example, past or present or future. This is but the start of yet another example of a long, long wave of employers dropping health care and cutting employees back to 29 hours to avoid the fines.

Fixed. This isn't nearly the first, this is a trend that's been happening for the past few years now.

 

[Foosball God]

Not to get in the way of a good solid, toothy conservative meme, but . . . UPS is only indicating that they won't insure spouses who are eligible to get insurance from their own jobs. Any spouse who can't do so won't be dropped. (Some companies have such a rule in place already concerning spouses who can get covered by their own jobs.)

I know, I know, that doesn't quite make for the same breathless, Obama-hating story, but them's the breaks.

Though it will be forcing families to deal with 2 seperate deductibles rather than one family deductible. If these spouses already had a better option through their own employers, they would have taken it. Instead, they will now be forced to take this less desirable option.

"If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it", yeah right.

I'm not even sure why UPS is even in the discussion, they are not a small group employer. I'd say the "rising health care costs" are more a factor in UPS' decision than Obamacare is.

United Parcel Service Inc. plans to remove thousands of spouses from its medical plan because they are eligible for coverage elsewhere. The Atlanta-based logistics company points to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as a big reason for the decision, reports Kaiser Health News.

Citing ObamaCare as a reason, the the University of Virginia has announced that spouses of University employees who have access to health insurance through their own jobs will no longer be eligible for health insurance coverage.In its announcement, President Obama's healthcare plan is specifically mentioned by UVa as a reason for the rising costs that forced the university to drop working spouses. ObamaCare is expected to add $7 million to the university's health care costs.

I read the article, I'm saying they are blowing the Obamacare aspect out of proportion in this case because UPS is not small group. I'm not going to advocate the ACA as a success or failure because I simply don't know what is going to happen for sure, but there are a lot of companies using the ACA as an excuse for their policies.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Not to get in the way of a good solid, toothy conservative meme, but . . . UPS is only indicating that they won't insure spouses who are eligible to get insurance from their own jobs. Any spouse who can't do so won't be dropped. (Some companies have such a rule in place already concerning spouses who can get covered by their own jobs.)

I know, I know, that doesn't quite make for the same breathless, Obama-hating story, but them's the breaks.

Though it will be forcing families to deal with 2 seperate deductibles rather than one family deductible. If these spouses already had a better option through their own employers, they would have taken it. Instead, they will now be forced to take this less desirable option.

"If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it", yeah right.

I'm not even sure why UPS is even in the discussion, they are not a small group employer. I'd say the "rising health care costs" are more a factor in UPS' decision than Obamacare is.

United Parcel Service Inc. plans to remove thousands of spouses from its medical plan because they are eligible for coverage elsewhere. The Atlanta-based logistics company points to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as a big reason for the decision, reports Kaiser Health News.

Citing ObamaCare as a reason, the the University of Virginia has announced that spouses of University employees who have access to health insurance through their own jobs will no longer be eligible for health insurance coverage.In its announcement, President Obama's healthcare plan is specifically mentioned by UVa as a reason for the rising costs that forced the university to drop working spouses. ObamaCare is expected to add $7 million to the university's health care costs.

I read the article, I'm saying they are blowing the Obamacare aspect out of proportion in this case because UPS is not small group. I'm not going to advocate the ACA as a success or failure because I simply don't know what is going to happen for sure, but there are a lot of companies using the ACA as an excuse for their policies.

Well gosh no one saw that coming.

 

[snogger]

Not to get in the way of a good solid, toothy conservative meme, but . . . UPS is only indicating that they won't insure spouses who are eligible to get insurance from their own jobs. Any spouse who can't do so won't be dropped. (Some companies have such a rule in place already concerning spouses who can get covered by their own jobs.)

I know, I know, that doesn't quite make for the same breathless, Obama-hating story, but them's the breaks.

Though it will be forcing families to deal with 2 seperate deductibles rather than one family deductible. If these spouses already had a better option through their own employers, they would have taken it. Instead, they will now be forced to take this less desirable option.

"If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it", yeah right.

I'm not even sure why UPS is even in the discussion, they are not a small group employer. I'd say the "rising health care costs" are more a factor in UPS' decision than Obamacare is.

United Parcel Service Inc. plans to remove thousands of spouses from its medical plan because they are eligible for coverage elsewhere. The Atlanta-based logistics company points to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as a big reason for the decision, reports Kaiser Health News.

Citing ObamaCare as a reason, the the University of Virginia has announced that spouses of University employees who have access to health insurance through their own jobs will no longer be eligible for health insurance coverage.In its announcement, President Obama's healthcare plan is specifically mentioned by UVa as a reason for the rising costs that forced the university to drop working spouses. ObamaCare is expected to add $7 million to the university's health care costs.

I read the article, I'm saying they are blowing the Obamacare aspect out of proportion in this case because UPS is not small group. I'm not going to advocate the ACA as a success or failure because I simply don't know what is going to happen for sure, but there are a lot of companies using the ACA as an excuse for their policies.

Companies have been looking for excuses to cut benefits/costs and this opens up a great door for them to you while at the same time laying the blame on Obama.. A win/win in their eyes.

So, although I think a is on the horizon with the ACA due to the overall costs not being nearly covered as they try to tell us, I don't see the move by UPS and other companies as a fault of the ACA, but an excuse.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Not to get in the way of a good solid, toothy conservative meme, but . . . UPS is only indicating that they won't insure spouses who are eligible to get insurance from their own jobs. Any spouse who can't do so won't be dropped. (Some companies have such a rule in place already concerning spouses who can get covered by their own jobs.)

I know, I know, that doesn't quite make for the same breathless, Obama-hating story, but them's the breaks.

Though it will be forcing families to deal with 2 seperate deductibles rather than one family deductible. If these spouses already had a better option through their own employers, they would have taken it. Instead, they will now be forced to take this less desirable option.

"If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it", yeah right.

I'm not even sure why UPS is even in the discussion, they are not a small group employer. I'd say the "rising health care costs" are more a factor in UPS' decision than Obamacare is.

United Parcel Service Inc. plans to remove thousands of spouses from its medical plan because they are eligible for coverage elsewhere. The Atlanta-based logistics company points to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as a big reason for the decision, reports Kaiser Health News.

Citing ObamaCare as a reason, the the University of Virginia has announced that spouses of University employees who have access to health insurance through their own jobs will no longer be eligible for health insurance coverage.In its announcement, President Obama's healthcare plan is specifically mentioned by UVa as a reason for the rising costs that forced the university to drop working spouses. ObamaCare is expected to add $7 million to the university's health care costs.

I read the article, I'm saying they are blowing the Obamacare aspect out of proportion in this case because UPS is not small group. I'm not going to advocate the ACA as a success or failure because I simply don't know what is going to happen for sure, but there are a lot of companies using the ACA as an excuse for their policies.

Well gosh no one saw that coming.

Sort of like the rest of us aren't surprised that companies led by right wingers are blaming Obamacare for cutting benefits, while recording record profits at the same time.

Are you really this ignorant?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Not to get in the way of a good solid, toothy conservative meme, but . . . UPS is only indicating that they won't insure spouses who are eligible to get insurance from their own jobs. Any spouse who can't do so won't be dropped. (Some companies have such a rule in place already concerning spouses who can get covered by their own jobs.)

I know, I know, that doesn't quite make for the same breathless, Obama-hating story, but them's the breaks.

Though it will be forcing families to deal with 2 seperate deductibles rather than one family deductible. If these spouses already had a better option through their own employers, they would have taken it. Instead, they will now be forced to take this less desirable option.

"If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it", yeah right.

I'm not even sure why UPS is even in the discussion, they are not a small group employer. I'd say the "rising health care costs" are more a factor in UPS' decision than Obamacare is.

United Parcel Service Inc. plans to remove thousands of spouses from its medical plan because they are eligible for coverage elsewhere. The Atlanta-based logistics company points to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as a big reason for the decision, reports Kaiser Health News.

Citing ObamaCare as a reason, the the University of Virginia has announced that spouses of University employees who have access to health insurance through their own jobs will no longer be eligible for health insurance coverage.In its announcement, President Obama's healthcare plan is specifically mentioned by UVa as a reason for the rising costs that forced the university to drop working spouses. ObamaCare is expected to add $7 million to the university's health care costs.

I read the article, I'm saying they are blowing the Obamacare aspect out of proportion in this case because UPS is not small group. I'm not going to advocate the ACA as a success or failure because I simply don't know what is going to happen for sure, but there are a lot of companies using the ACA as an excuse for their policies.

Well gosh no one saw that coming.

Sort of like the rest of us aren't surprised that companies led by right wingers are blaming Obamacare for cutting benefits, while recording record profits at the same time.

Are you really this ignorant?

This profit thing is funny. - I take it you'd be cool with it if a team owner in your $$$ FF league decided not to pay his share of your winnings for your championship on the basis that he thought you already had enough money?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Not to get in the way of a good solid, toothy conservative meme, but . . . UPS is only indicating that they won't insure spouses who are eligible to get insurance from their own jobs. Any spouse who can't do so won't be dropped. (Some companies have such a rule in place already concerning spouses who can get covered by their own jobs.)

I know, I know, that doesn't quite make for the same breathless, Obama-hating story, but them's the breaks.

Though it will be forcing families to deal with 2 seperate deductibles rather than one family deductible. If these spouses already had a better option through their own employers, they would have taken it. Instead, they will now be forced to take this less desirable option.

"If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it", yeah right.

I'm not even sure why UPS is even in the discussion, they are not a small group employer. I'd say the "rising health care costs" are more a factor in UPS' decision than Obamacare is.

United Parcel Service Inc. plans to remove thousands of spouses from its medical plan because they are eligible for coverage elsewhere. The Atlanta-based logistics company points to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as a big reason for the decision, reports Kaiser Health News.

Citing ObamaCare as a reason, the the University of Virginia has announced that spouses of University employees who have access to health insurance through their own jobs will no longer be eligible for health insurance coverage.In its announcement, President Obama's healthcare plan is specifically mentioned by UVa as a reason for the rising costs that forced the university to drop working spouses. ObamaCare is expected to add $7 million to the university's health care costs.

I read the article, I'm saying they are blowing the Obamacare aspect out of proportion in this case because UPS is not small group. I'm not going to advocate the ACA as a success or failure because I simply don't know what is going to happen for sure, but there are a lot of companies using the ACA as an excuse for their policies.

Well gosh no one saw that coming.

Sort of like the rest of us aren't surprised that companies led by right wingers are blaming Obamacare for cutting benefits, while recording record profits at the same time.

Are you really this ignorant?

This profit thing is funny. - I take it you'd be cool with it if a team owner in your $$$ FF league decided not to pay his share of your winnings for your championship on the basis that he thought you already had enough money?

Yeah, you just don't get it. UPS can't cry that they're too poor to provide health care benefits while at the same time recording record profits every 3 months. Well, I guess they can, since folks like you eat it up b/c it fits your "gov't is evil" narrative.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Not to get in the way of a good solid, toothy conservative meme, but . . . UPS is only indicating that they won't insure spouses who are eligible to get insurance from their own jobs. Any spouse who can't do so won't be dropped. (Some companies have such a rule in place already concerning spouses who can get covered by their own jobs.)

I know, I know, that doesn't quite make for the same breathless, Obama-hating story, but them's the breaks.

Though it will be forcing families to deal with 2 seperate deductibles rather than one family deductible. If these spouses already had a better option through their own employers, they would have taken it. Instead, they will now be forced to take this less desirable option.

"If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it", yeah right.

I'm not even sure why UPS is even in the discussion, they are not a small group employer. I'd say the "rising health care costs" are more a factor in UPS' decision than Obamacare is.

United Parcel Service Inc. plans to remove thousands of spouses from its medical plan because they are eligible for coverage elsewhere. The Atlanta-based logistics company points to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as a big reason for the decision, reports Kaiser Health News.

Citing ObamaCare as a reason, the the University of Virginia has announced that spouses of University employees who have access to health insurance through their own jobs will no longer be eligible for health insurance coverage.In its announcement, President Obama's healthcare plan is specifically mentioned by UVa as a reason for the rising costs that forced the university to drop working spouses. ObamaCare is expected to add $7 million to the university's health care costs.

I read the article, I'm saying they are blowing the Obamacare aspect out of proportion in this case because UPS is not small group. I'm not going to advocate the ACA as a success or failure because I simply don't know what is going to happen for sure, but there are a lot of companies using the ACA as an excuse for their policies.

Well gosh no one saw that coming.

Sort of like the rest of us aren't surprised that companies led by right wingers are blaming Obamacare for cutting benefits, while recording record profits at the same time.

Are you really this ignorant?

This profit thing is funny. - I take it you'd be cool with it if a team owner in your $$$ FF league decided not to pay his share of your winnings for your championship on the basis that he thought you already had enough money?

Yeah, you just don't get it. UPS can't cry that they're too poor to provide health care benefits while at the same time recording record profits every 3 months. Well, I guess they can, since folks like you eat it up b/c it fits your "gov't is evil" narrative.

The FF League is example is different because in that situation it's your money you invested, right?

Well actually I do very much get your point - but you fail to admit that there are small people who invest in companies like UPS who deserve to have their investments protected. Everyone from union workers and single mothers to elderly people on pensions to families with college funds and 401k's. It's not just Mr. FatCat CEO putting his feet up on his desk smoking a cigar, people invest hard earned dollars into companies like UPS and some of that profit goes to them.

And as for these evil companies reacting this way, I guess Pres. Obama just never saw this coming? If that's what he and you really thought about these companies, then you just blithely invited them to start cutting people from their funding so they can go enroll somewhere else or find their way on the exchanges. Totally unforseeable I guess before this law was passed.

ETA: There are three (3) things a company can do when costs go up:

1. Fire people

2. Raise prices (not a good idea with FedEx breathing down their necks)

3. Nos. 1 and 2.

That is true for every company affected by the ACA. Everybody knew this and the people who supported the ACA prioritized that over these other things. UPS found a way to avoid this so you should be congratulating them not attacking them.

 

[matttyl]

Sort of like the rest of us aren't surprised that companies led by right wingers are blaming Obamacare for cutting benefits, while recording record profits at the same time.

Are you really this ignorant?

Well, there's a bit more to it than what's in the article - and it is directly the ACA's fault.

As the law currently is written, if a large employer doesn't provide health benefits to their own eligible employees in 2015 (for any reason), they will be fined. So a company like UPS is saying that if your working spouse is eligible for coverage through their employer, then they are no longer eligible for coverage with them (they don't want to be the reason the other company gets a fine just like that don't want a fine if their eligible employee is covered elsewhere). If enough companies play by this rule (not allowing spouses who are eligible for alternate coverage through their own employer) then there will be fewer companies getting fined for not having their own employees covered.

Lets use my wife and I for examples. Say we both work for large employers (50+ employees). It's better coverage in this area for both her and I (and any kids) to be with her carrier, and it's cheaper to boot. Me not being on my own company's plan would lead to my company getting a fine for not providing me coverage, even though I have coverage elsewhere. That fine goes to the pool so others can get subsidies and such. This is still the best and cheapest option for our coverage, though - and is easier to deal with having only one carrier for our family, and one shared deductible and such. But if her company decides to implement this rule, I'd be forced to join my company's plan with a different carrier and different providers and have higher premiums as well as a new deductible. A bit of a pain, and definitely less choice.

Sure, I can get an individual plan on or off exchange - but I wouldn't be eligible for a subsidy as I would still have group coverage available to me through my employer.

Choices went away, my known costs went up (higher total premium), and my potential out of pocket went up (two deductibles).

"If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your health insurance plan. No one will take it from you.".....yeah, right.

 

[RCon]

Sort of like the rest of us aren't surprised that companies led by right wingers are blaming Obamacare for cutting benefits, while recording record profits at the same time.Are you really this ignorant?

Are they really "record profits"? I don't know, I'm asking. Technically, you should measure profits as a percentage of dollars invested, not as raw numbers, of course. That is, if a company is only earning 1% on their capital, that's not a good return even if 1% works out to a large number.

 

[matttyl]

Sort of like the rest of us aren't surprised that companies led by right wingers are blaming Obamacare for cutting benefits, while recording record profits at the same time.Are you really this ignorant?

Are they really "record profits"? I don't know, I'm asking. Technically, you should measure profits as a percentage of dollars invested, not as raw numbers, of course. That is, if a company is only earning 1% on their capital, that's not a good return even if 1% works out to a large number.

It wouldn't matter to TommyGunz. If they are rolling in money he'd just say they should pony up and pay for it. If they are strapped for cash he'd just say they are using Obamacare as a scapegoat to cut costs.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Sort of like the rest of us aren't surprised that companies led by right wingers are blaming Obamacare for cutting benefits, while recording record profits at the same time.

Are you really this ignorant?

Well, there's a bit more to it than what's in the article - and it is directly the ACA's fault.

As the law currently is written, if a large employer doesn't provide health benefits to their own eligible employees in 2015 (for any reason), they will be fined. So a company like UPS is saying that if your working spouse is eligible for coverage through their employer, then they are no longer eligible for coverage with them (they don't want to be the reason the other company gets a fine just like that don't want a fine if their eligible employee is covered elsewhere). If enough companies play by this rule (not allowing spouses who are eligible for alternate coverage through their own employer) then there will be fewer companies getting fined for not having their own employees covered.

Lets use my wife and I for examples. Say we both work for large employers (50+ employees). It's better coverage in this area for both her and I (and any kids) to be with her carrier, and it's cheaper to boot. Me not being on my own company's plan would lead to my company getting a fine for not providing me coverage, even though I have coverage elsewhere. That fine goes to the pool so others can get subsidies and such. This is still the best and cheapest option for our coverage, though - and is easier to deal with having only one carrier for our family, and one shared deductible and such. But if her company decides to implement this rule, I'd be forced to join my company's plan with a different carrier and different providers and have higher premiums as well as a new deductible. A bit of a pain, and definitely less choice.

Sure, I can get an individual plan on or off exchange - but I wouldn't be eligible for a subsidy as I would still have group coverage available to me through my employer.

Choices went away, my known costs went up (higher total premium), and my potential out of pocket went up (two deductibles).

"If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your health insurance plan. No one will take it from you.".....yeah, right.

Sort of like the rest of us aren't surprised that companies led by right wingers are blaming Obamacare for cutting benefits, while recording record profits at the same time.Are you really this ignorant?

Are they really "record profits"? I don't know, I'm asking. Technically, you should measure profits as a percentage of dollars invested, not as raw numbers, of course. That is, if a company is only earning 1% on their capital, that's not a good return even if 1% works out to a large number.

UPS reports record fourth quarter 2012 earnings performance
Transportation and parcel bellwether UPSreported today that fourth quarter revenue increased 2.3 percent annually to a record $14.57 billion, and adjusted operating profit saw a 41 percent gain to record $2.05 billion

E-Commerce Lifts UPS 1Q Earnings View printer-friendly version < Back

Strong January Boosts U.S. Domestic Profit Growth​

Reaffirms Full Year Guidance​

ATLANTA--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Apr. 25, 2013-- UPS (NYSE:UPS) today announced first quarter 2013 adjusted diluted earnings per share of $1.04. The quarter benefited from a stronger than expected post-holiday season in January as UPS e-commerce solutions resonated with customers. In the U.S. Domestic segment, daily package volume grew 4.4% and operating profit improved 9%. Additionally, UPS reaffirmed its full-year 2013 guidance for adjusted diluted earnings per share; an increase of 6-to-12% over 2012 adjusted results.

Stock price is at an all time high today.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Waaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!11!!1

Obamacare!!!!!11!!

WWWwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh1!!!!!!

 

[RCon]

Sort of like the rest of us aren't surprised that companies led by right wingers are blaming Obamacare for cutting benefits, while recording record profits at the same time.

Are you really this ignorant?

Well, there's a bit more to it than what's in the article - and it is directly the ACA's fault.

As the law currently is written, if a large employer doesn't provide health benefits to their own eligible employees in 2015 (for any reason), they will be fined. So a company like UPS is saying that if your working spouse is eligible for coverage through their employer, then they are no longer eligible for coverage with them (they don't want to be the reason the other company gets a fine just like that don't want a fine if their eligible employee is covered elsewhere). If enough companies play by this rule (not allowing spouses who are eligible for alternate coverage through their own employer) then there will be fewer companies getting fined for not having their own employees covered.

Lets use my wife and I for examples. Say we both work for large employers (50+ employees). It's better coverage in this area for both her and I (and any kids) to be with her carrier, and it's cheaper to boot. Me not being on my own company's plan would lead to my company getting a fine for not providing me coverage, even though I have coverage elsewhere. That fine goes to the pool so others can get subsidies and such. This is still the best and cheapest option for our coverage, though - and is easier to deal with having only one carrier for our family, and one shared deductible and such. But if her company decides to implement this rule, I'd be forced to join my company's plan with a different carrier and different providers and have higher premiums as well as a new deductible. A bit of a pain, and definitely less choice.

Sure, I can get an individual plan on or off exchange - but I wouldn't be eligible for a subsidy as I would still have group coverage available to me through my employer.

Choices went away, my known costs went up (higher total premium), and my potential out of pocket went up (two deductibles).

"If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your health insurance plan. No one will take it from you.".....yeah, right.

Sort of like the rest of us aren't surprised that companies led by right wingers are blaming Obamacare for cutting benefits, while recording record profits at the same time.Are you really this ignorant?

Are they really "record profits"? I don't know, I'm asking. Technically, you should measure profits as a percentage of dollars invested, not as raw numbers, of course. That is, if a company is only earning 1% on their capital, that's not a good return even if 1% works out to a large number.

UPS reports record fourth quarter 2012 earnings performance
Transportation and parcel bellwether UPSreported today that fourth quarter revenue increased 2.3 percent annually to a record $14.57 billion, and adjusted operating profit saw a 41 percent gain to record $2.05 billion

E-Commerce Lifts UPS 1Q Earnings View printer-friendly version < Back

Strong January Boosts U.S. Domestic Profit Growth​

Reaffirms Full Year Guidance​

ATLANTA--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Apr. 25, 2013-- UPS (NYSE:UPS) today announced first quarter 2013 adjusted diluted earnings per share of $1.04. The quarter benefited from a stronger than expected post-holiday season in January as UPS e-commerce solutions resonated with customers. In the U.S. Domestic segment, daily package volume grew 4.4% and operating profit improved 9%. Additionally, UPS reaffirmed its full-year 2013 guidance for adjusted diluted earnings per share; an increase of 6-to-12% over 2012 adjusted results.

Stock price is at an all time high today.

So you're not measuring by return on investment, you're measuring pure dollars. By that logic, due to inflation, every single quarter would be "record profits" if the company simply duplicates its performance every single quarter.



The term "record profits" just annoys me, since it's a meaningless term unless it's measuring return on investment.

 

[matttyl]

Sort of like the rest of us aren't surprised that companies led by right wingers are blaming Obamacare for cutting benefits, while recording record profits at the same time.

Are you really this ignorant?

Well, there's a bit more to it than what's in the article - and it is directly the ACA's fault.

As the law currently is written, if a large employer doesn't provide health benefits to their own eligible employees in 2015 (for any reason), they will be fined. So a company like UPS is saying that if your working spouse is eligible for coverage through their employer, then they are no longer eligible for coverage with them (they don't want to be the reason the other company gets a fine just like that don't want a fine if their eligible employee is covered elsewhere). If enough companies play by this rule (not allowing spouses who are eligible for alternate coverage through their own employer) then there will be fewer companies getting fined for not having their own employees covered.

Lets use my wife and I for examples. Say we both work for large employers (50+ employees). It's better coverage in this area for both her and I (and any kids) to be with her carrier, and it's cheaper to boot. Me not being on my own company's plan would lead to my company getting a fine for not providing me coverage, even though I have coverage elsewhere. That fine goes to the pool so others can get subsidies and such. This is still the best and cheapest option for our coverage, though - and is easier to deal with having only one carrier for our family, and one shared deductible and such. But if her company decides to implement this rule, I'd be forced to join my company's plan with a different carrier and different providers and have higher premiums as well as a new deductible. A bit of a pain, and definitely less choice.

Sure, I can get an individual plan on or off exchange - but I wouldn't be eligible for a subsidy as I would still have group coverage available to me through my employer.

Choices went away, my known costs went up (higher total premium), and my potential out of pocket went up (two deductibles).

"If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your health insurance plan. No one will take it from you.".....yeah, right.

Stock price is at an all time high today.

Has zero to do with what I wrote.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Waaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!11!!1

Obamacare!!!!!11!!

WWWwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh1!!!!!!

Pretty much. Record profits, record stock price, but we just HAVE to cut health care benefits because of evil Obamacare.

And these clowns eat it up.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Sort of like the rest of us aren't surprised that companies led by right wingers are blaming Obamacare for cutting benefits, while recording record profits at the same time.

Are you really this ignorant?

Well, there's a bit more to it than what's in the article - and it is directly the ACA's fault.

As the law currently is written, if a large employer doesn't provide health benefits to their own eligible employees in 2015 (for any reason), they will be fined. So a company like UPS is saying that if your working spouse is eligible for coverage through their employer, then they are no longer eligible for coverage with them (they don't want to be the reason the other company gets a fine just like that don't want a fine if their eligible employee is covered elsewhere). If enough companies play by this rule (not allowing spouses who are eligible for alternate coverage through their own employer) then there will be fewer companies getting fined for not having their own employees covered.

Lets use my wife and I for examples. Say we both work for large employers (50+ employees). It's better coverage in this area for both her and I (and any kids) to be with her carrier, and it's cheaper to boot. Me not being on my own company's plan would lead to my company getting a fine for not providing me coverage, even though I have coverage elsewhere. That fine goes to the pool so others can get subsidies and such. This is still the best and cheapest option for our coverage, though - and is easier to deal with having only one carrier for our family, and one shared deductible and such. But if her company decides to implement this rule, I'd be forced to join my company's plan with a different carrier and different providers and have higher premiums as well as a new deductible. A bit of a pain, and definitely less choice.

Sure, I can get an individual plan on or off exchange - but I wouldn't be eligible for a subsidy as I would still have group coverage available to me through my employer.

Choices went away, my known costs went up (higher total premium), and my potential out of pocket went up (two deductibles).

"If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your health insurance plan. No one will take it from you.".....yeah, right.

Sort of like the rest of us aren't surprised that companies led by right wingers are blaming Obamacare for cutting benefits, while recording record profits at the same time.Are you really this ignorant?

Are they really "record profits"? I don't know, I'm asking. Technically, you should measure profits as a percentage of dollars invested, not as raw numbers, of course. That is, if a company is only earning 1% on their capital, that's not a good return even if 1% works out to a large number.

UPS reports record fourth quarter 2012 earnings performance
Transportation and parcel bellwether UPSreported today that fourth quarter revenue increased 2.3 percent annually to a record $14.57 billion, and adjusted operating profit saw a 41 percent gain to record $2.05 billion

E-Commerce Lifts UPS 1Q Earnings View printer-friendly version < Back

Strong January Boosts U.S. Domestic Profit Growth​

Reaffirms Full Year Guidance​

ATLANTA--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Apr. 25, 2013-- UPS (NYSE:UPS) today announced first quarter 2013 adjusted diluted earnings per share of $1.04. The quarter benefited from a stronger than expected post-holiday season in January as UPS e-commerce solutions resonated with customers. In the U.S. Domestic segment, daily package volume grew 4.4% and operating profit improved 9%. Additionally, UPS reaffirmed its full-year 2013 guidance for adjusted diluted earnings per share; an increase of 6-to-12% over 2012 adjusted results.

Stock price is at an all time high today.

So you're not measuring by return on investment, you're measuring pure dollars. By that logic, due to inflation, every single quarter would be "record profits" if the company simply duplicates its performance every single quarter.



The term "record profits" just annoys me, since it's a meaningless term unless it's measuring return on investment.

Yeah, I'm not diving deep into the math. I'm taking UPS press releases and the media's coverage at their word, along with the fact that the stock price is also at an all time high to mean that UPS isn't cutting health care benefits because they have to.

 

[matttyl]

Yeah, I'm not diving deep into the math. I'm taking UPS press releases and the media's coverage at their word, along with the fact that the stock price is also at an all time high to mean that UPS isn't cutting health care benefits because they have to.

No, but they should because of the way the law is written. In fact, all large companies should kick spouses off because of the way the law is written. UPS is just the first, UVa followed suit. There will be others.

The law says large employers need to cover all eligible employees, and make it eligible for their children. If they don't, they will be fined. As you've said yourself already in this thread - pretty dumb to pay a fine for nothing, right?!

So large companies will start kicking off all spouses eligible for coverage elsewhere and hope all other large companies do the same so that they won't have to deal with fines.

Less choice, and more cost to the consumer. Win-win, right?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Sort of like the rest of us aren't surprised that companies led by right wingers are blaming Obamacare for cutting benefits, while recording record profits at the same time.

Are you really this ignorant?

Well, there's a bit more to it than what's in the article - and it is directly the ACA's fault.

As the law currently is written, if a large employer doesn't provide health benefits to their own eligible employees in 2015 (for any reason), they will be fined. So a company like UPS is saying that if your working spouse is eligible for coverage through their employer, then they are no longer eligible for coverage with them (they don't want to be the reason the other company gets a fine just like that don't want a fine if their eligible employee is covered elsewhere). If enough companies play by this rule (not allowing spouses who are eligible for alternate coverage through their own employer) then there will be fewer companies getting fined for not having their own employees covered.

Lets use my wife and I for examples. Say we both work for large employers (50+ employees). It's better coverage in this area for both her and I (and any kids) to be with her carrier, and it's cheaper to boot. Me not being on my own company's plan would lead to my company getting a fine for not providing me coverage, even though I have coverage elsewhere. That fine goes to the pool so others can get subsidies and such. This is still the best and cheapest option for our coverage, though - and is easier to deal with having only one carrier for our family, and one shared deductible and such. But if her company decides to implement this rule, I'd be forced to join my company's plan with a different carrier and different providers and have higher premiums as well as a new deductible. A bit of a pain, and definitely less choice.

Sure, I can get an individual plan on or off exchange - but I wouldn't be eligible for a subsidy as I would still have group coverage available to me through my employer.

Choices went away, my known costs went up (higher total premium), and my potential out of pocket went up (two deductibles).

"If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your health insurance plan. No one will take it from you.".....yeah, right.

Stock price is at an all time high today.

Has zero to do with what I wrote.

Bold is simply not true. Your employer is not fined simply because you opt out of affordable insurance options that they are offering.

 

[Johnny Rock]

I believe the company will only be fined if you don't offer emps a qualified plan. If you offer a qualified plan and they go elsewhere for coverage you're off the hook.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yeah, I'm not diving deep into the math. I'm taking UPS press releases and the media's coverage at their word, along with the fact that the stock price is also at an all time high to mean that UPS isn't cutting health care benefits because they have to.

Ok:

Rising medical costs, “combined with the costs associated with the Affordable Care Act, have made it increasingly difficult to continue providing the same level of health care benefits to our employees at an affordable cost,” UPS said in a memo to employees.

UPS expects the move, which applies to non-union U.S. workers only, to save about $60 million a year, company spokesman Andy McGowan said.

Earlier this week, Forever 21 Inc. became the latest national company to cut employee hours to counter the impact of Obamacare, according to Policymic.com.

Atlanta-based AAA Parking, a parking garage operator that employs more than 1,600 companywide, moved about half of its 500 full-time hourly employees to part-time status on April 15, in response to the law.

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/morning_call/2013/08/ups-to-drop-15000-spouses-from.html?page=all

Basically the only thing you are pointing to here is the stock price. Obviously investors must like the move on the one hand.

And secondly I'd really like to know at what level of profit, what % profit margin, you would accept this kind of move.

When does it become acceptable? Ever? Never?

 

[Sand]

Sort of like the rest of us aren't surprised that companies led by right wingers are blaming Obamacare for cutting benefits, while recording record profits at the same time.

Are you really this ignorant?

Well, there's a bit more to it than what's in the article - and it is directly the ACA's fault.

As the law currently is written, if a large employer doesn't provide health benefits to their own eligible employees in 2015 (for any reason), they will be fined. So a company like UPS is saying that if your working spouse is eligible for coverage through their employer, then they are no longer eligible for coverage with them (they don't want to be the reason the other company gets a fine just like that don't want a fine if their eligible employee is covered elsewhere). If enough companies play by this rule (not allowing spouses who are eligible for alternate coverage through their own employer) then there will be fewer companies getting fined for not having their own employees covered.

Lets use my wife and I for examples. Say we both work for large employers (50+ employees). It's better coverage in this area for both her and I (and any kids) to be with her carrier, and it's cheaper to boot. Me not being on my own company's plan would lead to my company getting a fine for not providing me coverage, even though I have coverage elsewhere. That fine goes to the pool so others can get subsidies and such. This is still the best and cheapest option for our coverage, though - and is easier to deal with having only one carrier for our family, and one shared deductible and such. But if her company decides to implement this rule, I'd be forced to join my company's plan with a different carrier and different providers and have higher premiums as well as a new deductible. A bit of a pain, and definitely less choice.

Sure, I can get an individual plan on or off exchange - but I wouldn't be eligible for a subsidy as I would still have group coverage available to me through my employer.

Choices went away, my known costs went up (higher total premium), and my potential out of pocket went up (two deductibles).

"If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your health insurance plan. No one will take it from you.".....yeah, right.

Sort of like the rest of us aren't surprised that companies led by right wingers are blaming Obamacare for cutting benefits, while recording record profits at the same time.Are you really this ignorant?

Are they really "record profits"? I don't know, I'm asking. Technically, you should measure profits as a percentage of dollars invested, not as raw numbers, of course. That is, if a company is only earning 1% on their capital, that's not a good return even if 1% works out to a large number.

UPS reports record fourth quarter 2012 earnings performance
Transportation and parcel bellwether UPSreported today that fourth quarter revenue increased 2.3 percent annually to a record $14.57 billion, and adjusted operating profit saw a 41 percent gain to record $2.05 billion

E-Commerce Lifts UPS 1Q Earnings View printer-friendly version < Back

Strong January Boosts U.S. Domestic Profit Growth​

Reaffirms Full Year Guidance​

ATLANTA--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Apr. 25, 2013-- UPS (NYSE:UPS) today announced first quarter 2013 adjusted diluted earnings per share of $1.04. The quarter benefited from a stronger than expected post-holiday season in January as UPS e-commerce solutions resonated with customers. In the U.S. Domestic segment, daily package volume grew 4.4% and operating profit improved 9%. Additionally, UPS reaffirmed its full-year 2013 guidance for adjusted diluted earnings per share; an increase of 6-to-12% over 2012 adjusted results.

Stock price is at an all time high today.

So you're not measuring by return on investment, you're measuring pure dollars. By that logic, due to inflation, every single quarter would be "record profits" if the company simply duplicates its performance every single quarter.



The term "record profits" just annoys me, since it's a meaningless term unless it's measuring return on investment.

Their profit margin has been pretty consistent at ~7.5% or so for a number of years. So the record earnings thing is a bit of a lark, but they are earning a consistent profit.

 

[matttyl]

I believe the company will only be fined if you don't offer emps a qualified plan. If you offer a qualified plan and they go elsewhere for coverage you're off the hook.

Actually, I'm still getting clarification. The company will only get a penalty if the employee goes and gets a plan on the exchange and they get a subsidy.

So either the employer ponies up money to make the group health plan less than 9.5% of their lowest paid "full time" employee (which can be extremely expensive for places with many minimum wage type employees)- or the employer ponies up for the penalty when they don't do that and the employee goes to an exchange plan and gets a subsidy. According to the CBO, this will be the case for about one million people per year - for a grand total of $3,000,000,000 in annual penalties on large employers.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I believe the company will only be fined if you don't offer emps a qualified plan. If you offer a qualified plan and they go elsewhere for coverage you're off the hook.

Actually, I'm still getting clarification. The company will only get a penalty if the employee goes and gets a plan on the exchange and they get a subsidy.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your OBAMACARE OUTRAGE!#!#@$

 

[matttyl]

I believe the company will only be fined if you don't offer emps a qualified plan. If you offer a qualified plan and they go elsewhere for coverage you're off the hook.

Actually, I'm still getting clarification. The company will only get a penalty if the employee goes and gets a plan on the exchange and they get a subsidy.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your OBAMACARE OUTRAGE!#!#@$

Yes, the fact is that Obamacare is the primary reason costs are going up so much this year, leading to twice as many companies dropping eligible spouses next year (4% of companies did this in 2013, 8% will be doing it next year - UPS and UVa are by no means the first).

 

[humpback]

Yeah, I'm not diving deep into the math.

Shocker, another case of selectively using "nuance" and "facts" that you love to spout off about. Such a hack.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

You never did come back with how much you pay in premiums, deductibles, co-pays and maximum out of pocket. Any reason why, other than you are a hypocrite?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Yeah, I'm not diving deep into the math.

Shocker, another case of selectively using "nuance" and "facts" that you love to spout off about. Such a hack.

Yeah, he didn't just drink the Kool-Aid - he's the Kool-Aid man.

 

[matttyl]

ObamaCare: 258 Employers Cut Work Hours, Jobs So Far

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

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[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.

So then why post that only 258 employers had reduced their hours? Unless maybe your intent was to argue that Obamacare has had virtually no effect on employment to date? Because that's what you posted. You didn't say the #### will hit the fan a couple years from now. You said "ObamaCare: 258 Employers Cut Work Hours, Jobs So Far" as if that was something significant ... which it very clearly is not.

This reminds me of when some right wing blog was tallying the number of businesses that shuttered in the months after Obama's reelection. All it took was 2 minutes of googling to show that the numbers were not out of line with the number of businesses that shut down in a normal month,

 

[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!!!!!

 

[tommyGunZ]

Another gem from the article:

As of Sept. 3, this list has reached 258 — including more than 200 public-sector employers.

 

[Joe T]

If 258 people had fallen off unemployment or welfare, there would be panic in the streets.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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!!!!!

It might be worthwhile to look at the actual list:

http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/090413-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm

If you notice, I'd say, what at least 2/3's don't specify how many jobs are cut, so the 19,000 jobs are what's been counted so far.

The actual article says as much:

Further, because relatively few employers on the list have provided specifics, the scorecard's total of 19,300 workers facing reduced hours should in no way be used to minimize ObamaCare's impact.

http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/090413-669682-obamacare-employer-mandate-spurs-work-hours-job-cuts.htm#ixzz2dxyIJNYE

They're also being limited in who they count:

It only includes employers when there is convincing documentation (generally news accounts or public records) that job actions are specifically tied to ObamaCare.

For example, when Forever 21 said it was cutting hours for 192 workers to 29.5 per week or Lowe's (LOW) said it would hire 9,000 permanent workers — all part-time — the ObamaCare connection wasn't quite the slam dunk needed to land them on this list. Because private firms may fear bad publicity or litigation if they admit to cutting hours to avoid ObamaCare's coverage mandate, it's not surprising that few would be willing to come right out and say it.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Part time America.

Thanks Obama!

 

[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!!!!!

It might be worthwhile to look at the actual list:

http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/090413-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm

If you notice, I'd say, what at least 2/3's don't specify how many jobs are cut, so the 19,000 jobs are what's been counted so far.

The actual article says as much:

Further, because relatively few employers on the list have provided specifics, the scorecard's total of 19,300 workers facing reduced hours should in no way be used to minimize ObamaCare's impact.

http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/090413-669682-obamacare-employer-mandate-spurs-work-hours-job-cuts.htm#ixzz2dxyIJNYE

They're also being limited in who they count:

It only includes employers when there is convincing documentation (generally news accounts or public records) that job actions are specifically tied to ObamaCare.

For example, when Forever 21 said it was cutting hours for 192 workers to 29.5 per week or Lowe's (LOW) said it would hire 9,000 permanent workers — all part-time — the ObamaCare connection wasn't quite the slam dunk needed to land them on this list.

19k, out of what, 120 million people working in the US?

I'll let you do the division.

BHEEEEEENGHAZZZZI

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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!!!!!

It might be worthwhile to look at the actual list:

http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/090413-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm

If you notice, I'd say, what at least 2/3's don't specify how many jobs are cut, so the 19,000 jobs are what's been counted so far.

The actual article says as much:

Further, because relatively few employers on the list have provided specifics, the scorecard's total of 19,300 workers facing reduced hours should in no way be used to minimize ObamaCare's impact.

http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/090413-669682-obamacare-employer-mandate-spurs-work-hours-job-cuts.htm#ixzz2dxyIJNYE

They're also being limited in who they count:

It only includes employers when there is convincing documentation (generally news accounts or public records) that job actions are specifically tied to ObamaCare.

For example, when Forever 21 said it was cutting hours for 192 workers to 29.5 per week or Lowe's (LOW) said it would hire 9,000 permanent workers — all part-time — the ObamaCare connection wasn't quite the slam dunk needed to land them on this list.

19k, out of what, 120 million people working in the US?

I'll let you do the division.

BHEEEEEENGHAZZZZI

Well, it's more than 19K, which is still 19K+ people affected, but so yes while you're right on saying this count is not a lot, you also fail to admit that Obama and the Democrats never even forwarned that even this small amount was possible. In fact it was supposed to help job creation. So the lie is out there.

But the other real-er point is that Obamafans will be hyperventilating to deny every bit of bad news as it rolls out just as much as Goppers will be hyperventilating that no one will "admit the truth." The truth is it will weigh on the economy, slow it down, but no it won't kill it. We're probably stuck in neutral for a long time thanks to this thing, but we're not going off a cliff.

 

[MaxThreshold]

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!!!!!

It might be worthwhile to look at the actual list:

http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/090413-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm

If you notice, I'd say, what at least 2/3's don't specify how many jobs are cut, so the 19,000 jobs are what's been counted so far.

The actual article says as much:

Further, because relatively few employers on the list have provided specifics, the scorecard's total of 19,300 workers facing reduced hours should in no way be used to minimize ObamaCare's impact.

http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/090413-669682-obamacare-employer-mandate-spurs-work-hours-job-cuts.htm#ixzz2dxyIJNYE

They're also being limited in who they count:

It only includes employers when there is convincing documentation (generally news accounts or public records) that job actions are specifically tied to ObamaCare.

For example, when Forever 21 said it was cutting hours for 192 workers to 29.5 per week or Lowe's (LOW) said it would hire 9,000 permanent workers — all part-time — the ObamaCare connection wasn't quite the slam dunk needed to land them on this list.

19k, out of what, 120 million people working in the US?

I'll let you do the division.

BHEEEEEENGHAZZZZI

Well, it's more than 19K, which is still 19K+ people affected, but so yes while you're right on saying this count is not a lot, you also fail to admit that Obama and the Democrats never even forwarned that even this small amount was possible. In fact it was supposed to help job creation. So the lie is out there.

But the other real-er point is that Obamafans will be hyperventilating to deny every bit of bad news as it rolls out just as much as Goppers will be hyperventilating that no one will "admit the truth."

So, if 19K people fell of the welfare roles do you think TG would be in here frothing at the mouth? Or simply making fun because, well, its "only" 19K people?

Watching TG post is like watching a descent into madness. The more he posts, the more desperate he gets in each one.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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!!!!!

It might be worthwhile to look at the actual list:

http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/090413-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm

If you notice, I'd say, what at least 2/3's don't specify how many jobs are cut, so the 19,000 jobs are what's been counted so far.

The actual article says as much:

Further, because relatively few employers on the list have provided specifics, the scorecard's total of 19,300 workers facing reduced hours should in no way be used to minimize ObamaCare's impact.

http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/090413-669682-obamacare-employer-mandate-spurs-work-hours-job-cuts.htm#ixzz2dxyIJNYE

They're also being limited in who they count:

It only includes employers when there is convincing documentation (generally news accounts or public records) that job actions are specifically tied to ObamaCare.

For example, when Forever 21 said it was cutting hours for 192 workers to 29.5 per week or Lowe's (LOW) said it would hire 9,000 permanent workers — all part-time — the ObamaCare connection wasn't quite the slam dunk needed to land them on this list.

19k, out of what, 120 million people working in the US?

I'll let you do the division.

BHEEEEEENGHAZZZZI

Well, it's more than 19K, which is still 19K+ people affected, but so yes while you're right on saying this count is not a lot, you also fail to admit that Obama and the Democrats never even forwarned that even this small amount was possible. In fact it was supposed to help job creation. So the lie is out there.

But the other real-er point is that Obamafans will be hyperventilating to deny every bit of bad news as it rolls out just as much as Goppers will be hyperventilating that no one will "admit the truth."

So, if 19K people fell of the welfare roles do you think TG would be in here frothing at the mouth? Or simply making fun because, well, its "only" 19K people?

Watching TG post is like watching a descent into madness. The more he posts, the more desperate he gets in each one.

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.

 

[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!!!!!

It might be worthwhile to look at the actual list:

http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/090413-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm

If you notice, I'd say, what at least 2/3's don't specify how many jobs are cut, so the 19,000 jobs are what's been counted so far.

The actual article says as much:

Further, because relatively few employers on the list have provided specifics, the scorecard's total of 19,300 workers facing reduced hours should in no way be used to minimize ObamaCare's impact.

http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/090413-669682-obamacare-employer-mandate-spurs-work-hours-job-cuts.htm#ixzz2dxyIJNYE

They're also being limited in who they count:

It only includes employers when there is convincing documentation (generally news accounts or public records) that job actions are specifically tied to ObamaCare.

For example, when Forever 21 said it was cutting hours for 192 workers to 29.5 per week or Lowe's (LOW) said it would hire 9,000 permanent workers — all part-time — the ObamaCare connection wasn't quite the slam dunk needed to land them on this list.

19k, out of what, 120 million people working in the US?

I'll let you do the division.

BHEEEEEENGHAZZZZI

Well, it's more than 19K, which is still 19K+ people affected, but so yes while you're right on saying this count is not a lot, you also fail to admit that Obama and the Democrats never even forwarned that even this small amount was possible. In fact it was supposed to help job creation. So the lie is out there.

But the other real-er point is that Obamafans will be hyperventilating to deny every bit of bad news as it rolls out just as much as Goppers will be hyperventilating that no one will "admit the truth." The truth is it will weigh on the economy, slow it down, but no it won't kill it. We're probably stuck in neutral for a long time thanks to this thing, but we're not going off a cliff.

That's disingenuous. Obamacare wasn't touted by the left as a "jobs creation" bill overall. I'm sure there were some who noted that there would be some jobs created due to the act, but it was never a narritive from the left.

Obamacare destroying jobs and the economy along with it was and still is the primary talking point among Republicans in this country. And as your analysis points out, that's simply not the case. .01% is not "destroying jobs" or destroying the economy.

 

[tommyGunZ]

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?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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!!!!!

It might be worthwhile to look at the actual list:

http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/090413-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm

If you notice, I'd say, what at least 2/3's don't specify how many jobs are cut, so the 19,000 jobs are what's been counted so far.

The actual article says as much:

Further, because relatively few employers on the list have provided specifics, the scorecard's total of 19,300 workers facing reduced hours should in no way be used to minimize ObamaCare's impact.

http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/090413-669682-obamacare-employer-mandate-spurs-work-hours-job-cuts.htm#ixzz2dxyIJNYE

They're also being limited in who they count:

It only includes employers when there is convincing documentation (generally news accounts or public records) that job actions are specifically tied to ObamaCare.

For example, when Forever 21 said it was cutting hours for 192 workers to 29.5 per week or Lowe's (LOW) said it would hire 9,000 permanent workers — all part-time — the ObamaCare connection wasn't quite the slam dunk needed to land them on this list.

19k, out of what, 120 million people working in the US?

I'll let you do the division.

BHEEEEEENGHAZZZZI

Well, it's more than 19K, which is still 19K+ people affected, but so yes while you're right on saying this count is not a lot, you also fail to admit that Obama and the Democrats never even forwarned that even this small amount was possible. In fact it was supposed to help job creation. So the lie is out there.

But the other real-er point is that Obamafans will be hyperventilating to deny every bit of bad news as it rolls out just as much as Goppers will be hyperventilating that no one will "admit the truth." The truth is it will weigh on the economy, slow it down, but no it won't kill it. We're probably stuck in neutral for a long time thanks to this thing, but we're not going off a cliff.

That's disingenuous. Obamacare wasn't touted by the left as a "jobs creation" bill overall. I'm sure there were some who noted that there would be some jobs created due to the act, but it was never a narritive from the left.

Obamacare destroying jobs and the economy along with it was and still is the primary talking point among Republicans in this country. And as your analysis points out, that's simply not the case. .01% is not "destroying jobs" or destroying the economy.

I'm not being disingenuous. What I'm saying is that Obama himself and Democratic leadership never advised that this was a possibility. They should have. The reason they did not admit to it is because popularity for the program was already low. This was never an honest discussion.

As to who said what, it's all recollection now and I don't like hunting links, but again talk of "narratives" is just part of the problem. It was being sold.

On your last point, welll obviously it's killed over full time 19000 jobs, and the number is likely greater. IBD reported it and as they said they were being limited in what they included. It's enough to say it's happened to that extent, there could be more, but we don't know how much.

The idea that companies were going to take on extra costs and not try to recoup them is just ludicrous. I know you don't deny that, who could deny that.

I would think this would be an uncontroversial point for ACA advocates.

 

[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?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Well, it's more than 19K, which is still 19K+ people affected, but so yes while you're right on saying this count is not a lot, you also fail to admit that Obama and the Democrats never even forwarned that even this small amount was possible. In fact it was supposed to help job creation. So the lie is out there.

But the other real-er point is that Obamafans will be hyperventilating to deny every bit of bad news as it rolls out just as much as Goppers will be hyperventilating that no one will "admit the truth." The truth is it will weigh on the economy, slow it down, but no it won't kill it. We're probably stuck in neutral for a long time thanks to this thing, but we're not going off a cliff.

That's disingenuous. Obamacare wasn't touted by the left as a "jobs creation" bill overall. I'm sure there were some who noted that there would be some jobs created due to the act, but it was never a narritive from the left.

Obamacare destroying jobs and the economy along with it was and still is the primary talking point among Republicans in this country. And as your analysis points out, that's simply not the case. .01% is not "destroying jobs" or destroying the economy.

I'm not being disingenuous. What I'm saying is that Obama himself and Democratic leadership never advised that this was a possibility. They should have. The reason they did not admit to it is because popularity for the program was already low. This was never an honest discussion.

As to who said what, it's all recollection now and I don't like hunting links, but again talk of "narratives" is just part of the problem. It was being sold.

On your last point, welll obviously it's killed over full time 19000 jobs, and the number is likely greater. IBD reported it and as they said they were being limited in what they included. It's enough to say it's happened to that extent, there could be more, but we don't know how much.

The idea that companies were going to take on extra costs and not try to recoup them is just ludicrous. I know you don't deny that, who could deny that.

I would think this would be an uncontroversial point for ACA advocates.

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.

 

[tommyGunZ]

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

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well, it's more than 19K, which is still 19K+ people affected, but so yes while you're right on saying this count is not a lot, you also fail to admit that Obama and the Democrats never even forwarned that even this small amount was possible. In fact it was supposed to help job creation. So the lie is out there.

But the other real-er point is that Obamafans will be hyperventilating to deny every bit of bad news as it rolls out just as much as Goppers will be hyperventilating that no one will "admit the truth." The truth is it will weigh on the economy, slow it down, but no it won't kill it. We're probably stuck in neutral for a long time thanks to this thing, but we're not going off a cliff.

That's disingenuous. Obamacare wasn't touted by the left as a "jobs creation" bill overall. I'm sure there were some who noted that there would be some jobs created due to the act, but it was never a narritive from the left.

Obamacare destroying jobs and the economy along with it was and still is the primary talking point among Republicans in this country. And as your analysis points out, that's simply not the case. .01% is not "destroying jobs" or destroying the economy.

I'm not being disingenuous. What I'm saying is that Obama himself and Democratic leadership never advised that this was a possibility. They should have. The reason they did not admit to it is because popularity for the program was already low. This was never an honest discussion.

As to who said what, it's all recollection now and I don't like hunting links, but again talk of "narratives" is just part of the problem. It was being sold.

On your last point, welll obviously it's killed over full time 19000 jobs, and the number is likely greater. IBD reported it and as they said they were being limited in what they included. It's enough to say it's happened to that extent, there could be more, but we don't know how much.

The idea that companies were going to take on extra costs and not try to recoup them is just ludicrous. I know you don't deny that, who could deny that.

I would think this would be an uncontroversial point for ACA advocates.

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.

So under the heading of "C'mon, maaaaaan" companies have covered how many more of those 100+ million, and they haven't tried to recoup that cost at all?

 

[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 said that because we have been stuck at that ~63% figure for some time and I don't see any hope of it changing. He gets in office, he implements the ACA, he does the stimulus to the tune of $1 trillion, and now what? That was 2008. People are falling off the unemployment numbers because they have stopped looking for work. That's what's happened. You're telling me he wants to spend more money, the GOP opposes that, but I'm supposed to pretend we're not in debt for that money, that that doesn't fall on future generations, that it's all free? And he put Joe Biden in charge to maintain accountability? Good lord, Joe Biden. Please. Here's an idea for the president, put the money into infrastructure which requires actual hiring of workers and compromise with the GOP on cuts. Bring back the guy from 2008 who talked about compromise, he's done, he's gone, he's golfing.