(06-15-2015 12:17 PM)dawgitall Wrote: Yet when UofM repeatedly posts incorrect information about group policy costs and the ACA you just ignore that, in essence legitimizing his comments.
So now I'm responsible for things I didn't say, and didn't respond to?
I don't read every post in every thread. I tend to read those that quote me or seem to be responding to me. I also don't tend to get into the minutiae of anecdotal experiences UNLESS they are mentioned in response to me, or in a quote to me.. I'm not saying I never do... just I don't tend to.
If he's posting his anecdotal experience, I have no reason or grounds to dispute him... and you are providing the counter-argument. My point all along is that for every anecdote, there is a counter. I don't really get into that, other than a few misconceptions.
As an aside, if this is one of the 'misconceptions' you're talking about (I'm not going to go back and read) 'your side' likes to argue now that not all of the changes to group policies are because of the ACA... but that really depends on what you mean by that.
Companies generally offered insurance to their workers as a perk/incentive to work there. The ACA essentially takes away this 'incentive' because now EVERYONE has insurance. They may not have REQUIRED them to make changes, but it certainly gave them an impetus... In fact, it gave them cover to do so by creating an organized 'exchange' where they can dump all those workers. A company offering insurance is no longer worth as much to a worker as before. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but to act as if the ACA isn't responsible for this just isn't factually true.