http://finance.yahoo.com/news/dramatic-h...00071.html

I would like to see this rule change.

http://www.businessinsider.com/jobs-elig...pay-2015-6

you're health insurance should not be tied to any 'magic number' of hours...it should be offered to all employees, part and full time.

(10-25-2015 09:18 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  you're health insurance should not be tied to any 'magic number' of hours...it should be offered to all employees, part and full time.

Right because making it even more expensive to employ someone will help our record low labor participation.

Health insurance should have nothing to do with your employer.

(10-25-2015 10:43 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Health insurance should have nothing to do with your employer.

This. Are there any other western industrialized nations which do this?

(10-25-2015 10:55 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 10:43 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Health insurance should have nothing to do with your employer.

This. Are there any other western industrialized nations which do this?

I don't necessarily disagree, but what is your solution - make a law prohibiting companies from offering it? Make it only purchased individually through the government?

(10-25-2015 10:55 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 10:43 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Health insurance should have nothing to do with your employer.

This. Are there any other western industrialized nations which do this?

Whether or not other western nations do it is immaterial to the question of employer provided insurance.

(10-25-2015 10:59 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 10:55 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 10:43 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Health insurance should have nothing to do with your employer.

This. Are there any other western industrialized nations which do this?

I don't necessarily disagree, but what is your solution - make a law prohibiting companies from offering it? Make it only purchased individually through the government?

On the left all roads lead to single payer socialist health care because "it's a right"...

(10-25-2015 11:02 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 10:59 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 10:55 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 10:43 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Health insurance should have nothing to do with your employer.

This. Are there any other western industrialized nations which do this?

I don't necessarily disagree, but what is your solution - make a law prohibiting companies from offering it? Make it only purchased individually through the government?

On the left all roads lead to single payer socialist health care because "it's a right"...

Not a single payer system, but certainly a more socialized version, yes. The Bismark model that Owl has presented seems pretty solid. Either way, it is an eventuality because the system as it currently is, isn't tenable.

To be sure, the US is an outlier when it comes to Healthcare, and in many ways, it's not a good thing.

(10-25-2015 11:04 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 11:02 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 10:59 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 10:55 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 10:43 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Health insurance should have nothing to do with your employer.

This. Are there any other western industrialized nations which do this?

I don't necessarily disagree, but what is your solution - make a law prohibiting companies from offering it? Make it only purchased individually through the government?

On the left all roads lead to single payer socialist health care because "it's a right"...

Not a single payer system, but certainly a more socialized version, yes. The Bismark model that Owl has presented seems pretty solid. Either way, it is an eventuality because the system as it currently is, isn't tenable.

To be sure, the US is an outlier when it comes to Healthcare, and in many ways, it's not a good thing.

I could agree with Bismark as well. Unfortunately, that won't happen - those in Washington benefit more from the present system and it would require statesmanship to implement.

(10-25-2015 11:04 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 11:02 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 10:59 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 10:55 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 10:43 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Health insurance should have nothing to do with your employer.

This. Are there any other western industrialized nations which do this?

I don't necessarily disagree, but what is your solution - make a law prohibiting companies from offering it? Make it only purchased individually through the government?

On the left all roads lead to single payer socialist health care because "it's a right"...

Not a single payer system, but certainly a more socialized version, yes. The Bismark model that Owl has presented seems pretty solid. Either way, it is an eventuality because the system as it currently is, isn't tenable.

To be sure, the US is an outlier when it comes to Healthcare, and in many ways, it's not a good thing.

My main issue with health care is federalizing it. If my state wanted to offer a minimum level of coverage to all citizens for, emergencies and the like, I would support that. Let people, unions, or employers buy the bells and whistles beyond that.

But when you federalize things you really remove accountability for screw ups and you start to run into situations where politically powerful states like California hold sway over how healthcare is done in North Dakota despite the fact that the two states have very different demographics.

(10-25-2015 11:04 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 11:02 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 10:59 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 10:55 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 10:43 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Health insurance should have nothing to do with your employer.

This. Are there any other western industrialized nations which do this?

I don't necessarily disagree, but what is your solution - make a law prohibiting companies from offering it? Make it only purchased individually through the government?

On the left all roads lead to single payer socialist health care because "it's a right"...

Not a single payer system, but certainly a more socialized version, yes. The Bismark model that Owl has presented seems pretty solid. Either way, it is an eventuality because the system as it currently is, isn't tenable.

To be sure, the US is an outlier when it comes to Healthcare, and in many ways, it's not a good thing.

We also have the world's best health care, even if it isn't evenly distributed. A lot of the world's research is done in our system (and we pay for it).

(10-25-2015 09:35 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 09:18 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  you're health insurance should not be tied to any 'magic number' of hours...it should be offered to all employees, part and full time.

Right because making it even more expensive to employ someone will help our record low labor participation.

yes, we should offer better jobs, not just more jobs...crazy idea.

There can be a balance between public and private options...

(10-25-2015 11:21 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 09:35 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 09:18 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  you're health insurance should not be tied to any 'magic number' of hours...it should be offered to all employees, part and full time.

Right because making it even more expensive to employ someone will help our record low labor participation.

yes, we should offer better jobs, not just more jobs...crazy idea.

*we* don't offer jobs. Employers do.... Crazy fact.

If you make it more expensive per unit of production to offer jobs there will be fewer of them and people will simply be asked to produce more.

I only see it as another ponzi scheme to help increase hiring while placing the burden on the employer when they get in a pinch....

just another way to move jobs that matter out of the country....

the shites going to hit the fan one day....they'll realize how that smells when the boomers are gone....

disclaimer: I'm an x-er

Oh Lord! This thread will be great!

(10-25-2015 11:29 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Oh Lord! This thread will be great!

aren't they all?

(10-25-2015 11:23 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 11:21 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 09:35 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 09:18 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  you're health insurance should not be tied to any 'magic number' of hours...it should be offered to all employees, part and full time.

Right because making it even more expensive to employ someone will help our record low labor participation.

yes, we should offer better jobs, not just more jobs...crazy idea.

*we* don't offer jobs. Employers do.... Crazy fact.

If you make it more expensive per unit of production to offer jobs there will be fewer of them and people will simply be asked to produce more.

We are the employers...I've never seen a company that has zero employees

(10-25-2015 11:23 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 11:21 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 09:35 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 09:18 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  you're health insurance should not be tied to any 'magic number' of hours...it should be offered to all employees, part and full time.

Right because making it even more expensive to employ someone will help our record low labor participation.

yes, we should offer better jobs, not just more jobs...crazy idea.

*we* don't offer jobs. Employers do.... Crazy fact.

If you make it more expensive per unit of production to offer jobs there will be fewer of them and people will simply be asked to produce more.

and that's the problem....it's been that way all my life....

the exception now is promoting people that 'can' is going the way of the do-do.....they usually figure it out too late when the good ones tell 'em to fk off.....


the porch fkrs don't want give up the land of po' kush....there's no incentive for that...if ya ain't wo'kin, ya ain't wo'kin....

all this does is fk the employer.....'course, they've been fk'n it up for quite some time now....

I'm just kickin' it and laughing at all the stupid shite.....I love me some beef and knee jerk as an appetizer for chickin'

(10-25-2015 11:43 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 11:29 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Oh Lord! This thread will be great!

aren't they all?

Officially my work week is 36 hours(half day Friday's). However as a consulting engineer we routinely work 50 hours and sometimes close to 80 depending on projects in office and deadlines. It is typical and expected in our industry. My GF who is a nurse practitioner works minimum 6 days per week(7 every third week).