OBY won and the layoffs begin

**AirFlacco** · 11-08-2012, 01:10 PM

Roberts had no idea what kind of can of worms he opened when he
said OBUMMER CARE was constitutional.

In wake of the election, the layoffs begin because of the regulations
O BUMMER CARE will impose (which is why we call it O BUMMER CARE) on a man in Vegas who employes 114 people. He laid off 21 and more are to follow like with Boeing.

I posted on election day that the real regulations will be imposed on
Wed. OBY ceased them during the campaign for fear of losing votes.
He has to 2013 to implement them.

This employer who started with nothing and buit his business up to 114
people just cant afford it.

More companies will do the same.

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/11...-22-employees/

**AirFlacco** · 11-08-2012, 01:19 PM

Boeing announces it is laying off 30% of its work force due to cuts in defense
spending taking it's force below 2010 levels.

Mitt made defense a key issue in the campaign because OBY was cutting
defense spending so this is what happens.

Welcome to China West.

www.drudgereport.com

**JAB1985** · 11-08-2012, 01:30 PM

just my opinon but the First story sounds like grand standing (if it is true), because nothing has changed as far as the ACA is concerned. To me the timing is just off. either you werent able to afford them before and you were going to fire them, or you could carry them until you couldnt but want to make an example and blame Obama.

The second story while its true that Boeing is cutting its workforce, where has obama cut military funding? its more than doubled since hes been in office. I believe during the debates he was arguing that Romney wanted to spend more on it, while he said he gave them what they asked for. not cuts. if we are in fact removing ourselves from the middle east, why do you need an active war/wars budget anyway? sounds like a company thats retooling its approach because its no longer in demand, or in other words, good business.

**NCRAVEN** · 11-08-2012, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

just my opinon but the First story sounds like grand standing (if it is true), because nothing has changed as far as the ACA is concerned.

The thing that changed is it does not stand a chance of repeal. We're stuck with it now matter how ineffective it will be.

**JAB1985** · 11-08-2012, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

The thing that changed is it does not stand a chance of repeal. We're stuck with it now matter how ineffective it will be.

Thats true but its a year plus away from being implemented. You can afford it right now, so why get rid of them now especially if you need them. Just leary of the story. Its just a guy that called into a radio station, if we believed that wed still have troy smith as our qb.

**HoustonRaven** · 11-08-2012, 01:50 PM

Businesses are planning for the increased costs.

We got a letter last year when it was passed to expect substantial increases to our healthcare costs.

**NCRAVEN** · 11-08-2012, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Businesses are planning for the increased costs.

We got a letter last year when it was passed to expect substantial increases to our healthcare costs.

You mean one like this.

**This email is directed to all ************* employees, who are currently eligible for benefits based on employment status**

This is the time of year when we review our options of employee benefit plans and make decisions about coverage for the upcoming plan year (January thru December 2013). For the past two years, we have been very fortunate to have received renewals that included no increase to our premiums. However - due to increased claims over the past year and plan/benefit changes dictated by the recent Health Care Reform laws, we received an initial notification this year from Cigna that our premiums would be increasing 15.67%. Because the company currently pays such a large percentage of the premium, that would be a significant impact to the bottom line, which is not affordable. We also realize that we must begin to plan now for the additional changes coming to health care in 2014 as a result of Health Care Reform. We have already incorporated some of the changes into our plans, but the majority of the changes are effective in 2014. Many of the details of the exact dollar impact we will feel are not entirely clear, but we do know that, as an employer, we will face increased taxes/fees and we have already been advised of some of the increases we can expect to see in premiums due to the plan changes dictated by the new laws. We are expecting premium increases of 15-20% in 2014 based on current parameters of Health Care Reform.

**NCRAVEN** · 11-08-2012, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

Thats true but its a year plus away from being implemented. You can afford it right now, so why get rid of them now especially if you need them. Just leary of the story. Its just a guy that called into a radio station, if we believed that wed still have troy smith as our qb.

I'm leary of the story too. But the law is not entirely years away from being implemented, parts of it are, mainly the taxes (to avoid happening before the 2012 election)

**JAB1985** · 11-08-2012, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

I'm leary of the story too. But the law is not entirely years away from being implemented, parts of it are, mainly the taxes (to avoid happening before the 2012 election)

I didnt see anything major slated for 2013 on the timeline, but that was wiki.

i havent gotten a letter like the one you posted above but i have seen 10-15% increases to my insurance back all the way to the bush years when i started. I started in 2004 @ about 46$/month for 100% & im currently paying 88$/month for 90%. Both as a single. A 10-15% increase isnt anything new to me as long as its more stable afterward. Thats if they transfer the whole hit to us. My company is pretty conservative in its approach and vocal about whats going on. im surprised if this is the same for us why we havent heard about it personally, especially if others have. Makes me think it wont be much of a factor for us, in the past we were notified when it went up.

**NCRAVEN** · 11-08-2012, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

I didnt see anything major slated for 2013 on the timeline, but that was wiki.

i havent gotten a letter like the one you posted above but i have seen 10-15% increases to my insurance back all the way to the bush years when i started. I started in 2004 @ about 46$/month for 100% & im currently paying 88$/month for 90%. Both as a single. A 10-15% increase isnt anything new to me as long as its more stable afterward. Thats if they transfer the whole hit to us. My company is pretty conservative in its approach and vocal about whats going on. im surprised if this is the same for us why we havent heard about it personally, especially if others have. Makes me think it wont be much of a factor for us, in the past we were notified when it went up.

When do you elect your plans? If open enrollment is June or so, you may not hear about it till then, and that's if they choose to pass the cost of to you, I'm sure that depends on the portion they pay already etc.

The main things that are and will be affecting cost as HR said, is they are planning for the changes, so the timeline is semi - irrelevant. I will say what the insurance companies have to cover "at no cost" to the policy holder is why they are increasing the cost of insurance. They can't pay more for services you get without offsetting it by raising premiums...

**JAB1985** · 11-08-2012, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

When do you elect your plans? If open enrollment is June or so, you may not hear about it till then, and that's if they choose to pass the cost of to you, I'm sure that depends on the portion they pay already etc.

The main things that are and will be affecting cost as HR said, is they are planning for the changes, so the timeline is semi - irrelevant. I will say what the insurance companies have to cover "at no cost" to the policy holder is why they are increasing the cost of insurance. They can't pay more for services you get without offsetting it by raising premiums...

Good point, open enrollment is april, maybe waiting till after the holidays.

**NCRAVEN** · 11-08-2012, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

Good point, open enrollment is april, maybe waiting till after the holidays.

Here is a good link for implementation timeline.
http://healthreform.kff.org/timeline.aspx

This is my favorite. Premiums will skyrocket because of this.

No Annual Limits on Coverage Not In Effect

Prohibits annual limits on the dollar value of coverage.

Implementation: January 1, 2014

**AirFlacco** · 11-08-2012, 05:46 PM

Good posts everyone.

Yea, implementation of regs is end of 2013. I posted a link on it on the other
thread but OBY wants to start on Wed.

OBY also said the midldle class wouldn't be paying more for O BUMMER CARE,
he later said we would which is what we said when it was debated. JonBoy and
I posted tons of links on it.

As for being leary of the story, the guy laid off 20 people and will probably
lay off more. He said vote for who you want to but if OBY gets in, some of
you will lose jobs.

They did.

Expect more cuts from Boeing. The links I posted during the campaign said
he will take our ships to pre Korean War levels.

That's why I said:

WELCOME TO CHINA WEST

**JAB1985** · 11-08-2012, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Here is a good link for implementation timeline.
http://healthreform.kff.org/timeline.aspx

This is my favorite. Premiums will skyrocket because of this.

Certainly possible. Im still under the wait and see approach. I have low expectations so hopefully theyre met at least.

Whenever i think of ACA i think of this documentary i saw of a girl that got a surgery that she needed and was covered for. Had it, complications arose and she needed more surgeries and those werent covered and her insurance dropped her completely. She was a mid 30s woman with a decent income and ended up addicted to some sort of medication all because she couldnt afford the surgery and meds were covered. Shes now unemployed and unable to take care of herself. One of the 47% for sure. All because she was unlucky and had a health complication. Now im not naive enough to think everybody on welfare and has addictions is under the same circumstances but there are a number that fall under that, non-abusers. The system was broken when they had enough power to drop you because of a complication from a surgery they covered. I couldnt imagine what that would be like if it were me or worse my child. Obamacare isnt perfect, maybe not by a long shot but something had to be done and before this, healthcare reform was just a talking point before election and forgotten during terms. He said he was going to do something and actually stood by it. For that i give him some kudos, even if i dont necessarily agree with the end result. Dropping it down to the states would certainly be better. Hes actually on record as saying its not even what he first invisioned, whether thats good or bad is another issue. Wish i could remember the documentary, it was good and really had nothing to do with politics. Would have been worth a look. Sorry for the rant, just something im passionate about with a father with diabete, a motber with thyroid issues and a sister with an inoperable brain tumor. Never know when these isurance companies will pull the plug so to speak.

**darb72** · 11-08-2012, 08:54 PM

Jab, insurance companies should have to pay for people they have covered. I don't know if anybody here would argue that. My son and wife have a kidney disorder that requires twice a year visits to Birmingham hospital, so I know more about insurance than I ever really cared too.

The problem most of us have is that the government is going to force us to buy insurance and because of that a lot of people are going to feel a large pinch. I have full coverage paid by the University for me and my family so it's not going to affect us at all. Folks who have to pay for premiums, and those whose companies pay a percentage of the insurance are going to be negatively affected.

**JAB1985** · 11-08-2012, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by darb72

Jab, insurance companies should have to pay for people they have covered. I don't know if anybody here would argue that. My son and wife have a kidney disorder that requires twice a year visits to Birmingham hospital, so I know more about insurance than I ever really cared too.

The problem most of us have is that the government is going to force us to buy insurance and because of that a lot of people are going to feel a large pinch. I have full coverage paid by the University for me and my family so it's not going to affect us at all. Folks who have to pay for premiums, and those whose companies pay a percentage of the insurance are going to be negatively affected.

Honestly with how many are not insured or dont pay their medical bills, i cant really see fault in the theory. If conservatives are against freeloaders, why is making them be insured or pay a penalty such a bad thing? Givernment mandates aside the end result is a good thing.

**darb72** · 11-08-2012, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

Honestly with how many are not insured or dont pay their medical bills, i cant really see fault in the theory. If conservatives are against freeloaders, why is making them be insured or pay a penalty such a bad thing? Givernment mandates aside the end result is a good thing.

Doing evil for the right reason is still evil.

I am against the government mandating what I do with my money. I've always felt that.

**HoustonRaven** · 11-09-2012, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

Honestly with how many are not insured or dont pay their medical bills, i cant really see fault in the theory. If conservatives are against freeloaders, why is making them be insured or pay a penalty such a bad thing? Givernment mandates aside the end result is a good thing.

What Darb said.

Also, this mandate is now a defacto tax on the poor and middle class. You will now be fined via the tax code if you cannot or will not afford insurance.

**AirFlacco** · 11-09-2012, 07:40 AM

Thats what Pelosi called the rich paying their fair share. They never had to pay
for health care. Ii think that fine would be 2% of your salary. Rush
never had to pay for it so 2% of his salary would be in the millions if he doesnt
pay compared to thousands for me.

This is what the libbies have given us. That fine or tax is why Roberts said it
was contitutional and the first point they argued on. Then afterwards the
DEMs said it wasn't a tax after Roberts passed it because it was a tax like
SS being taken out of our pay checks every week.

This is why I always say OBY, OBUMMER, etc, etc. He has really hurt me at
a personal level by nationalizing health care, the auto industry and making
this a socialistic European country. I have no respect for him.

**NCRAVEN** · 11-09-2012, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by darb72

Jab, insurance companies should have to pay for people they have covered. I don't know if anybody here would argue that. My son and wife have a kidney disorder that requires twice a year visits to Birmingham hospital, so I know more about insurance than I ever really cared too.

Of course they should have to pay for people they cover, but, a no limit on the amount they pay is not realistic.

Let's put this in terms of car insurance. If I get drunk do 120mph crash, take out 2 cars a house and kill a person, is my auto insurance going to pay for every bit of damage I cause and law suit that comes my way?