Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
]List time I checked[/b] the Dems had a majority in the Senate every day that Liar Obama has been in office and a majority in the House for two of his four years.
Who did you "check" with, Fox?
You righties repeat this over and over, so I will repeat for you once again: the dems did not have the majority vote needed to overcome repub filibusters. Let that sink in.
A lot of people on this board ragged on fast food joints for doing this, but the movement has gone way beyond fast food. And most of these actions will never hit the news. Meanwhile, millions of American workers are screwed by ObamaCare and most don't even know it.
Pennsylvania's Community College of Allegheny County (CCAC) is slashing the hours of 400 adjunct instructors, support staff, and part-time instructors to dodge paying for Obamacare.
All of this pain and expense just because Obama claimed 30 million or so had no health care insurance, even though we had Medicare, Medicaid, S-CHIP. Even after ObamaCare is fully implemented, some people say we will still have 30 million uninsured, if true, then what did we accomplish?
Who did you "check" with, Fox?
You righties repeat this over and over, so I will repeat for you once again: the dems did not have the majority vote needed to overcome repub filibusters. Let that sink in.
Tell me how in the hell did other presidents, who had no party majorities in either house of Congress, or only a slight majority in one house, get things accomplished, like signing federal budgets and tax policies?
Only with the leadership-lacking Barack "I won" Obama, do we need super majorities in both houses of congress to get anything done.
Tell me how in the hell did other presidents, who had no party majorities in either house of Congress, or only a slight majority in one house, get things accomplished, like signing federal budgets and tax policies?
Only with the leadership-lacking Barack "I won" Obama, do we need super majorities in both houses of congress to get anything done.
They did it because the filibuster wasn't abused up until 2009 - it was used rarely. The need for a super majority didn't start with Obama.
Get away from Fox drivel as a news source, please.
Before final judgement is passed on the law, the Administration has to finalize the regulations. However, the delay releasing final rules is a failure in and of itself. The lack of guidance is wreaking havoc on business's ability to plan for the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. Businesses cannot rely on the final regulations being the best-case scenario for them, and in some cases the most responsible way to proceed for the business is to prepare for the worst-case scenario.
I suspect we will not have final regulations on these employer requirements until well into 2013. The only thing that has been promised is to have the regulations finalized by 2014 (when the employer requirements take effect), which is utterly useless for planning purposes.
In the case of Allegheny, I can see how they have a lot of exposure here. The ACA generally classifies a full time employee as someone who works 30 hours or more per week. So in the case of temporary part-time employees the question is: is an adjunct professor that 35 hours/week for 9 months considered a full time employee, even though they may only average 26 hours/week over a full calendar year.
Allegheny doesn't have a final answer to that question. HOWEVER, the DoL, IRS and Treasury have indicated that they are looking at the weekly average on an annual basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dept. of Labor
Treasury and the IRS intend to propose an approach under which the period of time that an employer will have to determine whether a newly-hired employee is a full-time employee (within the meaning of section 4980H) will depend upon whether, based on the facts and circumstances, (a) the employee is reasonably expected as of the time of hire to work an average of 30 or more hours per week on an annual basis and (b) the employee’s first three months of employment are reasonably viewed, as of the end of that period, as representative of the average hours the employee is expected to work on an annual basis.
If the Administration ultimately finalizes that definition, then Allegheny's temporary part-time employees would not be considered full-time for the purposes of the employer sponsored health coverage responsibilities, and there would not be the presumed requirement to provide health care to them.
But a letter expressing the intentions of the Administration is not a final regulation. Until they release those final regs, businesses may take the most conservative financial approach to prepare for all possible outcomes.
I would note; I think the article is somewhat misleading, laying the bulk of these budget cutting decisions at the feet of the ACA. Clearly the University has larger financial issues. The bulk of the $6m annual savings comes from limiting employee hours. The maximum penalty they would face for not offering coverage to 400 employees would be $1.2m/yr. Significant, yes, but nowhere close to the $6m in cuts.
All these companies/schools/etc are just bringing their part time employees in line with the new IRS defintion of part time.
Part time used to be under 40 hours and defined by the employer.
But the IRS has ruled that part time is under 30 hours.
So if you have part time folks working between 30-39 hours then you either make them full time or you reduce their hours to keep them as part time.
Congress probably thought all these workers would be made full time and provided employer insurance.
I don't think they considered that hours would be reduced to maintain the part time status.
But don't go blaming these companies/schools/etc because the government changed the rules of the game.
Be angry at Congress and the IRS.
Who did you "check" with, Fox?
You righties repeat this over and over, so I will repeat for you once again: the dems did not have the majority vote needed to overcome repub filibusters. Let that sink in.
A Even after ObamaCare is fully implemented, some people say we will still have 30 million uninsured, if true, then what did we accomplish?
Nothing positive. Just higher costs, more government regulation, more confusion over the rules, companies spending more money on lawyers needed to interpret the rules and laws, etc, etc. and worse service.
They did it because the filibuster wasn't abused up until 2009 - it was used rarely. The need for a super majority didn't start with Obama.
Get away from Fox drivel as a news source, please.
The facts are that he does not nor ever has had to fight a Republican majority in Congress.
Get away from MSNBC drivel as a news source. You might be getting too many tingles up your leg.
The facts are that he does not nor ever has had to fight a Republican majority in Congress.
That is a fact, but I think you're lending it much more relevance than it deserves. A simple majority in the House and 41 votes in the Senate (with the exception of the budget reconciliation) can effectively stop legislation. To the extent that the Republican caucus can whip its members to comply with leadership, they can avail themselves of the procedural tools to kill anything they wish in either chamber.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
