Obamacare: Walked into my local bank branch today and....

[_cinepro]

if your expenses go up and your revenue has not changed, then cuts must be made...

What businesses are seeing their expenses go up in November of 2012 because of Obamacare?

[_Analytics]

Lets bring some reality to this thread.

99% of large companies (over 200 employees) provide insurance coverage for their employees.
If this was a local branch of a larger bank, then in all likelihood the bank already provided insurance coverage for it employees.

BC Space's belief that the bank reduced its workstaff to offset the additional costs of Obamacare, has no basis in reality.

Exactly. I accept the notion that some companies are based on labor-intensive business models where the workers just aren’t very productive and can’t viably be paid more than a subsistence wage. Mandating that employers give these unproductive employees the type of health insurance that people in the first-world ought to expect can in fact drive the employers to either go out of business or avoid the requirement by making the workers part-time. It’s a real problem.

Fortunately, most Americans are more productive than that and already receive health insurance benefits through their employers. For the vast majority of large firms, the law will be a marginal HR hassle, dealing with things such as putting an extra number on W-2’s.

It’s interesting that basically all of the MDD critics of the ACA live in worlds where the employees produce so little value that their employers can’t afford to provide them with health insurance benefits.

[_Analytics]

CFR

(E) Full-time equivalents treated as full-time employees
Solely for purposes of determining whether an employer is an applicable large employer under this paragraph, an employer shall, in addition to the number of full-time employees for any month otherwise determined, include for such month a number of full-time employees determined by dividing the aggregate number of hours of service of employees who are not full-time employees for the month by 120.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/4980H

Cinepro,

Have you figured out that this "full-time equivalent" formula is only applicable for delimiting large employers from small ones? If an employer is a large employer, he only has to provide benefits to full-time employees--that is the point the critics are making.

And contrary to how that has been construed, full-time means full-time over the course of a year. If somebody works at Macy’s 40 hours a week November through January, and then only 25 hours a week February through October, the law says it is a part-time employee and Macy’s doesn’t have to provide health insurance. Large employers don't have to pay an assesment for not providing insurance to workers who are expected to work less than 1,500 hours over the course of a year.

[_bcspace]

BC Space's belief that the bank reduced its workstaff to offset the additional costs of Obamacare, has no basis in reality.

It's not my belief or the employees belief. The bank communicated to the employees as much. The same is happening with a large portion of my clientele.

If this was a local branch of a larger bank, then in all likelihood the bank already provided insurance coverage for it employees.

Yes they did.

These layoffs weren’t caused by the ACA. They were caused by the uncertainty generated by those who have been trying to repeal it or have it stricken down in the courts.

Uncertainty about ACA means they are caused by ACA. Companies now and for the last two years have been trimming their lamps because of it. The anemic jobs recovery ended the day ACA the House and Senate agreed and the market has never recovered. Now that the realization has set in that this will happen, employment will continue to be hit at an ever increasing pace.

[_Jaybear]

BC Space's belief that the bank reduced its workstaff to offset the additional costs of Obamacare, has no basis in reality.

It's not my belief or the employees belief. The bank communicated to the employees as much.

You have no credibility here. If the bank was already proving insurance coverage, the additional cost is inconsequential.

Now that the realization has set in that this will happen, employment will continue to be hit at an ever increasing pace.

Let me guess. You are not an economist, but you play one on the internet.

[_bcspace]

You have no credibility here. If the bank was already proving insurance coverage, the additional cost is inconsequential.

Incorrect. If the bank now has to cover everyone, the cost increase is enormous. You don't seem to have any business acumen or economic literacy at all. I have a minor in economics by the way.

[_Droopy]

Uncertainty about ACA means they are caused by ACA.

I'm actually quite surprised that Analytics missed this basic logical flaw in his argument. That and the fact that the core of his argument, that its the uncertainty itself, generated by...uh...the uncertainty, that is causing the...uncertainty, is an argument by assertion and a tautology ("the reason there is uncertainty is because there is uncertainty that is causing uncertainty") that has no apparent logical or evidential basis.

Companies now and for the last two years have been trimming their lamps because of it. The anemic jobs recovery ended the day ACA the House and Senate agreed and the market has never recovered. Now that the realization has set in that this will happen, employment will continue to be hit at an ever increasing pace.

The "investment uncertainty" problem is widespread and well known at this juncture, and has been publicly acknowledge by numerous business representatives. None of this, however, has yet to penetrate and probably never will penetrate the thick fog generated by the Obama cult and its cult of government subsidized, cradle-to-grave felicity.

Julia has won.

[_Droopy]

You have no credibility here. If the bank was already proving insurance coverage, the additional cost is inconsequential.

Virtually no one on this board, save the tiny coterie of conservatives and apologists who grace this Mordorian pit with their presence have any intellectual credibility, so even if bc didn't have any, by that fact he would only be another brick in the wall in here.

[_beastie]

You have no credibility here. If the bank was already proving insurance coverage, the additional cost is inconsequential.

Virtually no one on this board, save the tiny coterie of conservatives and apologists who grace this Mordorian pit with their presence have any intellectual credibility, so even if bc didn't have any, by that fact he would only be another brick in the wall in here.

Speaking of credibility, have you repaid the money you "stole" from us?

[_bcspace]

Don't worry about it. Jaybear doesn't have his finger on the pulse like I do nor the experience I have talking to business and going with my Dad to testify before Congress and many state Congresses on these very issues. The fact of the matter is that Romney won the middle-class and higher in the election demographics including seniors. Almost everyone below that is now going to pay a severe price for their loyalty to Obama. They will soon see that the Republicans had their best interest in mind all along. In my area, most are conservatives, but the people at this bank are a microcosm of what's happening to people who make less than 50K a year; Obama's tax hike on them.

Oh by the way, here is how emails to me from my clients typically begin these days:

Good Morning Brian,

I hope that you had a wonderful Thanksgiving Holiday.

We are currently reviewing all of our Health Care options now that it appears that the Health Care reform is going to take place.

Which always means, "We need to cut costs and avoid paying the Obamacare tax" (as the court so kindly reminded us it was).