Of course Newt doesn't know that because he's never had to work a regular job in his life. He probably doesn't even know anyone with a regular job.

and even if he did, ignorance is no excuse

any excuse so far, so why try to tack that conspicuous drivel onto ACA?

They don't need an excuse, (or cover) to legitimize and politicize the conspiracy for more profit, increased authoritarian control over the workforce, and heavily financed, (Fascist) manipulative intrusions into laws, policy and finance.

Cheap shots are cheaper and the spewing becomes more insubstantial as we continue on this trail of tears. The rhetoric is runny and loose and seem merely gratuitous since they already do what they want to and have an in-your-face glare that taunts us with, "what are you going to do about it?"

I can think of several people I know who have been cut recently to less than thirty.

We can investigate anonymously and see why.

Hours have been cut regularly for many, many years. If they bother to give a reason at all, it's because someone else MADE them do it (the devil?). It's NEVER because they made an executive decision for it, to save $. Which is what is has always been.

The person you know...who now doesn't have health care. Well, he didn't have it before. AND he had to pay for it 100% out of his pocket. Now his co-workers will have health care, AND he will qualify for a subsidy to buy it. So is he worse off? His hours would've been cut, anyway, probably; he had no insurance before; he had to pay 100% of premiums before. Now, his hours are cut, which they probably would've been, anwya; he now has insurance; the govt pays for part of those premiums on a sliding scale.

Two different things and having health insurance does not necessarily imply having access to health care.

If you're poor and on Medicaid, that may not give you access, since it's dependent on whether anyone in your city accepts Medicaid.

But the key to getting in anywhere is first and foremost that you have health ins. That gets you access. Now, whether that policy pays for all that you need or want, it probably doesn't. No one's ins. does, that I know of. But the ACA now has provisions that make it more likely that you will have full coverage...no lifetime cap, they can't get rid of you if you get sick, they can't raise your premiums more than the law allows (the cap on premiums is 15% to 20% above amount of claims paid), and other things.

If you're poor enough, you can go to a clinic with sliding scale fees (most big cities have one or more of them - of course the wait is long, andyou have to take a day off work to do it...the same as it is with all workers).

There's been plenty of discussion here on DU of and by people who cannot afford to use the insurance they carry, there's no way you are ignorant of this situation.

So what you said is not true.

Women will get mammograms FOR FREE.

There's no way you're ignorant of what "access to health care" means. It means you, like, have access. Not to anything and everything....no, none of us has that, least of all the working poor. But YES, FINALLY...the working poor have access to health care! Halleluyah. I'm sure you're happy for them, like I am.

If they are THAT poor that they can't pay a co-pay for an illness, they qualify for Medicaid.

And as for illnesses....it's been many years since I've been to a dr. for an illness. You stay healthier if you stay away from meds and doctors. They maybe should walk or exercise every day, not eat much fast food, do a little yoga, not eat too much (esp at night), give up most sugars....they will rarely be ill. If they have a chronic condition like diabetes, what are they doing now? Whatever they're doing now, it will be better, once they get ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE. They will get a free annual, for one thing, during which the dr can prescribe meds.

Like in Canada or the UK or France or Germany or lots of other places but not America.

Of course there are companies who view their employees as "human resources" as opposed to partners and/or colleagues. For them, bodies are just "resources" like bolts, paper, and trucks. If they view the human capital as being purely a commodity, then they will try to get it as cheaply as the market will allow. There is absolutely nothing new about this. And the ACA doesn't really change anything. As you say, most of these companies weren't paying health benefits for 40-hour employees. And yes, a few of them will cut employees to 32 hours in order to avoid having to pay a health benefit. But there are lots of other exclusions (size of business, etc) so that really isn't going to change a lot of behavior.

And not all businesses think like that. Many businesses recognize that employees are inherently more valuable than reams of paper or cans of paint. And some of these businesses will recognize that the ACA law actually makes it possible for them to provide health benefits FOR THE FIRST TIME. And they will welcome that because healthy employees are more loyal, and perform better on the job with better attendance.

I'd like to see real data, not fear mongering. I bet when we see real data we will see that the new people brought into the health care umbrella outnumber those pushed out by Papa John and his ilk.

jobs that worked directly for the city, state or federal gov.

These days though many businesses use contract labor and the company that supplies the contract workers takes care of everything.

Many businesses also use foreign students who are here on college visas as employees. Not sure how that works but I bet they don't have to pay any benefits or American ss/unemployment insurance.

Our colleges are packed with foreign students who can afford the higher prices and seems like employers like McDs hire visa persons more than they used to. If one looks at the college ads in foreign countries the colleges offer jobs along with their package, to study and work in the USA.

I don't think it's right at all that all businesses in the USA should even be allowed to hire foreign workers for jobs that traditionally used to go to local Americans.

Health care, leave, and retirement. Well, that last is a 403b because I work for a non-profit, a hospital. But it's not even a matching thing. They automatically put it about 4% of my base pay whether or not I contribute.

As for the health care, they kick in some specific dollar amount which will pay for the basic health care, and employees have the option to buy up to a better plan. Which I do.

Retail has ALWAYS preferred to hire part time, at least in the fifty years I've been aware of the job market. Worse yet, retail has always given their workers split days off, always claiming that it's not possible to schedule them with regular hours and days off. Really? How is it that just about every other business out there that is open seven days a week, and perhaps 24/7, somehow manages to give their employees a set shift and two consecutive days a week off?

They hire them supposedly full time, but in reality, they become part-time workers with no benefits. (I was a burger flipper once.) I was young, so I didn't expect much. But it was so sad to see the older ones, who depended on the income for their livelihood. And humiliating for them, when the co. would hire a young college grad with little experience to be the manager, over the years-of-experience hard working women who really wanted to be manager (and were more qualified).

Bad business for anyone who needs a career or to earn a living: retail, fast food.

A worker who gets 5 fours a week will always stay late/come in early, and might undercut fellow employees to get hours..

Change that to 4 tens a week or 8 fives, with a regular schedule and an employee "might" just get complacent and "unmanageable"..

those people, who were part timers before, now have to fill in time cards and keep it below 30 hours? That doesn't seem like much of a change.

Bear in mind that IF the institution was offering benefits to full time workers, that institution HAD to keep its part timers below a certain # of hours, OR they would've had to provide full time benefits to those workers.

Capiche? So the only thing that has changed is maybe the # of hours (from 32 to below 30 or whatever), and having to keep track of the hours. That article says they didn't keep track of the hours before, since they were salaried, which doesn't make sense.

But NOW that part time worker can buy insurance and qualify for a subsidy. Or show they are being covered under a spouse's policy or whatever.

They did indeed have limits before, and it was in large part about keeping them from having a full-time load without a full-timer's benefits. Now they are being cut back further to keep from running afoul of ACA regs and thus not only are they still not getting offered the bennies, their paychecks are smaller.

But the article says they didn't keep track of their hours before, so that was against the law, on the face of things. Unless I misunderstand.

1 English course = x classroom hrs + x office hrs + x prep hrs + (x?)
The adjunct association also wants to be included on committees so there's a formula for committee assignments as well.

Is this is the trend now for some colleges? Expensive tuition, very large classes and teachers underpaid.

They would let people work thirty-five hours or whatever the limit was. Now they'll just cut them back more, and Obamacare will force these same workers to buy the insurance on their own.

That may depend on the company.

As for requiring them to buy insurance...it is a GOOD thing they will now have insurance. The government will pay for part of the premiums, so they should be able to afford it. They can buy a basic policy for a fraction of the cost. Thank goodness.

Easy to gloss over when you don't know what it is going to be.

It's a GOOD thing that working people will be able to get basic insurance. They didn't have it before. They'll be able to get an annual exam FOR FREE.

If they are poor enough, expanded Medicaid will take care of it. (If they live in a state that accepted the expanded Medicaid.)

They will be FORCED BY LAW to buy a base policy with a stratospheric co-pay and deductible that covers essentially nothing. And even if Uncle Obama picks up 90% of the cost, for many families it will remain an unaffordable expense. FORCED BY LAW...

Whether they want it or not.
Whether they can afford it or not.
No matter how poorly they are treated.
No matter how useless the policy.
No matter if the company refuses to pay out a penny in claims.
No matter fucking what, YOU HAVE TO GIVE YOUR MONEY TO BIG INSURANCE.

That anyone would defend this -- other than an insurance company CEO -- positively staggers the mind.

People buying fast food from sick employees. Great idea.

Not even a political but a PRAGMATIC reason to boycott these BUMS that would rather pocket more profits for those at the top in exchange for the health and safety of BOTH their employees and their customers! They don't deserve anyone's business!

That'd fix it right up, pronto.

...because full time meant vacation time and benefits. I was part time for almost a year before the bosses put together a budget for the next year that allowed five new full time positions. I was bumped up along with four other guys who had worked there much longer than me. That was at Sears.

I'd agree that its always been that way. Perhaps the ACA raises the stakes for some employers, but its also just a small detail in the text of the law; if it were necessary to change the term because it was deemed harmful, it could be easily done by any effective congress.

and even part timers can get their health insurance. What they did do, was eliminate paid time off for part timers. I can get vacation, if management approves, but don't get paid for it. I work in the assisted-living part of a retirement community.

"The spiel that employers will cut employee hours to 29 hrs/wk because of the ACA."

...ensure the the federal exchanges become even stronger.

How Obamacare Will Help Extend Health Care To Part-Time Workers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022309389

employers and insurers will cut hours, increase premiums and find ways to get around regulations. To me, that is a strong reason why we need single payer.

Most people want full time and they'll always be looking for full time jobs, not a 29 hour per week job. Also, all the college grads and current workers who are out there looking for jobs wouldn't even give a second glance to a company only offering a 29 hour work week. My wife is currently looking for a job and would never consider 29 hours a week, and she only works 32 hours per week now.

I can't help but think that they will hurt the older employees the most.