defiantbadgirl
Posts: 2988
Joined: 11/14/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BenevolentM The law is inconsistent. If you employ someone part-time, why isn't the business obligated to picking up part of the tab? Isn't working two part-time jobs 20 hours a week a piece equivalent to a full-time 40 hour a week job? Sounds discriminatory. Wait, I foresee another equation being served. People who work two jobs will be discriminated against. What right does the government have to discriminate against people with two jobs? Are people with two jobs a burden on society? Good question. If someone works two part time jobs, instead of getting insurance through employment, they would buy a policy on one of the set up health insurance exchanges. If there's a large enough pool enrolled in the exchanges, the premiums may not be any higher than for full time employees that get health insurance through employment. Personally, I'd prefer not to have my health insurance tied to employment. What I'm more concerned about is Medicaid expansion since states can now choose not to participate. People with incomes of 133% FPL or less will make too little to qualify for the subsidized exchanges. That could be resolved by offering those people 100% subsidies, if only adjustments didn't have to go through Congress. As long as the Republican party of no has majority in the House, I'm not sure if anything can be done.
_____________________________
Only in the United States is the health of the people secondary to making money. If this is what "capitalism" is about, I'll take socialism any day of the week. Collared by MartinSpankalot May 13 2008
|