Shared Responsibility (30hr/wk) Petition

scottaprn · Apr 25, 2015

This is one of Obamacare's main principles- the government knows better than you or your employeer what you need.

toomuchbaloney · Apr 25, 2015

This is one of Obamacare's main principles- the government knows better than you or your employeer what you need.

Typical.

The business or corporation makes a decision to protect inflated profits before they decide to treat employees as partners and blame the ACA.

Apparently they believe that enough people in the area share in the animus against the ACA that they will believe the crap excuse they make for their business decision. Obviously some will believe the "we are going to crap on our employees because...OBAMACARE" but many/most of us are sick of the narrow minded perspective.

scottaprn · Apr 25, 2015

Typical.
The business or corporation makes a decision to protect inflated profits before they decide to treat employees as partners and blame the ACA.
Apparently they believe that enough people in the area share in the animus against the ACA that they will believe the crap excuse they make for their business decision. Obviously some will believe the "we are going to crap on our employees because...OBAMACARE" but many/most of us are sick of the narrow minded perspective.

Read the original post. The OP wants the freedom to be able to work their accustomed amount of PRN hours. They want the perks of PRN including higher wage and schedule flexibility.

Due to Obamacare the companies must provide health insurance if the OP works more than a government mandated amount. This leads to the company cutting back hours for PRN workers to make sure they stay under the limit. This limits the freedom of the employer and the OP to decide amongst themselves the best situation.

Instead of being "sick of the narrow minded perspectives" why don't you do a little research and tell me where I am wrong. This is another example of a Washington one-size fits all solution that is screwing the OP but you can't even acknowledge this because it doesn't fit your narrow minded philosophy.

MunoRN, RN · Apr 25, 2015

Read the original post. The OP wants the freedom to be able to work their accustomed amount of PRN hours. They want the perks of PRN including higher wage and schedule flexibility.
Due to Obamacare the companies must provide health insurance if the OP works more than a government mandated amount. This leads to the company cutting back hours for PRN workers to make sure they stay under the limit. This limits the freedom of the employer and the OP to decide amongst themselves the best situation.
Instead of being "sick of the narrow minded perspectives" why don't you do a little research and tell me where I am wrong. This is another example of a Washington one-size fits all solution that is screwing the OP but you can't even acknowledge this because it doesn't fit your narrow minded philosophy.

I'm all for de-coupling employers and health insurance, this being a big reason why, but I don't think your description is really accurate. The employer and the OP are still free to keep their previous arrangement since the OP does not actually have to use the employer's insurance. The employer only has to offer insurance, if the employee declines the employer's insurance, they are free to trade the cost of the employee's insurance plan for additional wages, just as they have in the past.

toomuchbaloney · May 7, 2015

Read the original post. The OP wants the freedom to be able to work their accustomed amount of PRN hours. They want the perks of PRN including higher wage and schedule flexibility.
Due to Obamacare the companies must provide health insurance if the OP works more than a government mandated amount. This leads to the company cutting back hours for PRN workers to make sure they stay under the limit. This limits the freedom of the employer and the OP to decide amongst themselves the best situation.
Instead of being "sick of the narrow minded perspectives" why don't you do a little research and tell me where I am wrong. This is another example of a Washington one-size fits all solution that is screwing the OP but you can't even acknowledge this because it doesn't fit your narrow minded philosophy.

I believe that Muno beat me to the punch.

It is pretty clear that greedy businesses will blame the ACA in order to keep as much $$ for shareholders as possible. It is also pretty clear that some people will believe anything bad reported or said about the ACA because they don't like Obama or other equally silly reasoning, there is considerable evidence here on AN.

Be wary of the TOS. You don't know me well enough to comment on my philosophy or to describe it as narrow or broad, do you?