Obama hates prosperity.
This 30/40 hour definition of full-time employment has an interesting aspect.
From the Dem point of view, defining fulltime as 30 hours was supposed to increase the number of workers that would get insurance paid for by their employers. This is a typical Dem view, of a piece with static tax and regulation scoring, in that it assumes that regulation doesn’t affect behavior. They think, “Who could have imagined that the effect of defining full-time as 30 hours would have been to shrink employment by motivating companies to cut hours?” They thought everyone’s hours would remain the same.
Similarly, while it makes sense to have O-care exempt smaller companies who can’t afford it, what Dem would have considered that a 50-employee thresh-hold would simply motivate many firms to stay at 49 employees when they would otherwise grow? Anyone else could see that hiring that 50th and 51st employee meant that the marginal value of that employee was negative, because it mandated increased insurance costs for ALL of the employees.
So, about the current move to re-define fulltime back to 40 hours: It’s shuffling chairs on the deck of the Titanic. Yes, it recognizes the problem that employers have reacted by cutting hours, but it doesn’t fix the myriad other problems with the law. We need someone with the ‘nads to push for a complete do-over. It must be repealed.
Boner et.al. should not be trying to get rid of the mandate! They should be defunding the whole damned thing!
< Puke>
How about we change the definition of ‘full time work’ to 80 hours per week? Then most everyone would NOT be eligible for healthcare via their employer, and everyone would be subsidized and have totally free health care.
Yep, that ought to work.(/s)
Is this new congress going to show they have a pair and eliminate form 8163 ( reporting proof of health insurance ) or are they going to sit there like little sheep enjoying their own premium government health care?