Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • No health insurance?
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
No health insurance?
Tweet Topic Started: Jul 27 2013, 06:53 AM (335 Views)
dreachon Aug 8 2013, 02:41 PM Post #46
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 02:37 PM
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 02:33 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 02:26 PM
so to try to excuse their actions based upon this concept is absurd!
:facepalm:

There is really no point in continuing this dialogue as it's obviously not going anywhere.
you called it a "lose/lose situation"....which is to make an excuse for the course of action they chose. As I pointed out...that notion is absurd.
Sigh.

Quote:
 
I want to say that I am totally with you guys on the fact that an ACA call center switching positions from full-time to part-time in order to avoid paying healthcare costs is obvious hypocrisy.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Aug 8 2013, 02:45 PM Post #47
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 02:41 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 02:37 PM
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 02:33 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 02:26 PM
so to try to excuse their actions based upon this concept is absurd!
:facepalm:

There is really no point in continuing this dialogue as it's obviously not going anywhere.
you called it a "lose/lose situation"....which is to make an excuse for the course of action they chose. As I pointed out...that notion is absurd.
Sigh.

Quote:
 
I want to say that I am totally with you guys on the fact that an ACA call center switching positions from full-time to part-time in order to avoid paying healthcare costs is obvious hypocrisy.
but you also created an excuse as to why they did it, because they would catch flack either way....which simply isn't the case.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Aug 8 2013, 02:48 PM Post #48
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 02:45 PM
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 02:41 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 02:37 PM
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 02:33 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 02:26 PM
so to try to excuse their actions based upon this concept is absurd!
:facepalm:

There is really no point in continuing this dialogue as it's obviously not going anywhere.
you called it a "lose/lose situation"....which is to make an excuse for the course of action they chose. As I pointed out...that notion is absurd.
Sigh.

Quote:
 
I want to say that I am totally with you guys on the fact that an ACA call center switching positions from full-time to part-time in order to avoid paying healthcare costs is obvious hypocrisy.
but you also created an excuse as to why they did it, because they would catch flack either way....which simply isn't the case.
I didn't create any excuse whatsoever. You just chose to read into it that way.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Aug 8 2013, 03:17 PM Post #49
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
They would catch flack either way. Nobody said it wouldn't be the same amount of flack nor was it the right thing to do by making the jobs part time.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Aug 8 2013, 03:36 PM Post #50
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 02:48 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 02:45 PM
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 02:41 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 02:37 PM
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 02:33 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 02:26 PM
so to try to excuse their actions based upon this concept is absurd!
:facepalm:

There is really no point in continuing this dialogue as it's obviously not going anywhere.
you called it a "lose/lose situation"....which is to make an excuse for the course of action they chose. As I pointed out...that notion is absurd.
Sigh.

Quote:
 
I want to say that I am totally with you guys on the fact that an ACA call center switching positions from full-time to part-time in order to avoid paying healthcare costs is obvious hypocrisy.
but you also created an excuse as to why they did it, because they would catch flack either way....which simply isn't the case.
I didn't create any excuse whatsoever. You just chose to read into it that way.
do you think they had a legitimate reason to make the move to part-timers that they did?
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Aug 8 2013, 03:46 PM Post #51
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 03:36 PM
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 02:48 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 02:45 PM
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 02:41 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 02:37 PM
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 02:33 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 02:26 PM
so to try to excuse their actions based upon this concept is absurd!
:facepalm:

There is really no point in continuing this dialogue as it's obviously not going anywhere.
you called it a "lose/lose situation"....which is to make an excuse for the course of action they chose. As I pointed out...that notion is absurd.
Sigh.

Quote:
 
I want to say that I am totally with you guys on the fact that an ACA call center switching positions from full-time to part-time in order to avoid paying healthcare costs is obvious hypocrisy.
but you also created an excuse as to why they did it, because they would catch flack either way....which simply isn't the case.
I didn't create any excuse whatsoever. You just chose to read into it that way.
do you think they had a legitimate reason to make the move to part-timers that they did?
As I stated already, the only legitimate reason to move people from full-time to part-time would have been if the call volume they expected to receive was not as much as they previously thought it was going to be and they simply don't need as much staff as they originally advertised.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Aug 8 2013, 03:50 PM Post #52
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 03:46 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 03:36 PM
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 02:48 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 02:45 PM
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 02:41 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 02:37 PM
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 02:33 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 02:26 PM
so to try to excuse their actions based upon this concept is absurd!
:facepalm:

There is really no point in continuing this dialogue as it's obviously not going anywhere.
you called it a "lose/lose situation"....which is to make an excuse for the course of action they chose. As I pointed out...that notion is absurd.
Sigh.

Quote:
 
I want to say that I am totally with you guys on the fact that an ACA call center switching positions from full-time to part-time in order to avoid paying healthcare costs is obvious hypocrisy.
but you also created an excuse as to why they did it, because they would catch flack either way....which simply isn't the case.
I didn't create any excuse whatsoever. You just chose to read into it that way.
do you think they had a legitimate reason to make the move to part-timers that they did?
As I stated already, the only legitimate reason to move people from full-time to part-time would have been if the call volume they expected to receive was not as much as they previously thought it was going to be and they simply don't need as much staff as they originally advertised.
so you don't think it's a legitimate reason to do so to avoid criticism from people who wouldn't like them spending taxpayer dollars on health insurance for their employees?
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Aug 8 2013, 03:53 PM Post #53
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 03:50 PM
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 03:46 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 03:36 PM
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 02:48 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 02:45 PM
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 02:41 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 02:37 PM
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 02:33 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 02:26 PM
so to try to excuse their actions based upon this concept is absurd!
:facepalm:

There is really no point in continuing this dialogue as it's obviously not going anywhere.
you called it a "lose/lose situation"....which is to make an excuse for the course of action they chose. As I pointed out...that notion is absurd.
Sigh.

Quote:
 
I want to say that I am totally with you guys on the fact that an ACA call center switching positions from full-time to part-time in order to avoid paying healthcare costs is obvious hypocrisy.
but you also created an excuse as to why they did it, because they would catch flack either way....which simply isn't the case.
I didn't create any excuse whatsoever. You just chose to read into it that way.
do you think they had a legitimate reason to make the move to part-timers that they did?
As I stated already, the only legitimate reason to move people from full-time to part-time would have been if the call volume they expected to receive was not as much as they previously thought it was going to be and they simply don't need as much staff as they originally advertised.
so you don't think it's a legitimate reason to do so to avoid criticism from people who wouldn't like them spending taxpayer dollars on health insurance for their employees?
Oy. Please please please let this be the end of it.

The lose/lose I was pointing out was not a comment on my personal opinion. It was a comment on how people play politics in this country and how we all hate it. If the call center had high costs due to offering all employees health care, that would be reported, and bashed and posted on here. That was my only point. No matter what they did, I think Colt ends up posting an article on here bashing their decision making.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Aug 8 2013, 06:34 PM Post #54
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Agree. Dreach and I both said we were against their decision.....just pointed out that there was going to be criticism regardless of their decision.

Secondly, the fact the opinion that it was a lose/lose decision is an indictment of the health care act...an aspect of it that we feel forces those hiring into decisions that could be counterproductive to what the health care act is supposed to accomplish. I'm not sure what being critical of it is being met with disdain.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN Aug 9 2013, 07:12 AM Post #55
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 03:53 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 03:50 PM
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 03:46 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 03:36 PM
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 02:48 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 02:45 PM
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 02:41 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 02:37 PM
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 02:33 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 02:26 PM
so to try to excuse their actions based upon this concept is absurd!
:facepalm:

There is really no point in continuing this dialogue as it's obviously not going anywhere.
you called it a "lose/lose situation"....which is to make an excuse for the course of action they chose. As I pointed out...that notion is absurd.
Sigh.

Quote:
 
I want to say that I am totally with you guys on the fact that an ACA call center switching positions from full-time to part-time in order to avoid paying healthcare costs is obvious hypocrisy.
but you also created an excuse as to why they did it, because they would catch flack either way....which simply isn't the case.
I didn't create any excuse whatsoever. You just chose to read into it that way.
do you think they had a legitimate reason to make the move to part-timers that they did?
As I stated already, the only legitimate reason to move people from full-time to part-time would have been if the call volume they expected to receive was not as much as they previously thought it was going to be and they simply don't need as much staff as they originally advertised.
so you don't think it's a legitimate reason to do so to avoid criticism from people who wouldn't like them spending taxpayer dollars on health insurance for their employees?
Oy. Please please please let this be the end of it.

The lose/lose I was pointing out was not a comment on my personal opinion. It was a comment on how people play politics in this country and how we all hate it. If the call center had high costs due to offering all employees health care, that would be reported, and bashed and posted on here. That was my only point. No matter what they did, I think Colt ends up posting an article on here bashing their decision making.
I am bashing an administration that won't stand by its supposed convictions. If you truly believe in healthcare for all, provide it. Why would I bash full-time employees being offered healthcare? Now, if they were exempted from Obamacare, that I would bash.
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Aug 9 2013, 09:03 AM Post #56
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
IUCOLTFAN
Aug 9 2013, 07:12 AM
Why would I bash full-time employees being offered healthcare?
You have brought up the excessive cost of Obamacare several times. If an article was written about how expensive this call center is and one of the reasons is because of all the employees having healthcare, I'm pretty sure you'd be all over that.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN Aug 9 2013, 10:42 AM Post #57
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
dreachon
Aug 9 2013, 09:03 AM
IUCOLTFAN
Aug 9 2013, 07:12 AM
Why would I bash full-time employees being offered healthcare?
You have brought up the excessive cost of Obamacare several times. If an article was written about how expensive this call center is and one of the reasons is because of all the employees having healthcare, I'm pretty sure you'd be all over that.
Lol. Have I ever bashed full-time employees being offered healthcare by their employers? Please link that if you find it.

Like I said before, they should stand by their supposed convictions or just stfu, IMO. What do you think about congress and their staffers getting a waiver this week? Seems kinda fucked up don't it?
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Aug 9 2013, 10:47 AM Post #58
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
IUCOLTFAN
Aug 9 2013, 10:42 AM
dreachon
Aug 9 2013, 09:03 AM
IUCOLTFAN
Aug 9 2013, 07:12 AM
Why would I bash full-time employees being offered healthcare?
You have brought up the excessive cost of Obamacare several times. If an article was written about how expensive this call center is and one of the reasons is because of all the employees having healthcare, I'm pretty sure you'd be all over that.
Lol. Have I ever bashed full-time employees being offered healthcare by their employers? Please link that if you find it.

Like I said before, they should stand by their supposed convictions or just stfu, IMO. What do you think about congress and their staffers getting a waiver this week? Seems kinda fucked up don't it?
You wouldn't be bashing full-time employees getting healthcare. You be bashing the cost of providing them healthcare, aka the cost of Obamacare.

I was unaware of the previous rule that subsidized congressional health insurance (if I'm following the news story correct). I'm not sure why that was ever in place to begin with. I'd like to know how that came about and whether there was a legitimately good reason for it. If so, I guess I don't have a problem with amending the law to continue that status quo, but on first glance I am completely against the waiver both before and after Obamacare.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN Aug 9 2013, 10:57 AM Post #59
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
dreachon
Aug 9 2013, 10:47 AM
IUCOLTFAN
Aug 9 2013, 10:42 AM
dreachon
Aug 9 2013, 09:03 AM
IUCOLTFAN
Aug 9 2013, 07:12 AM
Why would I bash full-time employees being offered healthcare?
You have brought up the excessive cost of Obamacare several times. If an article was written about how expensive this call center is and one of the reasons is because of all the employees having healthcare, I'm pretty sure you'd be all over that.
Lol. Have I ever bashed full-time employees being offered healthcare by their employers? Please link that if you find it.

Like I said before, they should stand by their supposed convictions or just stfu, IMO. What do you think about congress and their staffers getting a waiver this week? Seems kinda fucked up don't it?
You wouldn't be bashing full-time employees getting healthcare. You be bashing the cost of providing them healthcare, aka the cost of Obamacare.

I was unaware of the previous rule that subsidized congressional health insurance (if I'm following the news story correct). I'm not sure why that was ever in place to begin with. I'd like to know how that came about and whether there was a legitimately good reason for it. If so, I guess I don't have a problem with amending the law to continue that status quo, but on first glance I am completely against the waiver both before and after Obamacare.
It was put in place to get the law to pass. What is expected of you and I is not good enough for congress and their staffers so they gave themselves a waiver after the fact. Business as usual....
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Aug 9 2013, 10:59 AM Post #60
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
IUCOLTFAN
Aug 9 2013, 10:57 AM
dreachon
Aug 9 2013, 10:47 AM
IUCOLTFAN
Aug 9 2013, 10:42 AM
dreachon
Aug 9 2013, 09:03 AM
IUCOLTFAN
Aug 9 2013, 07:12 AM
Why would I bash full-time employees being offered healthcare?
You have brought up the excessive cost of Obamacare several times. If an article was written about how expensive this call center is and one of the reasons is because of all the employees having healthcare, I'm pretty sure you'd be all over that.
Lol. Have I ever bashed full-time employees being offered healthcare by their employers? Please link that if you find it.

Like I said before, they should stand by their supposed convictions or just stfu, IMO. What do you think about congress and their staffers getting a waiver this week? Seems kinda fucked up don't it?
You wouldn't be bashing full-time employees getting healthcare. You be bashing the cost of providing them healthcare, aka the cost of Obamacare.

I was unaware of the previous rule that subsidized congressional health insurance (if I'm following the news story correct). I'm not sure why that was ever in place to begin with. I'd like to know how that came about and whether there was a legitimately good reason for it. If so, I guess I don't have a problem with amending the law to continue that status quo, but on first glance I am completely against the waiver both before and after Obamacare.
It was put in place to get the law to pass. What is expected of you and I is not good enough for congress and their staffers so they gave themselves a waiver after the fact. Business as usual....
No I mean why did they have subsidized health care BEFORE Obamacare was passed? If I'm reading the news right, this kind of waiver existed already and was going to be canceled after Obamacare. What was the reasoning for the waiver to begin with?
Edited by dreachon, Aug 9 2013, 10:59 AM.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:56 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy