  |
|
Re: 'Not Only Do They NOT Have Healtcare'
Posted by **Winston OBoogie** on Aug 15, 2013 at 11:54:53 AM:
In Reply to: Re: 'Not Only Do They NOT Have Healtcare' posted by **maclen909** on Aug 14, 2013 at 5:16:14 PM:
*****But Their Hours are Being Cut!
*****
*****NBC News contacted around 20 small businesses and other entities for this report and found that employee hours are being cut to 29 hours because of Obamacare, despite the delay of the employer mandate. But the White House, NBC News reports, says that there is no systematic evidence that this is because of Obamacare and dismisses the report as anecdotal.
*****
*****Watch the Video at the Link
*****
*****====================================
*****
*****but they one said this wouldn't happen?
****
****
****
****There are numerous businesses around here both small and medium that have already begun cutting employee hours down to 20 hours a week. They can't make the money as before and alot of them are
****struggling even now to make ends meet. And there's simply nothing out there for them to go elsewhere.
****Obamacare IS going to be a leading cause for the disappearance
****of alot of small businesses despite what the WH claims. It will have a DIRECT NEGATIVE affect on middle class America.
****Most of those businesses will end up folding because they will no longer be able to support the personnel to get the job done as before and alot of those workers will end up quitting when they realize because of the shorter hours they aren't really making any progress/money as before and hence will end up on unemployment compensation or welfare (and in alot of cases, actually making more money than they do working) just as this administration is trying to encourage them to do. And Obama playing ignorant of the repercussions of Obamacare is typical of an administration that has deliberately sought to make people and small business less self reliant and become more reliant on the government.
****The fact that he delayed the employer mandate doesn't mean anything as businesses are already starting to "gear down" in anticipation of it later down the line.
****2016 isn't getting here fast enough it seems.
****
****
****
****
****
***
***So if faced with fewer hours or quitting and going on welfare, you would quit and go on welfare?
**
**
**Personally? No I wouldn't..I'd rather work than not work..but that's me.
**But that's the choice being given to several of my relatives now. They feel they would actually be doing better on unemployment and food stamps than working fewer hours. My late wife's daughter had to give up her house several months ago because her employer at a daycare center cut her hours down to 20 hours or less a week and she couldn't sustain the cost of living there anymore. Plus she had to commute almost 30 miles just to get there. She had to move in with her former sister-in-law closer to her work and just this past weekend finally found a small apartment that is still at least 20 miles from her work. She still has two mouths to feed. It shouldn't be like this. In this state, (Illinois) if you are on unemployment compensation and you are offered employment, you have to take it whether you like the job or not and if you refuse you lose your unemployment/food stamps anyway. The change for her was almost immediate. Less money to work with and still having to support two kids and a house.
**
**Like I said, this shouldn't be happening.
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
*
*So if someone chooses to go on welfare instead of just working fewer hours and or picking up a secondary source of income, then how is that the fault of the administration? That happens at the personal level.
*
*You're obviously against people being on welfare and abusing the system. But you're also against Illinois forcing you to take a job that is offered to you to get you off welfare quicker so people don't/won't abuse the system. You can't have it both ways. It seems to me that any job, no matter how shitty it is, would be better than sitting on the couch mooching off everyone else.
You're missing the boat here. Alot of people are facing reduced hours to the point where they can no longer afford to do the things or have the things they had prior to being cut down on their hours. It's not their choice. Many companies both big and small are cutting back their expenditures by letting people go. And for these people, many of them have to sacrifice something in order just to make it to next payday. For some,(like my example above) she had to unfortunately give up what she had (her home) in order to find something cheaper so she and her two children can survive. She was actually doing better prior to that on unemployment compensation and Food Stamps than what she is now with working 20 or less hours a week. It wasn't by choice that she was on Unemployment in the first place, because she did have a better paying job before that, but she was (like many many other people) let go because of company cutbacks. A single mom with two kids to feed and you want her to just go out and get a second source of income?
that's your solution? You've never been a single parent have you..
Yes I am against those who deliberately abuse and use the system.
Meaning those that have no desire whatsoever to work and WANT to live off public aid and welfare.
That's two different things.
Followup Messages:
- no followups have been posted yet...
Home | Web Chat | Web Boards | Discography | Library | Quiz | Art & Poetry | Links | Store
Produced by Sam Choukri
Frequently Asked Questions
Last updated on Aug 15, 2013