posted January 09, 2015 01:03 PM            

The "Save American Workers Act" targets the requirement under Obamacare that larger employers provide health insurance to employees who work at least 30 hours per week, or pay fines. The bill, which raises the threshold to 40 hours, passed 252 to 172. Twelve Democrats voted in favor.

Republican backers of the change say that it would protect workers from having their hours cut to less than 30 per week by employers who don't want to provide health insurance. To make their case, they pointed to numerous anecdotes of firms doing just that.

"What we are seeing is the bill has fundamentally changed labor law in this country, creating a new standard 30-hour workweek. As a result, workers hours are being cut, and productivity in this country … will decrease over time," said Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) in supporting the procedural rule that passed 244 to 181 earlier on Thursday, paving the way for the bill's passage. Just three Democrats voted in favor of the procedural rule.

"We have heard story after story from every state in the union that employers are dropping workers' hours from less than 39 hours a week to perhaps less than 29," he said.

However, official data maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that there has actually been no shift toward greater part-time work. In fact, the data shows part-time employment spiked with the recession, and has been decreasing since passage of Obamacare in 2010.

In addition, Democrats were quick to note that the official nonpartisan analyst for the House, the Congressional Budget Office, warned as recently as Wednesday that the measure was likely to create even more part-time workers. That's because vastly more Americans work 40-hour weeks than 30-hour weeks, and employers would have a greater incentive to reduce their hours if the threshold was 40 per week. The change would end up forcing some 1 million people off employer-backed health insurance, add up to 1 million people to government-backed insurance, and cause 500,000 to lose health insurance altogether, according to the CBO. The change would also add $53.2 billion to the deficit over 10 years, the CBO found. The GOP bill proposed no way to pay for that added expense.

Numerous independent groups across the political spectrum echoed the analysis, from the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to the conservative National Review and libertarian Cato Institute. The conservatives do not support Obamacare, but agree the 40-hour shift could hurt workers. They also suspect Republicans could have done better by trying to repeal the employer mandate altogether, since more Democrats have shown some willingness for that option.

But there was very little support on the Democratic side of the aisle for Thursday's bill.

"If this very dangerous provision were to become law, many, many Americans would find themselves cut from 40 to 39 hours, 39 and a half hours," said Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) during a debate on the House floor. "Go home at 4:30 on Friday. Sorry, no health care."

"This is simply a bad idea, a disincentive for companies to even provide healthcare to their employees. Not only that, this is a deficit buster," Polis added. "How are we going to pay for this $53 billion that this costs?"

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that he was eager to take up the bill, downplaying the deficit impact.

"Regardless of what the congressional budget view may be of the impact on the U.S. budget," McConnell said, "we know the impact on family budgets, and it’s not good. So I think there’s almost no chance we won’t be voting on that at some point."

posted January 09, 2015 02:11 PM            

Now, O'Bomber is going to have to veto job creating legislation, border security legislation and a host of other legislation Reid had bottled up in the Senate. Those 250 bills passed in the Republican House are going to land on O'Bomber, the obstructionist's desk. He's going to be seen by Americans as the one thwarting their wishes.

posted January 18, 2015 12:58 PM            

Really? And you know this...HOW. Did you read it on some far left loon site. Of course, you could back it up with some facts. You know...facts; those pesky little true tidbits which weren't hatched in the deluded minds of those living in their make believe world of unreality.

posted January 18, 2015 11:51 PM            

Numerous independent groups across the political spectrum echoed the analysis, from the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to the conservative National Review and libertarian Cato Institute. The conservatives do not support Obamacare, but agree the 40-hour shift could hurt workers. They also suspect Republicans could have done better by trying to repeal the employer mandate altogether, since more Democrats have shown some willingness for that option.

Did you notice, jwhop, the references to the deficit and how unimportant It is to Republicans in the Op article? And how it might be a casualty of this BOLD MOVE by the Regressives in Congress?

Is that the far left loon site you are referring to? That was what I was commenting on, Randall's post. I didnt notice you calling it leftist when he brought it here.

posted January 19, 2015 11:33 AM            

Any reasonable, logical, rational American would be in opposition to the Marxist Messiah's attempted destruction of the American middle class.

Full time work in America is a 40 hour workweek..or more. It sure as hell isn't 30 hours as the crap sandwich O'BomberCare dictates.

posted January 20, 2015 11:26 AM            

"Numerous independent groups across the political spectrum echoed the analysis, from the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to the conservative National Review and libertarian Cato Institute. The conservatives do not support Obamacare, but agree the 40-hour shift could hurt workers. They also suspect Republicans could have done better by trying to repeal the employer mandate altogether, since more Democrats have shown some willingness for that option."

posted February 02, 2015 02:21 PM            

Up to date comparison of the "c rumbling" NHS and the US system you want to preserve. Even in its current slump the NHS saves money, delivers better care.. and ifyou are impatient but not urgent, you can always pay extra to "go private".

Note the cost of the English system is less than half ours as well as being available to everyone.

Obamacare was a sop to the GOP and insurance companies which could have been improved vastly by now but the repubs have created a propaganda that insists on crippling it instead of making it work.

posted February 03, 2015 10:49 AM            

Just the usual blither, blather, bloviation and bullshiiite from leftist moonbats making allegations which are not backed up with facts....OR NAMES.

But, that's the leftist way. A far left loon on a far left loon site makes an unsupported statement and the rest of the leftist moonbat chorus chimes in and repeats the nonsense endlessly.

No Sale!

posted February 03, 2015 11:53 PM            

"The conservatives do not support Obamacare, but agree the 40-hour shift could hurt workers."

posted February 13, 2015 01:27 PM            

ell this bill is likely to cost those working 40hr some hours, and force them onto the exchanges at the same time. Any sane Person would see that despite their politics. Bad for the workers and bad for the deficit as those workers go on the exchanges. Some think that's a good thing in the long-term ^ ..maybe the repubs are really trying to make single payer more attractive?

posted February 13, 2015 02:17 PM            

You responded with a left wing kook Socialist...Senator McDermott from Washington.

posted February 13, 2015 02:58 PM            

The bill is not favourable to the deficit and will not only rob 30-HR workers but will probably cost 40 hr workers some hours to disqualify them too. Nice work for those who hate the middle class

posted February 21, 2015 09:35 AM            

Nope, not a Republicans platform for the 2016 POTUS seat

Incorrect subsidy tax forms: Enrollees who received incorrect forms will have to hold off on filing their taxes. About 20% of those who qualified for subsidies to lower their 2014 premiums received the inaccurate form.

Some were mistakenly told they received too large a subsidy in 2014, while others were told their subsidy was too small. The form incorrectly listed the premium of the benchmark plan in their area, which is used in conjunction with the taxpayer's income to calculate the subsidy amount.

Taxpayers use this form when filing their return to determine whether they have to pay back part of their subsidy or whether they get a larger one. The Department of Health and Human Services, which runs healthcare.gov, is notifying those affected. They should receive the updated forms in early March.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/20/news/economy/obamacare-penalty/index.html

posted February 21, 2015 04:16 PM            

quote:

---

...another way in which they dont resemble people, my friend!

---

absolutely. Yet it is "people" who will pay or be penalized by the snafu.