Obamacare Call Center Not Offering Healthcare Benefits to All Employees

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by gsugolfer, Jul 27, 2013.

  1. gsugolfer, Jul 27, 2013
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2013

    gsugolfer macrumors 6502a

    gsugolfer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    #1
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...-healthcare-benefits-employees-eliana-johnson

    The article has a misleading title, but if you read further down, you'll see that about half of the center's positions are part-time and will not offer benefits to employees. Seems slightly contradictory, especially when all positions were reportedly advertised as full-time.

    Yes, I am sure there's about a 90% chance this is an outsourced situation - but it doesn't change the point.
     
  2. chrono1081 macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #2
    Um...it kind of does. If the employees are outsourced it would be their company that handles their benefits.
     
  3. gsugolfer thread starter macrumors 6502a

    gsugolfer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    #3
    My point with that statement is that if the government is so intent on everyone having healthcare benefits, why outsource to a company that doesn't offer it?
     
  4. Shrink macrumors G3

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #4
    Why does anyone outsource...money is the issue.


    While I understand your point...that it is hypocritical to outsource to a company that does not provide healthcare because it saves the Gov't money. But, then think about the hue and cry from some who would complain that the Gov't is spending our tax dollars unwisely when we pay more than need be spent if the work was outsourced to a less expensive supplier.

    Sort of catch 22...although I personally agree that providing health care is a must for the employees, even if it increases the expense.

    Thousands would disagree :p
     
  5. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #5
    I would love to see healthcare de-coupled from employment altogether.

    Basic healthcare should be granted to every man, woman and child simply for being in the U.S.

    Tying healthcare to employers creates an overly complex system that puts too much of an onus on employers and creates too many ways for people to fall through the cracks and not receive adequate attention.

    Make it simple.

    If you are alive and breathing in the U.S., you will have access to healthcare.
     
  6. Shrink macrumors G3

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #6
    I completely agree. My response was in the context of the quote to which I was responding.

    Given my choice I, too, would prefer a single payor system...although I don't think it will ever happen in the US.
     
  7. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #7
    Well said.
     
  8. GermanyChris macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #8
    Yuppers

    I would too..

    We should also subsidize the cost of the education, there is no need for young doc to be hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to graduate
     
  9. Shrink macrumors G3

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #9
    OT: I recently heard an interview on NPR where the speaker (sorry, I can't remember his name) had suggested the following plan...

    The student pays no tuition at all. After graduation (or however long one stayed in school), one pays 3% of their income for the next 24 years. For low income earners, that would be less than the actual cost...for high income earners, it might be more than the cost of their education. After the first year of the program, what was paid in to the fund would be used to subsidize the next generation of students. There would have to be some kind of funding (public, probably) for the first generation of students in the program. This would, of course, apply to State Colleges and Universities. I believe he said that this plan was already being tried in Oregon...but I'm not sure I have the right State.

    I know I'm OT, and would suggest if anyone wishes to continue a discussion of various plans to fund eduction, a new thread be opened.
     
  10. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #10
    I think it will happen eventually, for the same reason that fundamentalist Islamic countries will eventually give full rights to women.

    (How's that for stretching for an analogy?)

    Because it makes sense economically.
     
  11. Shrink macrumors G3

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #11
    I'll stay away from the analogy :eek:...a single payor system does not make economic sense to the insurance industry. Their money, via lobbyists, is too tempting to the politicians who must make the necessary changes to put the insurance companies out of business, or in a position to lose their obscene level of income and executives' compensation.

    I would be more than happy to be wrong, and for you to be right...but I just don't see it.
     
  12. malman89 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Location:
    Michigan
    #12
    Australia does something like that and Oregon is trying to implement a similar program as well.

    As a recent college grad (May 2011) who has always been employed since graduation, I would be fine with that. It would just be a simple tax you just get used to, similar to Social Security going up 2% in 2013 due to a non-renewal of the incentives.

    At the time, I worked in payroll for a company, and we received maybe a handful of calls the first few weeks in 2013. Now people either don't know or have just gotten used to it. The same could be said for a tuition tax.
     

Share This Page