Obamacare and your premiums.

[Sinfix_15]

blank has his mind made up to be a ride or die obama worshiper, he isnt gonna let facts or logic get in his way. the democratic party thrives on a fully devoted mass of blind voters.

[.blank cd]

Businesses themselves are claiming that the added cost coming with the ACA is going to cause them to shrink their labor force and rethink benefits packages. I mean, what do they know?

"claiming" is the operating word here. There's a big difference between claiming and what is actually happening, and the difference is political posturing at the expense of their workers benefits.

The CBO agrees that the ACA is costing jobs, MILLIONS of jobs.

Seems like the CBO disagrees with what you think they're saying. Based on their report.


Do you not see the issue with this? UE 7%, and now we have workers who............dont want to work because...[/quote]You can stop right there because everything after that is an assumption and not indicitve of reality.

If people are becoming more prosperous by not working, like you just said, how is that the end of prosperity?

[.blank cd]

blank has his mind made up to be a ride or die obama worshiper, he isnt gonna let facts or logic get in his way. the democratic party thrives on a fully devoted mass of blind voters.

If I Ctrl+F'd "Obama", you have mentioned it at lest 120% more than I have. So who's really the Obama Worshiper?

So what I quoted directly from the CBO report, is in fact, not in the report?

Is that what you're saying?

Or are you saying the CBO is flat out lying in their report? If that's the case, can you post some more accurate data so we can clear up this misunderstanding?

[.blank cd]

Interesting. Seems like all the networks are retracting their misinterpretations of the CBO report too. Except Fox News that is. I'm sure they will in time. I'll just wait...

[.blank cd]

[Vteckidd]

"claiming" is the operating word here. There's a big difference between claiming and what is actually happening, and the difference is political posturing at the expense of their workers benefits.

So ignore what the industry is saying because........................these arent right wing businesses. These are OBAMA donors.

Seems like the CBO disagrees with what you think they're saying. Based on their report.

it doesnt you just like to see what you want to see. The ACA is hurting the economy. Its holding back hiring.

You can stop right there because everything after that is an assumption and not indicitve of reality.

If people are becoming more prosperous by not working, like you just said, how is that the end of prosperity?

Nothing says prosperity like not working. That is the dumbest thing you have ever typed.

So low income people not working but getting more benefits=prosperity in your mind. Should have known that would be your position LOL

What facts do you have to support people being MORE prosperous? Because all the statistics say otherwise.
Median income- DOWN
Labor Force Participation Rate- ALL TIME LOW
Part Time Hiring- All Time HIGH
Consumer Spending- Abysmal
Consumer Confidence-Abysmal

Nothing says prosperous like a bunch of part time workers looking for free healthcare. Welcome to Obamas world, where everyone becomes "rich" by being simultaneously POOR

[Vteckidd]

Since you cant understand , ill dumb it down even further.

Original Article

The new healthcare law will slow economic growth over the next decade, costing the nation about 2.5 million jobs and contributing to a $1 trillion increase in projected deficits, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said in a report released Tuesday.

The nonpartisan agency’s report found the healthcare law’s negative effects on the economy will be “substantially larger” than what it had previously anticipated.

The CBO is now estimating the law will reduce labor force compensation by 1 percent from 2017-2024, twice the reduction it previously had projected.
This will decrease the number of full-time equivalent jobs in 2021 by 2.3 million, the CBO said. It had previously estimated the decrease would be 800,000.

The budget scorekeeper said this decrease would be caused partly by people leaving the workforce in response to lower wages offered by employers and increased insurance coverage through the healthcare law.

The agency also said employer penalties in the law would decrease wages, and part-year workers would be slower to return to the work force because they would seek to retain ObamaCare insurance subsidies.

Your Copy Paste

Congressional Budget Office Report
The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week).

Now, reread it again, and let it sink in...........


I bolded the important parts to help you out.

[.blank cd]

So ignore what the industry is saying....

Since they were caught lying about the penalties they were facing, when in reality they weren't, yes. We'll take what the "industry" says with a couple grains of salt.

it doesnt you just like to see what you want to see. The ACA is hurting the economy. Its holding back hiring.

I read what the report says, and what you're saying the report says, your interpretation of it, is just simply not in it. Lol. Bottom line.

I can post a link to the actual report if you want.

Not that it'll get read on this forum.

Nothing says prosperity like not working. That is the dumbest thing you have ever typed....

Quoted from the great vteckidd. You typed it better. Lol

So low income people not working but getting more benefits=prosperity in your mind. Should have known that would be your position LOL

What facts do you have to support people being MORE prosperous? Because all the statistics say otherwise.
Median income- DOWN
Labor Force Participation Rate- ALL TIME LOW
Part Time Hiring- All Time HIGH
Consumer Spending- Abysmal
Consumer Confidence-Abysmal

Nothing says prosperous like a bunch of part time workers looking for free healthcare. Welcome to Obamas world, where everyone becomes "rich" by being simultaneously POOR

I like how the right refuses to see prosperity as anything except a function of net liquid assets. If only reality was equally as tantalizing.

[ISAtlanta300]

I wouldn't use big words you don't understand.

Aaannnnddddddd the "I'm smarter than you" post, Ladies and Gentleman.

BlankCD! Everyone! Please try the fish!

[Vteckidd]

Since they were caught lying about the penalties they were facing, when in reality they weren't, yes. We'll take what the "industry" says with a couple grains of salt.


I read what the report says, and what you're saying the report says, your interpretation of it, is just simply not in it. Lol. Bottom line.

I can post a link to the actual report if you want.

Not that it'll get read on this forum.

Quoted from the great vteckidd. You typed it better. Lol



I like how the right refuses to see prosperity as anything except a function of net liquid assets. If only reality was equally as tantalizing.

So, you believe people who lose their medical insurance and have to spend more out of pocket for those costs, and then choose to work less so they can get more subsidies from the govt to pay for that hike in insurance costs.............are prosperous?


Its the ENTIRE industry blank, its not Fox News, its some VERY BIG OBAMA donors as well saying that the added cost of the ACA is going to cost jobs , they will have to restructure everything they do.

We are already seeing it, the 40 hour work week is now 30 hours a week. People will lose hours and wages at the cost of their healthcare.

The CBO couldnt be even more clear (and even they are off, itll be MUCH worse). Yet you read the report and you start going off in this tangent about how we shouldnt equate prosperity with liquid assets.

Go tell that to the 6 million families who lost insurance or the person who lost their job because the company is going to hire 2 29 hour a week workers rather than 1 full time so they can not have to provide healthcare.

"Oh sorry, you shouldnt pay your mortgage with net liquid assets"

LOL

[Vteckidd]

Families would be better off WITHOUT the ACA. because they would being pay less than they are now:

What Will Obamacare Cost You? - Forbes

49-State Analysis: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Premiums By Average Of 41% - Forbes

[.blank cd]

So, you believe people who lose their medical insurance and have to spend more out of pocket for those costs, and then choose to work less so they can get more subsidies from the govt to pay for that hike in insurance costs.............are prosperous?

Thats what I asked if you believe, since that's what you typed.

We are already seeing it, the 40 hour work week is now 30 hours a week.

As it turned out, it was for no reason at all, since at the time they weren't burdened with any extra costs. They were caught lying. And, as it turned out, the hours cutting" and "wage reducing" was drastically less than pundits made it out to be, since the labor demands aren't reduced.

The CBO couldnt be even more clear

...and you're still trying to say something they didn't say.

[Vteckidd]

Thats what I asked if you believe, since that's what you typed.

your double talk even confuses me. I wont even address it because now im even lost as to what point you are trying to prove. The ACA is stripping families of choice, and inflating their costs. That is not HELPING them. That was MY point.

As it turned out, it was for no reason at all, since at the time they weren't burdened with any extra costs. They were caught lying. And, as it turned out, the hours cutting" and "wage reducing" was drastically less than pundits made it out to be, since the labor demands aren't reduced.

Businesses preparing for impending costs is "lying"?

Hours being cut was drastically less than what? EVER?



Do you completely ignore all economic data? So funny, they are adding more part time jobs than full time. That is exactly what the businesses said would happen. Then it does, then you accuse them of lying LOLOL

God it must be so nice living in complete ignorant bliss.

Despite the mostly favorable coverage of last week’s jobs report, the fine print of the report included the revelation that the number of Americans who want to work full time but could only find part-time work went up by 322,000. The number of part-time employees is now at an all-time high of more than 8.2 million. To put that number into perspective, that’s equal to the entire population of the state of Virginia. It appears that employers were already preparing for Obamacare by working to reduce the number of full-time employees they would have had to buy health-care insurance for. Maybe the White House knew for certain what the rest of us just suspected, or the administration had a sneak peek at the June data and realized that the need to delay the Obamacare employer mandate was urgent.

With the employer mandate delayed, the White House has bought itself a year — but what is it about a one-year delay that will make the choice for business any less obvious? A one-year delay won’t make employers’ choices any better or make them anymore likely to want to take actions that will be harmful to their businesses.

Bolded the parts you need to pay attention too. They didnt lie, they did exactly what they said they were going to do. Plus, part time work is at an all time high. How is that "drastically less" than the imaginary number you are comparing it too?

[Sinfix_15]

Since they were caught lying about the penalties they were facing, when in reality they weren't, yes. We'll take what the "industry" says with a couple grains of salt.


I read what the report says, and what you're saying the report says, your interpretation of it, is just simply not in it. Lol. Bottom line.

I can post a link to the actual report if you want.

Not that it'll get read on this forum.

Quoted from the great vteckidd. You typed it better. Lol



I like how the right refuses to see prosperity as anything except a function of net liquid assets. If only reality was equally as tantalizing.

i dont give a fuck what liberals think prosperity is, as long as they pay for it themselves. i love how the left thinks thier welfare checks grow on trees. democrats have no respect for tax payers. they cater to the poor by promising hand outs and they make sure to help just enough to keep the poor in need. for the cost of the obamacare website, the government could hand every person in poverty a check for what they would make in a lifetime. democrats need poverty to survive. thier strength lies in being able to feed empty promises to an uneducated and desperate mass of people.

[Vteckidd]

Obama delayed the employer mandate BECAUSE he knows that the businesses WERENT lying.

Thanks for playing. Try again

[Vteckidd]

i dont give a fuck what liberals think prosperity is, as long as they pay for it themselves. i love how the left thinks thier welfare checks grow on trees. democrats have no respect for tax payers. they cater to the poor by promising hand outs and they make sure to help just enough to keep the poor in need. for the cost of the obamacare website, the government could hand every person in poverty a check for what they would make in a lifetime. democrats need poverty to survive. thier strength lies in being able to feed empty promises to Blank.Cd.

Fixed and bolded that for you

[Sinfix_15]

every problem in america could be fixed almost instantly if the government actually wanted to. the government manufactures and maintains crisis. without crisis and division, 500 people wouldnt be able to control hundreds of millions.

[.blank cd]

Businesses preparing for impending costs is "lying"?

Hours being cut was drastically less than what? EVER?

Since I'm terribly busy, I'm just gonna address this asinine chart you posted. I traced it back to its source, zerohedge, by Tyler Durden. He claims it's household survey data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a government agency which has, through you and your followers here, been accused of lying and being liberal before. Lying, liberal, or not, the chart doesn't support what you're claiming. At all in fact. I'll address why it doesn't support your conclusion later

Since we're looking at household survey data, I figured I'd see what the BLS had to say about their methodology. Wanna know what they said? You and Sinfix might find this interesting....

Personal visits are preferred in the first month in which the household is in the sample. In other months, the interview generally is conducted by telephone. Approximately 70 percent of the households in any given month are interviewed by telephone. A portion of the households (10 percent) is interviewed via computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI), from three centralized telephone centers (located in Hagerstown, MD; Jeffersonville, IN; and Tucson, AZ) by interviewers who also use a computerized questionnaire.

What you're thinking about right now, that's called confirmation bias.

Do you completely ignore all economic data?

No, but you've been guilty multiple times of misrepresentation of economic data. Once just now.

[.blank cd]

What does everyone else think about telephone surveys?

He is obviously trolling. Or incredibly stupid to actually think and believe a phone survey [sic] is accurate. It's mind numbing how crazy that is to think that way.

I smell a troll post. No one is that ridiculous. Let's be adults in the political forum.

BRB going to conduct 1 sided telephone survey to back up my previous statements

[Sinfix_15]

telephone surveys are not valid for determining anything other than what people will say on a telephone survey. There's no more lethal combination on this planet than ignorance combined with confidence. Blank, you're the most confident fool i have ever met. I hope at some point in your life that you're able to look back and reflect on how people like you enabled corrupt politicians to destroy this country's future. If you're asked how much you sold your freedom for, just tell them food stamps and welfare.

[Vteckidd]

That's one chart. There are literally thousands I can post. Also I posted research done by Forbes that is backing up the claims. I m on my phone , but no one is misrepresented anything . you just like to argue against facts with hyperbole and double talk

So he's refusing to accept phone surveys now?

Blank is so confusing

[Vteckidd]

Let me get this straight, he accepts phone surveys as data. But discounts everything else.

I find data found by a telephone survey and now he's siding with us saying its not factual?

Blind ideology and blissful ignorance. Must be a small world he lives in

[.blank cd]

Not once did I say it wasn't factual.

Just said it didn't support the conclusion you were trying to reach.

Kinda how when people say anthropomorphic climate change is a hoax because its cold outside. Sure, it's a fact it's cold outside, but that doesn't support your conclusion that climate change is a hoax.

I'm just trying to figure out what kinda data is allowed in this forum. Apparently it's only the data that advances the "conservative", anti-Obama narrative

Carry on.

[Vteckidd]

You won't accept data I post so I posted the type data you would accept.

And now you say its not good enough.

This is what I like to call "trapping". I do it to you a lot and you fall for it a lot.

I knew full well that was a zero hedge article I didn't even resave it.

I just basically proved that no matter what I post you'll never accept it.

You're a hypocrite .a troll. Someone I can't debate with because you're dishonest and blind.

[BanginJimmy]

So very much fail in here.


Blank, still waitin on that analysis of the CBO report. A single sentence isnt enough.


A couple points, a few have already been addressed but I forgot to multi quote.

1. Obamacare will cost the equivalent of 2.3 million full time jobs. This means people choosing to work part time instead of full time in order to get more subsidies. This means jobs that were once held by a full time worker is now being filled by a part time worker. Blank, you mention that the work will still need to be done so this is all BS, everything I have read disagrees with you. You might start to see a kiosk instead of a person when you go to McDonalds. You will see companies invest in automation and use 3 people to do the job that was previously done by 5.

2. Prosperity may not be judged simply by liquid assets but liquid assets are required to purchase the means of survival. The Chairman of the CBO has stated, with zero ambiguity, that Obamacare is a disincentive(?) to work. We arent talking about the guy making 100k deciding to work part time instead just to get the subsidies. We are talking about the guy making 30k a year though. Maybe Mom quits her part time job making 15k a year because the lost income will equal more than 15k a year in subsidies and other handouts.

3. CBO reported that in 2024, we will still have about 30 million uninsured. So basicly, right where we are now. It will only cost us 10 trillion or so to get there.

4. The simple fact that anyone, Jay Carney in particular, would come out and say people choosing to make less money in favor or more handouts in a good thing just proves how little the squatters in the Whore house actually care about whats happening.

5. Obamacare is going to be a nightmare for the dems in November. Any GOP candidate that can stay out of trouble and on message will win easily. Assuming that 100% of GOP candidates from swing states stay on message, I know this isnt going to happen, the GOP could move in 2015 with full control of Congress (which I think is pretty much a guarantee at this point anyways) and maybe enough power in the Senate to force some very uncomfortable bills on Obama.

[.blank cd]

You won't accept data I post so I posted the type data you would accept.

And now you say its not good enough.

I would accept any data you post that supports your claim, no matter how the data was collected. But you don't get to draw a conclusion and find charts that look like it supports it. That's not how this works.

I hope you don't actually think you've "trapped" me. Lol.[/QUOTE]

[.blank cd]

So very much fail in here.

Tell me about it

Blank, still waitin on that analysis of the CBO report. A single sentence isnt enough.

My only point was that Browning used the CBO report AND follow-up network reporting to claim that ACA was destroying the economy. This was not something the CBO claimed according to their report, and some news networks later corrected their mistake in misreporting.

A couple points, a few have already been addressed but I forgot to multi quote.

1. Obamacare will cost the equivalent of 2.3 million full time jobs. This means people choosing to work part time instead of full time in order to get more subsidies. This means jobs that were once held by a full time worker is now being filled by a part time worker. Blank, you mention that the work will still need to be done so this is all BS, everything I have read disagrees with you.

Not sure what you've read, but, even if we assume Obamacare ends up being a net expense, that doesn't directly affect the demand curve for their product, and automation is long term and affected by many other factors.

2. Prosperity

Is simply a buzzword.

The Chairman of the CBO has stated, with zero ambiguity, that Obamacare is a disincentive(?) to work.

which isn't necessarily a bad thing. That was also said

[Vteckidd]

Since Blank missed it

Let’s say that you are a healthy, hardworking 54-year-old single adult in San Francisco earning $45,960 per year—the income level at which federal Obamacare subsidies from your fellow taxpayers are no longer available to help you pay your monthly health-insurance premiums. As a San Francisco resident, you are permitted to choose from among 16 separate Obamacare-compliant insurance plans. Four of these are so-called “Bronze” plans, low-level policies whose average premium will cost you $453 per month, or $5,436 per year. In exchange for those premium payments, a Bronze plan will cover 60% of your medical expenses—that is, after you meet the $5,000 out-of-pocket annual deductible. For this priceless peace of mind, you can thank Obamacare—the Democratic Party’s gift to a grateful America.

Let us contrast your case with that of Joe, another 54-year-old single individual in San Francisco, who happens to be an obese alcoholic and longtime drug abuser with little ambition and no history of ever having held a full-time job for very long. Joe currently earns $15,860 per year, which is just above the income level that would have made him eligible for Medicaid. Because Joe doesn’t qualify for Medicaid, Obamacare stipulates that he must now purchase his own health insurance—thereby proving that, contrary to the shrill rhetoric of conservative naysayers, no one gets an undeserved free ride under Obamacare.

Like you, Joe can choose from among 16 separate plans that are available to San Francisco residents. But unlike you, he is eligible to receive federal government subsidies—money that other, wealthier Americans, such as you, magnanimously “contribute” toward the healthcare expenses of financially “disadvantaged” individuals. If he selects one of the four Bronze plans (whose average monthly premium is $453), Joe qualifies for $452 in average monthly subsidies—meaning that, regardless of which Bronze plan he chooses, he will pay a monthly premium of exactly $1. You read that correctly. The very same healthcare plan that would cost you $453 per month, is available to Joe for $1 per month—i.e., the cost of three oatmeal-raisin cookies at your local Subway sandwich shop. Over the course of a year, you will pay a total of $5,436 in policy premiums, while Joe, who sadly failed to qualify for free healthcare through Medicaid, will pay his own fair share of $12. This is all in the interest of social justice, you understand. And please, don’t even think about whispering that Obamacare might be some sort of “wealth redistribution” scheme, lest you expose yourself as a petulant reactionary who doesn’t give a damn about sick people.

Oh, imagine what a wonderful world it would be if we could somehow transfer this same brand of Obamacare-style fairness to realms other than health insurance. In such a utopia, for example, the $25,000 new automobile that you purchase would cost a deserving soul like Joe just $55. Your $100 nightly fee at a motel would be 45 cents for Joe. And the $25 hardcover book you purchase at Barnes & Noble would set Joe back about a nickel. What’s that, you say? These items aren’t life-and-death necessities, like medical care, and thus don’t serve as useful analogies? Good point! Let’s stick with real necessities, such as food and housing: The same load of groceries that costs you $250 would cost Joe 55 cents. Your $1,200-per-month rent or mortgage payment would be available to Joe for about $2.65 a month. And the $250,000 home you seek to buy could be Joe’s for about $552. Yes, we’re talking about a veritable paradise of fairness!

What the CBO actually said:

The new healthcare law will slow economic growth over the next decade, costing the nation about 2.5 million jobs and contributing to a $1 trillion increase in projected deficits, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said in a report released Tuesday.

The nonpartisan agency’s report found the healthcare law’s negative effects on the economy will be “substantially larger” than what it had previously anticipated.

The CBO is now estimating the law will reduce labor force compensation by 1 percent from 2017-2024, twice the reduction it previously had projected.
This will decrease the number of full-time equivalent jobs in 2021 by 2.3 million, the CBO said. It had previously estimated the decrease would be 800,000.

You can argue all you want about how its reduction in the labor participation rate, or that its not a loss in demand for labor, blah blah blah. Doesnt change the bolded parts. The ACA is not doing what we were told it was supposed to do which is LOWER COST, increase ACCESS and not affect the economy.

It was also supposed to be deficit neutral.

Businesses are smarter than the govt, they know the impending cost of providing inflated health care plans is going to hurt their bottom line, so they are slashing hours, jobs, etc to compensate. They see the costs coming in 2015, and they will adjust for that.

Facts are Facts, the labor participation rate is at an all time low, and part time jobs are at an all time high. Maybe you like the Huffington Post more ?

U.S. businesses are hiring at a robust rate. The only problem is that three out of four of the nearly 1 million hires this year are part-time and many of the jobs are low-paid.

Faltering economic growth at home and abroad and concern that President Barack Obama's signature health care law will drive up business costs are behind the wariness about taking on full-time staff, executives at staffing and payroll firms say.

Employers say part-timers offer them flexibility. If the economy picks up, they can quickly offer full-time work. If orders dry up, they know costs are under control. It also helps them to curb costs they might face under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

All the signs are there, the ACA is hurting the economy, and the American worker. Its not even a debate.

[Vteckidd]

The Chairman of the CBO has stated, with zero ambiguity, that Obamacare is a disincentive(?) to work.

which isn't necessarily a bad thing. That was also said

Why is it not necessarily a BAD thing?

[Echonova]

Seriously... Why have I never seen this before?

So much want.













































Thanks Obama.

[Sinfix_15]

im thinking about owning my own business..... maybe open a trader joes in a predominantly black neighborhood.

[Echonova]

im thinking about owning my own business..... maybe open a trader joes in a predominantly black neighborhood.

I haven't seen a Trader Joe's since I left Tuscon.


















Tuscon has no black neighborhoods.

[Echonova]

[Sinfix_15]

I haven't seen a Trader Joe's since I left Tuscon.


















Tuscon has no black neighborhoods.

tuscon sounds amazing. i would say tell me more.... but that pretty much covers everything.

[Vteckidd]

Tuscon is Americas Taint. (Arizona State Grad here :P)

I went to Trader Joes yesterday........they have cheap wine, sue me

[Vteckidd]

THERE IT IS FOLKS:

Breaking News: The Obama administration announces another delay in the requirement for businesses to provide health coverage, giving some employers a reprieve next year while phasing in the mandate for others.

Picking and choosing who the law applies to. Nothing new to see here. /sarcasm

[Vteckidd]

HMMMMMMMMMMMMM

So business states that the added HC costs directly tied to the ACA will cost jobs.............
The CBO comes out and says the ACA is going to cost jobs............
Most economists say the ACA is making businesses hesitant on hiring full time workers (people over 30hrs/week).............

Obama delays mandate...........
Obama Delays Health-Insurance Mandate for Some Firms - WSJ.com

In regulations outlining the Affordable Care Act, the Treasury Department said employers with between 50 and 99 full-time workers won't have to comply with the law's requirement to provide insurance or pay a fee until 2016.

Companies with 100 workers or more could avoid penalties in 2015 if they showed they were offering coverage to at least 70% of their full-time workers, the Treasury said.

The move is a new, significant revision of the law after a series of delays and a troubled rollout. Originally, employers with the equivalent of 50 full-time workers or more had to offer coverage or pay a penalty starting at $2,000 per worker beginning in 2014.

So they have gone from 50-100 now to unlimited if you can show you provide coverage to at least 70% of the work force. How does this help Working Americans again? So now the individual is penalized but still not the business..............

Cronyism at its finest

[Sinfix_15]

THERE IT IS FOLKS:



Picking and choosing who the law applies to. Nothing new to see here. /sarcasm

silly American, in democracy the rule of law does not apply to the king of the military industrial complex. comply.........because you have no other choice.

[BanginJimmy]

HMMMMMMMMMMMMM

So business states that the added HC costs directly tied to the ACA will cost jobs.............
The CBO comes out and says the ACA is going to cost jobs............
Most economists say the ACA is making businesses hesitant on hiring full time workers (people over 30hrs/week).............

Obama delays mandate...........
Obama Delays Health-Insurance Mandate for Some Firms - WSJ.com


So they have gone from 50-100 now to unlimited if you can show you provide coverage to at least 70% of the work force. How does this help Working Americans again? So now the individual is penalized but still not the business..............

Cronyism at its finest

I wouldn't be surprised to see them delay again until 2017 to help with their presidential election plans. Dems will need businesses to donate heavily to counteract the fund raising being done by the GOP right now.

[Echonova]

I like the fact that precedent has been set. If we can elect a conservative (not a Republican) as President, then obviously he can just mandate that the program be suspended indefinitely. No need to go through Congress to get it repealed... He'd have a pen and a phone.