Note: You may reprint this cartoon provided you link back to this source. To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here. Branco’s page is Cartoonist A.F.Branco
“Mr. Hoffman, this is your ObamaCare Exchange Navigator calling. Good news! I was finally able to get through the website and sign you up. Your coverage will go into effect the beginning of next month.
Once again, this message was for Mr. Phillip Seymore Hoffman.”
What is misleading about the INCENTIVE for employers to cut hours to part time 29 hrs/week in order to avoid the harsh penalties this law imposes?
It is YOUR comment that is misleading because the jobs that aren’t “reduced” in number are reduced in hours given to employees.
See: This is how the math works. I can have 1 40 hr/week job, or 2 20 hr/week jobs. The 40 hr/week job costs the employer more due to Obamacare than the 2 20 hr/week jobs, but that really doesn’t help the employees who has their hours cut because of the insane regulations in this law. And that 2nd job that could be filled, might not be because of limitations on the number of employees before Obamacare regs trigger on that front too.
Paul: What is misleading about the INCENTIVE for employers to cut hours to part time 29 hrs/week in order to avoid the harsh penalties this law imposes?
Comments
Thank Gad, Boehner appears to have been talk out of selling the Mexican batch.
Ouch, very powerful Mr. Branco! Ought to cause a few howls of outrage from O’s supporters.
“Mr. Hoffman, this is your ObamaCare Exchange Navigator calling. Good news! I was finally able to get through the website and sign you up. Your coverage will go into effect the beginning of next month.
Once again, this message was for Mr. Phillip Seymore Hoffman.”
Misleading. The CBO report indicates it will not reduce jobs, but workers who will no longer be tethered to their jobs for insurance.
What is misleading about the INCENTIVE for employers to cut hours to part time 29 hrs/week in order to avoid the harsh penalties this law imposes?
It is YOUR comment that is misleading because the jobs that aren’t “reduced” in number are reduced in hours given to employees.
See: This is how the math works. I can have 1 40 hr/week job, or 2 20 hr/week jobs. The 40 hr/week job costs the employer more due to Obamacare than the 2 20 hr/week jobs, but that really doesn’t help the employees who has their hours cut because of the insane regulations in this law. And that 2nd job that could be filled, might not be because of limitations on the number of employees before Obamacare regs trigger on that front too.
Paul: What is misleading about the INCENTIVE for employers to cut hours to part time 29 hrs/week in order to avoid the harsh penalties this law imposes?
That’s not what the CBO report found.