Closing the 'part time' loophole as a means to single payer?

[classics]

It seems nearly every business in the US exploits the 'part time' loophole, allowing them to hire an unlimited number of part time employees in order to evade providing health insurance.

What effect do you think closing up this loophole and the resulting rise in costs would have?

[MountainLaurel]

1. Rising costs for who?

I think more of all the U.S. citizens who would not have to file bankruptcy because their 10-year-old broke his leg, who could afford to buy fresh food instead of getting canned beets and overly processed mac n' cheese at the food bank. They could buy new clothing, even at a discount store, as opposed to going to the thrift shop always. Or, elderly widows who could pay for gas heat rather than insulin.

Frankly, I think the economy would boom.

[OKNancy]

6. Employers aren't obligated by any law to

provide health coverage. If there were to be some sort of law to make employers provide it to part-timers, they would just drop it for everyone.

Most employers are having serious problems with the costs now.

The way to solve it is Universal heathcare, or at least let there be an option to have the government system be your insurer. Rich people or those comfortable with what they have could opt out.

( edit to add: I responded to the wrong post...meant this for the Original Poster )

[NewJeffCT]

9. agreed, they would just drop it for everybody

and then even more would suffer.

Also, OK Nancy, allowing the rich to opt out is part of the problem with the British system, which mixes public & private insurance and gets the best of neither. Yes, it is better than our system, but not as good as other countries in Europe like France.

[BobBoudelangFan69]

2. Increase In Quality Of Workers's Lives.

[Wapsie B]

3. Korporate Amerika's would never allow that to become law.

The Walton family alone would have their lobbyists working overtime to prevent a bill like that even coming to a vote. Because if it did become law costs would skyrocket for companies and their healthcare costs.

[niallmac]

4. C'mon Corps! Let us have single payer National Health Care!

It would be good for your bottom line and make you look like you cared.

[Fescue4u]

5. I don't think its really a loophole.

A loophole would imply that its a technique to evade a requirement.

No employer is required to pay health insurance. Just because one is "full time" doesnt mean that you are required to have health insurance.

An employer can give health insurance to whomever they choose, full time or part time.

So it really cannot be closed, except to pass a law that all employers grant insurance to all employees. And thats not going to happen.

[zanne]

7. When you can only work 38 hours a week....

I once worked for a corporation that only allowed you to work 38 hours a week unless you were management. You were not paid for your 10-minute breaks or for lunch and the only holiday was Christmas (unpaid). Wages were barely above minimum. All "perfectly legal". The problem is, it SHOULDN'T be legal. Oh, and I forgot to mention no health insurance. Surprise.

[Fescue4u]

10. Well yes I agree with what you say.

Im just saying its not a loophole. Its just a management practice (and a piss poor one).

If your employer choose to, it could certainly grant health benefits at 38 hours, or not grant them at 40 hours. Its just not a regulated item.

Now if the law said you must grant health benefits at 40 hours, and employers made you clock out at 39 hours. Then yes I would say its a loophole.

understand, Im arguing the semantics of it thats all. Certainly not saying that what cheapass employers do is morally right.

[heidler1]

8. It would help, but there is no requirement for health benefits that I know

of. That's why the minimum wage has to be increased. This does more to level the playing field than anything. One thing thats overlooked is with the Clinton era level of progressive income tax's when combined with Medicare the rich who had to pay higher rates got stuck subsidizing health care for those on the low minimum wages. Those on current minimum wages probably pay little or no income tax. This is one big reason why the rich want a flat tax and or a federal sales or value added tax. As long as Medicare is kept in place the low wage earner has some health care.

[Orangepeel]

11. the first step, IMO, is universal access to health insurance

with everyone able to buy into a health insurance plan for the same price that government employees pay, with medicare continuing for the elderly and disabled and medicaid for those without the means to buy into the plan. Anyone who is covered by other means could just do what they are doing now.

It should be cheaper than full coverage because people who can pay are still paying something, people would feel comfortable with the idea of having Blue Cross or whomever as a provider, and it would get people used to the idea that the government should subsidize health care for everyone. There wouldn't be as much opposition from insurance companies, because they would have a role, and business should be on board because it would save them lots of money without their employees bitching too much (because they are comfortable with the idea of the insurance company).

Wait a minute. Have I heard something similar to that before? Oh yeah. Wasn't that the Kerry/Edwards plan?