Submit your comments on this article |
-Land of the Free |
Thought Police: Firms must swear ObamaCare not a factor in firings |
2014-02-12 |
[FOXNEWS] Is the latest delay of Obamacare ... aka the Affordable Care Act, an ineptly designed and worse executed piece of legislation designed to bring 17 percent of the U.S. economy under the direct control of the government. The previous iteration, known as Hillarycare, was laughed out of Washington. This stinker was passed on a party-line vote without being read... regulations politically motivated? Consider what administration officials announcing the new exemption for medium-sized employers had to say about firms that might fire workers to get under the threshold and avoid hugely expensive new requirements of the law. Obama officials made clear in a press briefing that firms would not be allowed to lay off workers to get into the preferred class of those businesses with 50 to 99 employees. How will the feds know what employers were thinking when hiring and firing? Simple. Firms will be required to certify to the IRS -- under penalty of perjury -- that ObamaCare was not a motivating factor in their staffing decisions. To avoid ObamaCare costs you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs. You can duck the law, but only if you promise not to say so. |
Posted by:Fred |
#14 As quite often happens locally, Glenmore, the employer will identify one's position as 'no longer required' and RIF the employee before the insurance claim is fully detailed(Yea, "right-to-work"!). I imagine the same business practice will continue under any new healthcare laws. |
Posted by: Skidmark 2014-02-12 20:56 |
#13 They said much the same about the mandate rjschwarz. After the Mandate-Tax ruling I have little faith in the Robed Princes of the Realm these days. |
Posted by: CrazyFool 2014-02-12 16:08 |
#12 Obama can go to hell. |
Posted by: Grusoque Creamp7760 2014-02-12 16:02 |
#11 Looking forward to this one hitting the legal system because I just can't imagine how this could possible survive. |
Posted by: rjschwarz 2014-02-12 14:52 |
#10 What happens when a company takes advantage of one of the apparently illegal extensions or exemptions being thrown around and does NOT provide the health insurance coverage specified in the law, and then an employee develops a catastrophic health event? It would seem like they could sue their employer for not obeying the actual law. |
Posted by: Glenmore 2014-02-12 13:31 |
#9 Just when I think our government can't emulate the novel 1984 any more.... |
Posted by: DarthVader 2014-02-12 12:26 |
#8 Hounds at the table should definitely be legitimate grounds for termination. |
Posted by: Besoeker 2014-02-12 11:12 |
#7 That'll fool the rubes. Good thinking Obamatards! |
Posted by: Iblis 2014-02-12 09:48 |
#6 ..interesting that the allegation to be denied is that ObamaCare is a factor. Who reviews and accepts/denies these sworn certifications, and assumed a denial, where does it go from there? Oh, yeah - our "UberAgency," the IRS, will have an "app" for that.. |
Posted by: Uncle Phester 2014-02-12 09:41 |
#5 I so wish the IRS had done this before Nancy went on the comedy channel and not after |
Posted by: lord garth 2014-02-12 09:39 |
#4 There will always be some reason that HR can come up with (gray ceiling included) to put one on the RIF list. |
Posted by: Skidmark 2014-02-12 08:43 |
#3 It seems like some proprietorships and firms are engaging in civil disobedience in response to the AFA and a rising emperorship. (IMO the act should have been declared illegal from the git go. The notion of people being forced to buy something strains credulity. The fact that SCOTUS declared the fine a tax further strained credulity.) |
Posted by: JohnQC 2014-02-12 08:37 |
#2 ..about as provable as (old) age discrimination, which at least had legislation as a basis of authority. |
Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-02-12 08:35 |
#1 and by what authority is this made-up law enforced? |
Posted by: Frank G 2014-02-12 07:56 |