+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 67
  1. #1
    graymatter is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    458

    Obamacare hits home

    I know we've had other threads like this... its just that none of them have ever applied to me before.

    Until I received this just now:

    "Due to the Affordable Healthcare Act, we are having to restrict the number of courses that a facilitator teaches to 1 workshop per week, with no overlap. This policy has just been given to us this week and it is not on the web yet. There should be an official notification going out to all of the facilitators soon but we are having to make our adjustments now. Therefore, we will be working to get back-to-back courses for our faculty rather than letting them overlap at all."

    I facilitated 14 courses for this university last year. If I delete the ones that overlap, I would have had 6. That's $10k out of my pocket.

    And do I get free healthcare as a result? No I do not.

    UOP has already made this change (at least it appears that way to me since I no longer have overlapping classes).

    If the others do as well, I'm in trouble.

  2. #2
    rebel100 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    1,164
    But just imagine how mediocre your health care you get to buy will be! Look at the bright side!
    MBA at Western Governors University
    BS Charter Oak State College
    AS EMS Valencia Community College

  3. #3
    03310151 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,952
    Whiney racist white people. Gobgillions of children lay dying in the streets before Obamacare. Everythings all good now, so get back in line.

    "Never be the first to stop clapping".

  4. #4
    Maniac Craniac is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    punoɹɐ ƃuıƃuɐɥ ʇsnɾ
    Posts
    6,091
    Blog Entries
    1
    Look on the bright side: now you KNOW your employer thinks you're expendable. They'd gladly pay for your healthcare, regardless of legal requirements, if they thought they couldn't easily replace you when you got sick or injured.
    BA, Social Sciences ---- The University Formerly Known As Thomas Edison State College

    If you're tired of starting over, STOP GIVING UP!!! -Shia LaBoeuf

  5. #5
    Phdtobe is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    832
    Obama is not refusing to pay for your healthcare, your employers are. Universal healthcare was such a bad thing for the poor in the USA so I guess this employers mandate is better for the poor. In Canada, there is universal healthcare. I can't see that ever changing.

    Anyway, I will not support any university with my tuition if it tries to cheat its employees out of healthcare.

  6. #6
    sanantone is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,442
    UoP has never had its priorities straight when it comes to spending. They spend more on sales and marketing than teaching and classroom expenses. I know they probably have some financial concerns right now, but they're related to decreasing enrollment.
    Texas State University - PhD CJ (ABD)
    Angelo State University - Master of Security Studies and Grad Cert Terrorism
    Thomas Edison State College/University - BA Soc Sci, AAS in Environmental Safety, ASNSM in Biology, & BSBA in CIS

  7. #7
    RFValve is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    4,336
    Quote Originally Posted by Phdtobe View Post
    In Canada, there is universal healthcare.
    In Canada, even adjuncts get health, pension benefits, decent wages, etc. These are the good news, the bad news is that is almost impossible to get an adjunct faculty position because unions, protectionism, etc.

  8. Advertisement

  9. #8
    Randell1234 is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    7,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Phdtobe View Post
    Obama is not refusing to pay for your healthcare, your employers are. Universal healthcare was such a bad thing for the poor in the USA so I guess this employers mandate is better for the poor. In Canada, there is universal healthcare. I can't see that ever changing.

    Anyway, I will not support any university with my tuition if it tries to cheat its employees out of healthcare.
    How is it cheating? The process is:
    I apply for an adjunct job
    They interview me
    I like the position
    They offer it and say, "This is $X,XXX per course, no guarantee of future classes and no benefits, want it?"
    I say, "Yes, I understand the conditions" or "Hell no, I want benefits"

    How is it cheating when everyones eyes are wide open to what they get?

  10. #9
    graymatter is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    458
    My concern is that 2 schools who assigned me a total of 29 courses last year just told me that because of nothing I've done wrong (and no enrollment issues in my program), my courses are being cut. Not because I'm demanding healthcare - I don't need them to provide healthcare for me or my family (we are already covered) - but because the government says so.

    There should be some sort of "I'm already covered" waiver or something. Can I lose 3 positions (or be significantly cut) because all 3 think they'll be required to provide me with healthcare?!?

    And for that matter, I totally disagree with the university's math. If the issue is that we can't work more than 30 hours a week, how does a limit of 1 class at a time make any sense? If they think we're working 30 hours per week on a course, we're making minimum wage. I guess technically if we're working 16 hours per course, then we couldn't have 2 without going over. But that works out (at this school) to $15 an hour for a PhD-level faculty member.

    Just doesn't make sense all around. I don't WANT them to pay for my healthcare because I don't need them to. And now I'm going to lose significant income because of it.

  11. #10
    Randell1234 is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    7,768
    Quote Originally Posted by graymatter View Post
    My concern is that 2 schools who assigned me a total of 29 courses last year just told me that because of nothing I've done wrong (and no enrollment issues in my program), my courses are being cut. Not because I'm demanding healthcare - I don't need them to provide healthcare for me or my family (we are already covered) - but because the government says so.

    There should be some sort of "I'm already covered" waiver or something. Can I lose 3 positions (or be significantly cut) because all 3 think they'll be required to provide me with healthcare?!?

    And for that matter, I totally disagree with the university's math. If the issue is that we can't work more than 30 hours a week, how does a limit of 1 class at a time make any sense? If they think we're working 30 hours per week on a course, we're making minimum wage. I guess technically if we're working 16 hours per course, then we couldn't have 2 without going over. But that works out (at this school) to $15 an hour for a PhD-level faculty member.

    Just doesn't make sense all around. I don't WANT them to pay for my healthcare because I don't need them to. And now I'm going to lose significant income because of it.
    I agree with you...someone voted for him...

  12. #11
    Rich Douglas is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    11,356
    Quote Originally Posted by sanantone View Post
    UoP has never had its priorities straight when it comes to spending. They spend more on sales and marketing than teaching and classroom expenses.
    You display a gift for understatement. UoP 's target level for education -related expenses is 8% of revenues. Yes, you read that right.

  13. #12
    Rich Douglas is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    11,356
    There is no such thing as "free."

    Healthcare expenses are incurred by all, for all. It's simply a matter of how they are managed and how they are distributed. Insurance, public or private, is designed to bring some sense to both. It is no different that auto insurance, which is compulsory, too.

    Bringing the currently uninsured into the insurance pool lowers costs for those already in it. That's a good thing.

    The current design is a Republican one--or was, until the Democrat in the White House embraced it.

    If you don't get these people ensured, they will continue to be a drain on the healthcare system in two significant ways. First, they won't be paying into it, yet will draw from it. (Either by being non-paying customers--yes, they still get help--or by being on public assistance.) Second, their care won't be managed at low levels and will result in higher costs associated with catastrophic care. (Think diabetes not managed resulting in heart attacks, etc.)

    Finally, the real problem here isn't "Obamacare." It's the practice of pushing our healthcare management through both our employers and the insurance companies. What an incredible drain on the system for something that is universally consumed. The private sector, in this case, has no competitive incentive to drive down your costs, just theirs.

    Universal healthcare would benefit all of us, just as education and infrastructure does. But we don't want to pay for those things anymore, either. Just the military; we can't seem to touch that. Well, guess what? I have almost-free health care for life because of the military. Thanks, everyone, for picking up my tab. I do appreciate it.

  14. #13
    instant000 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    148
    To what Rich just said: "ditto".

    (Except for the part about almost free health care for life.)

    I can totally comprehend that insuring people who didn't have insurance before would cause increased costs. We have to consider now that some people who struggled to get coverage before were people with pre-existing conditions which made them more likely to be ill or die. Let's consider that coverage for an unemployed person is usually quite expensive without the employer subsidy.

    The issues that muddy it is that healthcare got tied into employment, to the point where people stick with jobs they don't even want to work because of healthcare concerns. People with a deceased military spouse don't remarry because they'd lose their healthcare (while this speaks to their priorities, it also speaks to conditions in this country where healthcare costs are bankruptcy-generating).

    People can go bankrupt in this country because of a single health event. If this new system alleviates the bankruptcy risk and manages to reduce costs, that would be awesome. Maybe it only helps to alleviate the bankruptcy risk, and the cost has to increase, as we're going to be insuring more of people who found the coverage too expensive before.

    I'd prefer a system whereby health insurance wasnt' tied to employment, we'd get rid of the insurance company middle men, and prices were controlled because all the physicians worked for the government.

    If you can't change costs directly, you change them indirectly, by decreasing reimbursement rates.

    But, we all know, that's not the entire story. I know several doctors from a past job, and they have to pay 1/3 of their wages into malpractice insurance. It's a tough thing, so when people talk about legal reform, they refer to the fact that if compensation to doctors is decreased, without also decreasing their legal obligations, then there are definitely going to be issues as people choose to leave the medical field rather than put through all those years of schooling to not be rewarded.

    The true difficulty with passing reform is that our pols are heavily influenced by industries. How many in the health industry are put out of work if the house of cards for health insurance is eliminated?

    For example, it would be a simple matter to reform the tax code and greatly reduce tax collection staff by concentrating enforcement on businesses and borders, and only taking taxes at the point of sale, and never again. This frees up individuals from worrying about the burden, but it also places a lot of income tax professionals and companies out of work.

  15. #14
    SteveFoerster is offline Resident Gadfly
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Northern Virginia & Dominica, West Indies
    Posts
    10,850
    Quote Originally Posted by instant000 View Post
    I'd prefer a system whereby health insurance wasnt' tied to employment, we'd get rid of the insurance company middle men, and prices were controlled because all the physicians worked for the government.
    Insurance is tied to employment largely because of distortions from tax policy, so I'm with you there. If it were a service like any other, and if providers were allowed to innovate, then we might see more sense in healthcare pricing, e.g., where most people pay normal costs out of pocket and only insure against catastrophes. I also wouldn't mind seeing a stronger mutual insurance sector -- credit unions don't screw people like banks do, and the concept is analogous.

    Controlling prices by making healthcare providers work for the government flies in the face of basic economics , though, because it assumes that you can set whatever price for labor you wish and physicians have to accept it. Unfortunately, though, you can't make things better by screwing the doctors.
    BS, Info Sys concentration, Charter Oak State College
    MA in Educational Tech, George Washington University
    PhD in Leadership, U. of the Cumberlands (in progress)
    More at http://stevefoerster.com

  16. Advertisement

  17. #15
    Maniac Craniac is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    punoɹɐ ƃuıƃuɐɥ ʇsnɾ
    Posts
    6,091
    Blog Entries
    1
    Wouldn't universal healthcare be beneficial to everybody, including the people who would pay more in taxes to make it happen?

    I'm apolitical and just throwing this idea out there for discussion, so there's no reason I can perceive that anyone should jump down my throat or call me names for suggesting this.

    I understand the conservative view, that people need to take responsibility for their own health and suffer the consequences of their own decisions. In principle, I agree. However, bad decisions don't just affect the individual making them, but even the people who are entirely innocent. Take as an analogy: people are more likely to wear seatbelts if there is a law requiring it. It saves lives, yes, but it also saves money. Even if you wanted to argue that people should be allowed to die bloody deaths if they so choose, you forget that it is not the deceased who will be paying for the cleanup, the coroner's report, the extra traffic delays, etc- it's you.

    Applying that analogy here, if everyone was insured, then infections and diseases would get treated rather than ignored and they would be less likely to spread and make YOU sick. Chronic diseases can be addressed on a nation-wide level, lessening the need for expensive accommodations, emergency care, nursing homes, you name it. Less sick passengers holding up trains. Less heart attacks on the road. Less people crippled in medical bills becoming desperate and resorting to crime.

    Even if you think that there are plenty of people who don't deserve the benefits of your tax dollars going into their healthcare, you might just get more bang for your buck in such a system anyway. Two of the benefits of capitalism are the "economy of scale" and product customization which both require more people in the economy to buy into. More healthy people means more workers means more people buying into the economy, allowing Walmart to sell cheaper lawn mowers as well as allowing the government to collect tax from more people.

    Any of this make sense?
    BA, Social Sciences ---- The University Formerly Known As Thomas Edison State College

    If you're tired of starting over, STOP GIVING UP!!! -Shia LaBoeuf

  18. #16
    SteveFoerster is offline Resident Gadfly
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Northern Virginia & Dominica, West Indies
    Posts
    10,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Maniac Craniac View Post
    I understand the conservative view, that people need to take responsibility for their own health and suffer the consequences of their own decisions. In principle, I agree.
    I realize some conservatives and libertarians feel that way, but I'm not one of them. I don't want to see someone bankrupt, homeless, or dead because they can't afford healthcare. That doesn't mean, however, that a public program is necessarily the way to prevent that, particularly a massive federal one.

    However, bad decisions don't just affect the individual making them, but even the people who are entirely innocent. Take as an analogy: people are more likely to wear seatbelts if there is a law requiring it. It saves lives, yes, but it also saves money. Even if you wanted to argue that people should be allowed to die bloody deaths if they so choose, you forget that it is not the deceased who will be paying for the cleanup, the coroner's report, the extra traffic delays, etc- it's you.
    The problem with that line of reasoning is that once something is paid for by taxpayers, it gives government a seemingly unlimited license to mandate behavior in all walks of life to minimize that expense. For example, with taxpayer funded healthcare, the same logic would justify rules like, "Sorry, fatso, you can't eat that sugary snack!" or, "Okay everyone, time for our mandatory exercise period!"

    Applying that analogy here, if everyone was insured, then infections and diseases would get treated rather than ignored and they would be less likely to spread and make YOU sick. Chronic diseases can be addressed on a nation-wide level, lessening the need for expensive accommodations, emergency care, nursing homes, you name it. Less sick passengers holding up trains. Less heart attacks on the road. Less people crippled in medical bills becoming desperate and resorting to crime.
    On the one hand, in the U.S. everyone can get healthcare, if by no other means then by showing up at the emergency room, which is not allowed to turn people away. On the other hand, this has led to people using the emergency room as their primary care physician, which is an incredibly wasteful way to do things. Better to have free clinics to handle those sorts of "I have the sniffles, is it serious?" visits, and that's something that can be a community initiative, it doesn't take the federal government to do it.

    Even if you think that there are plenty of people who don't deserve the benefits of your tax dollars going into their healthcare, you might just get more bang for your buck in such a system anyway. Two of the benefits of capitalism are the "economy of scale" and product customization which both require more people in the economy to buy into. More healthy people means more workers means more people buying into the economy, allowing Walmart to sell cheaper lawn mowers as well as allowing the government to collect tax from more people.
    Meh, economy of scale is important, but it's not a magic straight line where things just keep getting noticeably better forever no matter how big things get.
    BS, Info Sys concentration, Charter Oak State College
    MA in Educational Tech, George Washington University
    PhD in Leadership, U. of the Cumberlands (in progress)
    More at http://stevefoerster.com

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. And the hits keep coming for Bridgepoint Education...
    By Shawn Ambrose in forum General Distance Learning Discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-24-2012, 01:16 PM
  2. Do Degree Info Members Like Obamacare?
    By SurfDoctor in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-01-2012, 09:25 AM
  3. Do Americans like Obamacare?
    By Maniac Craniac in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 127
    Last Post: 08-18-2012, 01:17 PM
  4. University of Phoenix Hits the Nail on the Head
    By defii in forum General Distance Learning Discussions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-23-2002, 12:54 PM
  5. Tom Head Hits Roadblock in Ph.D. Process
    By Tom Head in forum General Distance Learning Discussions
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 01-14-2002, 10:14 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15