In Obamacare, a 30-hour workweek is “full time”?

Oh, please tell me I am not reading this or that it’s not true.

Because if it’s true, then both my sons will have to worry about losing their jobs. One had his hours cut from 40 to 32, because of healthcare. If this happens, he’ll really be screwed. He can’t live on 25 hours a week’s pay.

So, let’s read:

(CNSNews.com) – A little-known section in the Obamacare health reform law defines “full-time” work as averaging only 30 hours per week, a definition that will affect some employers who utilize part-time workers to trim the cost of complying with the Obamacare rule that says businesses with 50 or more workers must provide health insurance or pay a fine.

“The term ‘full-time employee’ means, with respect to any month, an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week,” section 1513 of the law reads. (Scroll down to section 4, paragraph A.)

That section, known as the employer mandate, requires any business with 50 or more full-time employees to provide at least the minimum level of government-defined health coverage to those employees.

In other words, a business must provide insurance if it has 50 or more employees working an average of just 30 hours per week, which is 10 hours per week fewer than the traditional 40-hour work week.

If an employer has 50 or more “full-time employees” and does not offer health insurance, it must pay a penalty per employee for each month it does not offer coverage.

Tell me again how this president supports small business and entrepreneurship. Tell me again that he has any understanding at all about what is involved in building a business and then staying in business so one can keep employing other people.

All this rule does is force small businesses who cannot afford the regulatory monstrosity that is Obamacare to further cut the hours of their employees, and then what happens? People make less money. They pay less in taxes, so tax revenues go down; they spend less money, so the economy slows and oh, yeah, they need assistance because no one can make ends meet working part-time jobs, or even multiple part-time jobs, like my other son. So — out of the reduced revenue (which means ever-higher deficit spending) more people will need help with food stamps; more people will need housing assistance. More people will become completely beholden to the government for their daily sustenance.

Which, apparently, was the point, all along.

Remind me, because I really can’t remember, are members of Congress and the unions included in all of this boonswaggle or are they exempted? Will life pretty much go on as usual for members of “the party”, as has always been true of suppressive, totalitarian regimes?

This incredibly crappy bit of legislation has to be repealed. There has to be a better way to insure those who need insurance and help those with pre-existing conditions without completely destroying ambition, individualism, hopes, dreams, and you know, all that unimportant stuff.

Why can’t the uninsured affordably buy into government employee insurance pools, with a program similar to what Giuliani created while he was mayor of NYC?

Why can’t insurance be sold across state lines, which would immediately lower premiums across the board?

Why can’t young adults who prefer to do without health insurance pay a simple premium for catastrophic necessity and keep more of their earnings?

There are tons of ways to reform the health care situation. Why didn’t we explore them?

Oh, right. Obama owned both houses and Pelosi and Reid pushed it through.

And now we’re finally reading the bill and finding out what’s in it.

Tell me I’m reading it wrong and wrong in my thinking. My ego can take it; I’d be happy to know it.

Like Patheos Catholic on Facebook!

Patheos Catholic LogoCLICK HERE TO "LIKE" PATHEOS CATHOLIC ON FACEBOOK

About Elizabeth Scalia