The issue i have with most catchy headlines today is that they usually have nothing to do with with the content in the story or, if you consider what is being said, it doesn’t make sense. The story posted below is the latter of the two. My question is: if the employees already have insurance, why would the employer change to the ACA unless it was cheaper? And, if the employer is adding 20% MORE staff to any insurance plan, it’s a big duh that overall costs would increase… but the per person costs would decrease. Did we miss the part where the employer is adding 20% more employees onto a full time payroll that requires them to be insured? Business must be booming! These are more of the misleading tactics being used to confuse and distort information.

The quote “40% of his workforce [is] insured today” Graham explained. “Under Obamacare, if 20% choose insurance, his insurance costs will double.” rather sounds like he’s saying some insurance company is NOT going to want a bunch of healthy 27 year olds on their policy. After all, anyone 26 and under is on their parents insurance if at all possible because it’s cheaper. So, if the employer doesn’t insure 60% of its workforce now, but is saying “IF” they add 20% more… is that 60% now already covered elsewhere or are they part time? Hmmmm….

The Senator’s claim is a big “if” and can only be true if a) the business is going to switch their current insurance to the ACA, AND b) they are converting 20% of employees to full time or they can’t be covered on their parents insurance anymore, AND c) insurance costs rise significantly during enrollment rather than over time like they normally do (it’s been increasing every year for decades & the ACA is expected to add 3% to 10% of those total costs), AND d) the employer chooses to cover the majority of insurance costs rather than pass it on to the employees like most employers do.

Another boogey man tactic. Again, since his employees are already covered… any increase in costs is due to their current insurance plan. Let’s not forget that adding 20% more of your staff to the insurance rolls would decrease healthcare costs per person because have a bigger pool, which drives down costs. It’s like buying a dozen donuts and getting the 13th free… except in bulk. I mean what kind of moron in business doesn’t get that buying more costs more? Any good business persons is going to look at the cost per person, not just the overall costs so either the Senator is trying to scare us or he’s not really good at math. Frankly, he makes his “friend” who owns 52 franchises sound a bit ignorant and I’m betting the “friend” was misquoted. Here’s the article.

Graham opposes Obamacare because his ‘friend’ owns 52 Wendy’s and has to insure employees (via Raw Story )

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said on Sunday that he opposed President Barack Obama’s health care law because a “friend” would have to pay more to insure the employees at his 52 Wendy’s restaurants — but the South Carolina Republican did not…

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s