this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
321 points (97.6% liked)

politics

20443 readers
4300 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter
aidan
jordanlund
HLMenckenFan
little_cow
321
'Obamacare' sign-ups surge to 20 million, days before open enrollment closes (abcnews.go.com)
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave to c/politics
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Biden administration says 20 million people have enrolled for health insurance through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, with still a few days left for signing up

Some 20 million people have signed up for health insurance this year through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, a record-breaking figure.

President Joe Biden will likely proclaim those results regularly on the campaign trail for months to come as former President Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner, vows to dismantle the Obama-era program.

The Biden administration announced Wednesday morning that 20 million have enrolled for coverage on the marketplace, days before the open enrollment period is set to close on Jan. 16.

The latest enrollment projections mean a quarter more Americans have signed up for coverage this year compared to last — another record-breaking year when 16.3 million enrolled in the program. Signs-ups spiked after Biden took office, with Democrats rolling out a series of tax breaks that give millions of Americans access to low cost plans, some with zero-dollar premiums.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Health care should never have been dependent on employment in the first place

You know what's really depressing?

How that came to happen in America:

Then, in World War II, companies’ grip on employee’s health care got firmer. The federal government established wage controls, limiting how much employers could pay workers. This left businesses competing on other forms of compensation — including health insurance. The government tacitly endorsed this tactic: It did not tax health benefits as income, while also allowing companies to deduct the cost from their taxable revenue. Enrollment in some kind of health insurance grew from some 20 million people in 1940 to more than 142 million in 1950.

https://www.vox.com/23890764/healthcare-insurance-marketplace-open-enrollment-employer-sponsored-united-blue-cross-shield-aetna

We fucking capped salaries.

People want to act like someone saying 100% after a certain threshold is some millennial pipe dream, meanwhile the unironically named "Greatest Generation" flat out said that was too much hassle and there's an upper limit anyone can be paid.

We get rid of it, and wealth equality went crazy and everything else went to shit.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They capped worker salaries to keep costs down during WW2. Strikes were illegal too. Rich people still made a million dollars per year.

[–] givesomefucks 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If you're right, I've been wrong for 20 years, so I'd appreciate a link showing was literally "workers" and executives were excluded

To my knowledge it limited everyone's salary

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I'm not remotely knowledgeable on labor practices of the time period, but at least in the modern era, you can easily pay an executive basically nothing and just give him stock instead, which will wind up being far more valuable than any salary. Mark Zuckerberg, for instance, takes a salary of $1. I wouldn't be shocked if something to that effect existed back then as well.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It wasn't actually an "upper limit" in WW2. It was a 15% limit on wage increases on any union contracts. If you didn't have a union contract, you could be paid whatever.

One of the board's mandates was to ensure that any wage increases granted during a dispute case would not disrupt the wage structure of the nation as a whole and not contribute to ongoing inflationary pressures.[20] These pressures were due to shortages, both in goods and in the labor supply.[10] A key development in this regard came with the "Little Steel" hearing and decision of July 1942.

After hearing arguments for and against, the War Labor Board decided that wage increases should be bounded by the national cost of living increase between January 1941, when prices were stable, and May 1942, when the United States had introduced various anti-inflation measures.[20] Using the cost-of-living index provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, this worked out to a fifteen per cent wage increase formula, or forty-four cents per day for the Little Steel employees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_War_Labor_Board_(1942%E2%80%931945)

[–] givesomefucks 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's different, executive order 9250 came after:

In order to correct gross inequities and to provide for greater equality in contributing to the war effort, the Director is authorized to take the necessary action, and to issue the appropriate regulations, so that, insofar as practicable no salary shall be authorized under Title III, Section 4, to the extent that it exceeds $25,000 after the payment of taxes allocable to the sum in excess of $25,000. Provided, however, that such regulations shall make due allowance for the payment of life insurance premiums on policies heretofore issued, and required payments on fixed obligations heretofore incurred, and shall make provision to prevent undue hardship.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-9250-providing-for-the-stabilizing-the-national-economy

Weird how FDR could do so much by executive order back then, and now Dems say nothing substantial can be an executive order now btw...