[crocodiletears]

Ime, this threw a whole bunch of entry level laborers under the bus. When I entered the workforce, you could work up to 29 hours (typically flex scheduling) at an entry level position in my region. If you wanted any more, you either worked multiple jobs - both of which likely changed your schedule week-week, or worked for an employer who knew they could do whatever they wanted with you, because what they were offering was a rarity in the environment.

[resoluteteeth]

This is sort of a damned if you do damned if you don't type situation for legislators, because other people are getting screwed over if they are kept right under what counts as full time employment so they don't get benefits. In some cases this is the only reason people need to work multiple jobs in the first place.

The only way to really fix it is to make health care not connected to employers in the first place so your hours/number of employers don't matter.

[syshum]

I can assure you no employer that before ACA had employees working 34-36hrs a week magically started giving them health insurance and made them 40 hour workers.

no the ONLY thing that happened is those workers had 15% of their hours cut, i.e they took a 15% pay cut.

[arcticbull]

Indeed, this is a solved problem. Everyone gets healthcare, it comes out of their taxes.

40% of Americans are already covered by socialized medicine, between Medicare, Medicaid and the VA. We're really only looking to expand that from 40% to 100%. It's not nearly the jump into the chasm of socialism the right is painting it as.

If we can't bring the Manchins of the world onboard, at the very least require all employees, regardless of hours worked, to receive healthcare and if you work for multiple employers, then they can sort out amongst themselves.

[ok_dad]

> this threw a whole bunch of entry level laborers under the bus

Was it the law, or the shitty companies taking advantage of a "loophole" in an unethical manner? You're attributing the fault incorrectly, IMO.

[crocodiletears]

Blaming a company for using a loophole is like blaming a shark for eating fish. Organizations tend to optimize for their target metrics irrespective of morality. It's only when they act beyond that mandate that they then become morally culpable, imo.

Perverse incentives are hard not to introduce in a complex legislative push. But whoever wrote that specific provision either never worked for a company that saw them as expendable, or might as well have forgotten that the sun can rise.

I like a lot of what the ACA did. But the instability and financial strain I've seen that came from the economic restructuring the provision caused single-handedly butchered my faith in the government's competence to help its citizens for years.

That doesn't mean people weren't struggling before. But I've never met anybody at the low-end of the employment spectrum who the provision actually helped.

The state is supposed to keep these large organizations under control, and the sin is its failure to execute on that portion of its mandate.

[aaomidi]

> The state is supposed to keep these large organizations under control, and the sin is its failure to execute on that portion of its mandate.

I'm not sure what part of US history gave you the impression that this is how our `state`s are defined. But this has very much not been what this country considers it's responsibility, and it probably never will without a massive, multi-decade overhaul or a revolution.

[crocodiletears]

That's not part of our cultural mythology, no.

Though the US government isn't nearly as overbearing as a European state, it's still active in the domain of regulation and the public is generally fine with that.

Thr US government has long-since taken up the mantle of corporate regulation. Its presence is felt in nearly every aspect of our economy. That presence is seemingly just as often the product of corruption as it is altruism, and it's only occasionally competent. But it's there, and no serious political force seems interested in completely removing it. At most the republicans want to reduce it in some capacity, and principled libertarians are a sideshow.