Research
Print

O'Reilly And The Enduring Threat Of Uncertainty

June 30, 2012 7:00 am ET — 43 Comments

Fox News' Bill O'Reilly is still blaming health care reform legislation for "uncertainty" that he warned is harming jobs growth - even after the Supreme Court issued a final ruling that the law is constitutional. Economists and small business owners have said that lack of demand, not uncertainty, has held back jobs growth.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

O'Reilly On Supreme Court's Health Care Ruling: "Uncertainty" For Businesses "Continues"

O'Reilly On Supreme Court's Health Care Ruling: "The Uncertainty Continues, The Hiring Is Going To Be Blunted." Calling in to his Fox News show, which was being guest-hosted by Laura Ingraham, to discuss the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act, Bill O'Reilly said: "[F]or business, it's bad. Because the uncertainty continues, the hiring is going to be blunted, and the economy is going to be harmed." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 6/28/12]

But The Ruling Settled Much Of The Alleged Uncertainty For Businesses Over The Health Care Law

EPI: Health Care Ruling "Gives Clarity And Certainty" To Businesses. Elise Gould, economist and director of health policy research at the Economic Policy Institute, wrote that the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the health care law is "important because it gives clarity and certainty to states and private industry that they should start preparing for the main provision to kick in in 2014. It resolves any uncertainty that was felt throughout the country by the important players, and now provides the necessary push for its implementation." [Economic Policy Institute, Working Economics, 6/28/12]

Economist: As A Result Of Health Care Ruling, "There Is A Lot More Certainty About What The Rules [For Businesses] Are Going To Be." A June 28 Los Angeles Times article quoted Gerry Wedig, an economist with the University of Rochester's Simon School of Business, as saying that because of the health care ruling, "there is a lot more certainty about what the rules [for businesses] are going to be." From the Los Angeles Times:

To the surprise of many economists, Thursday's Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act doesn't further confuse what's going to happen next. That clarity might help businesses finally make some personnel and other moves, giving the economy a much-needed kick and President Obama one more thing to brag about, economists say.

"There is a perspective on the economy which is argued that laws of regulation have imposed a lot of uncertainty on businesses," said Gerry Wedig, an economist with the University of Rochester's Simon School of Business. "Now, there is a lot more certainty about what the rules are going to be. That might allow firms to move forward with their plans." [Los Angeles Times, 6/28/12]

Wall Street Journal: "Health Law Ruling Removes One Economic Uncertainty." A June 28 post on the Wall Street Journal's Real Time Economics blog titled "Health Law Ruling Removes One Economic Uncertainty" reported that the health care ruling "diminishes an important piece of uncertainty from the business landscape which could has been impeding business hiring or investing." From The Wall Street Journal:

Business executives might not like the health-care law, but at least they now know that they've got to live with it.

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold President Barack Obama's signature piece of legislation has one clear upside: It diminishes an important piece of uncertainty from the business landscape which could has been impeding business hiring or investing. Love it or hate it, it is now clearly the law of the land. [The Wall Street Journal, Real Time Economics, 6/28/12]

Boston Globe: Ruling "Provided" Businesses "A Measure Of Clarity In Their Health Care Calculations." On June 28, The Boston Globe reported that the health care ruling "provided" businesses "a measure of clarity in their health care calculations," citing medical device industry leaders. From The Boston Globe:

Businesses hate uncertainty. So many were heartened that the Supreme Court ruling Thursday, largely upholding the national health care law, provided a measure of clarity in their health care calculations -- though aspects of the clearer picture weren't entirely welcomed.

[...]

Overall, many said greater certainty makes it easier for them to move forward.

"I think it's good news for the biotech industry," said Richard Pops, chief executive of biotechnology company Alkermes Inc. in Waltham. "This was a highly engineered and negotiated law. If it had been struck down in whole or in part, it would have created a lot of uncertainty."

"Some employers were thinking, this whole thing could go down, we're not doing anything'" to comply with the law's requirements, said Alden Bianchi, a partner specializing in employee benefits at Boston law firm Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo. "Now it's full speed ahead. This is the law, it's constitutional, and it's going to go forward."

[...]

Like others who had supported the 2006 landmark Massachusetts health care law, James Roosevelt Jr., chief executive of Tufts Health Plan in Watertown, said the universal coverage benefits of that law will now be extended to uninsured people nationally.

"I think this was a great victory for the American people," Roosevelt said. "Overall, the Supreme Court has reached a decision that provides certainty for insurers and businesses, and establishes the principle that we're already comfortable with in Massachusetts: that of consumer protection and everyone paying their fair share." [The Boston Globe, 6/28/12]

If Any Uncertainty Remains, It's Because Republicans Are Pursuing Repeal Of Health Care Law

Gingrich Admits GOP Effort To Repeal Health Care Law "Guarantees That The Uncertainty Continues At Least Until November." On June 28, Newsmax reported that former Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich admitted that Republican efforts to repeal the health care reform law "guarantee that the uncertainty continues at least until November":

The Supreme Court ruling in favor of President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul will do little to reduce the uncertainty that is preventing employers filling job openings, former GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich predicted.

Instead that doubt will continue at least until November when voters will decide whether to install a Republican president and Congress that would repeal the law, he said in an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV.

Speaking from Italy, the former House speaker said, "Unless the Congress repeals it, it's going to be law. And unless Obama is defeated for president, it's going to be law.

"So that guarantees that the uncertainty continues at least until November.

"It also means that those businesses that have refused to hire people because of their fear of the cost of the mandates are going to continue to refuse to hire people." [Newsmax, 6/28/12]

CNBC: GOP Vow To Repeal Health Care Reform Continues Uncertainty, May Delay Hiring. From CNBC:

For American businesses, uncertainty over the health care law is anything but over.

When the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare on Thursday-including the individual mandate that forces most Americans to have insurance-it made the issue even more political, promising it ultimately will be decided in the November presidential election.

GOP candidate Mitt Romney vowed again Thursday to repeal the act if elected, while President Obama said he would move forward in implementing it.

That means businesses will have a hard time budgeting for health care costs and are likely to delay hiring even further.

[...]

The Supreme Court decision "increases the likelihood that businesses will continue to hold onto that cash to see how the election turns out," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Potomac Research Group in Washington, D.C. "If Romney wins, he will overturn the Affordable Care Act within days of his inauguration on Jan. 20. Therefore, the reluctance of businesses to spend and hire will persist at least through the election." [CNBC, 6/28/12, via Yahoo! Finance]

AP: Health Industry "Still Face[s] Uncertainty" Because "Republicans Want To Scrap The Law." From the Associated Press:

The Supreme Court's decision Thursday to uphold President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul is expected to benefit nearly every corner of the health care industry by expanding coverage to millions of Americans. But it's not a slam dunk.

[...]

But the health industry -- and company stocks -- still face uncertainty, at least until the November's presidential election. Republicans want to scrap the law. [Associated Press, 6/28/12]

Economists And Small Business Owners Say Weak Demand Is The Main Problem With Jobs Growth

Wall Street Journal: Economists Say "The Main Reason U.S. Companies Are Reluctant To Step Up Hiring Is Scant Demand." The Wall Street Journal reported that according to surveyed economists, "[t]he reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies." From The Wall Street Journal:

The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists in a new Wall Street Journal survey.

"There is no demand," said Paul Ashworth of Capital Economics. "Businesses aren't confident enough, and the longer this goes on the harder it is to convince them that they should be."

In the survey, conducted July 8-13 and released Monday, 53 economists -- not all of whom answer every question -- were asked the main reason employers aren't hiring more readily. Of the 51 who responded to the question, 31 cited lack of demand (65%) and 14 (27%) cited uncertainty about government policy. The others said hiring overseas was more appealing.

Some executives echoed the survey's central finding. [The Wall Street Journal, 7/17/11]

Economist Bruce Bartlett: "It's The Aggregate Demand, Stupid." In a post on the New York Times' Economix blog, former Reagan and George H.W. Bush policy adviser Bruce Bartlett wrote that the "only policy that will really help" stimulate growth and job creation is "an increase in aggregate demand":

Aggregate demand simply means spending -- spending by households, businesses and governments for consumption goods and services or investments in structures, machinery and equipment. At the moment, businesses don't need to invest because their biggest problem is a lack of consumer demand, as a July 21 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York documented.

[...]

The right policy can be debated, but the important thing is for policy makers to stop obsessing about debt and focus instead on raising aggregate demand. As Bill Gross of the investment firm Pimco put it recently: "While our debt crisis is real and promises to grow to Frankenstein proportions in future years, debt is not the disease -- it is a symptom. Lack of aggregate demand or, to put it simply, insufficient consumption and investment is the disease." [The New York Times, Economix, 8/16/11]

Gallup: 71 Percent Of Small Businesses List Demand As Main Reason They're Not Hiring. A Gallup survey of small businesses released on February 15 shows that 71 percent of small businesses that are not looking to hire new employees are holding back on hiring because there isn't enough demand to justify new hires. Dennis Jacobe, Gallup's chief economist, wrote:

Companies typically hold back on hiring when the economy is weak and when their operating environment is not providing sufficient revenues or cash flows. This appears to be the case right now, as the economy has been weak for more than four years.

[Gallup, 2/15/12]

To see more economists and small business owners stating that the main problem with jobs growth is weak demand, click here

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by David2012 (June 30, 2012 7:53 am ET)
      14  
      Still waiting for Bill to apologize for being "an idiot", as he promised.

      Maybe he's forgotten.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by cst (June 30, 2012 8:46 am ET)
        15  
        Idiots do.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by yoiksaway (July 01, 2012 4:27 pm ET)
        1  
        Oh, he didn't forget. He'll just carry the angst inside and seethe; it fuels his fire. He lunches on anger.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (June 30, 2012 8:43 am ET)
      15  
      Why should we allow our system to be control by corporate interests who refuse to do business until the business climate is tailored to their whims?

      If that's what capitalism is, I'm a socialist.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (June 30, 2012 10:51 am ET)
        9  
        No doubt you are, we have an extensive file here at HQ. All that mole people stuff was obviously just a subterfuge to distract from your real mission--to remind us that crony capitalism sucks. That automatically makes someone a fellow traveler!!!!

        Okay--*wink wink*
        Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (June 30, 2012 4:48 pm ET)
          4  
          It's a little known fact that mole people live in an anarcho-syndicalist commune like Dennis the peasant.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Andy Kreiss (June 30, 2012 3:14 pm ET)
        9  
        Wake up, Commie! BilldO is right, "uncertainty" is the main roadblock to the success of my business. I'm selling the best gadget in the world for $69.99 a unit ( additional $29.99 for the extended warranty), and until the checks clear on the first 100,000 advance orders, there's no way I can get around to thinking about inventing my gadget.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (June 30, 2012 5:19 pm ET)
          6  
          Thinking about inventing your gadget?

          You're farther along than me. I'm still in the scheming stage. The result could be a gadget but it's too early to tell. I'm waiting to be paid before I have an idea.

          A lot of people get paid without having to think, why not me?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Bronwyn (June 30, 2012 10:37 pm ET)
          7  
          Just maybe.....you could achieve getting around to thinking about inventing that gadget sooner, if you sold them two for the price of one at $69.99, of course the shipping and handling on the second one would be $69.99, plus an additional $29.99 for it's extended warranty, too.

          When there's a way there's a will.......wahahahahaha
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Unreality (June 30, 2012 11:28 pm ET)
          6  
          Or worse... I'm revising our business plan for a novel medical device that we're licensing from [major] University. My wife yells from the other room, "Come quick, you have to see this."

          It's a TV infomercial for a device with flashing red and blue LEDs you place against your skin to reduce pain in lieu of analgesics.*

          Her next comment is, "Why do you need 7 years for FDA approval of a proven medical benefit, but these guys can sell this thing and make $20 million this year? What are you, stupid?"

          * For those who believe red and blue LEDs actually relieve pain please reply to this post and I'll gladly provide a link where you can safely send your money.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by David2012 (June 30, 2012 10:48 am ET)
      16  
      By the way, and I know this is way, way off topic, except in the Holmesian sense of the dog that didn't bark, as much of the middle of the country is in the midst of an extreme drought and heat wave, has anybody else noticed the dearth of "Hardee Har Har, Al Gore" stories in the media, or on Fox? There's been not a mention of climate change on that network, or for that matter in the media in general, in ages.

      Come on Roger, Bill, Sean, Neil, Stu, Stooges, Neil and all, let's all have a good laugh at Al Gore, shall we?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (June 30, 2012 10:54 am ET)
        11  
        That's only a winter story, when it snows.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (June 30, 2012 12:12 pm ET)
        15  
        There's also no stories about Obama wanting high gas prices since they have dropped almost $1 in the past 6 months.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (June 30, 2012 12:14 pm ET)
        4  
        Well here's a Mobile CEO pontificating directly.

        I'm sure he will be buying some time with our friends shortly.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Andy Kreiss (June 30, 2012 3:08 pm ET)
        13  
        Global Warming Denier Cultist is a seasonal occupation, like department store Santa.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by foole (June 30, 2012 3:42 pm ET)
        6  
        I heard Misinfomin' Fats tell a long, rambling story last August about his taxi driver talking about how hot it was in Boston and how he had thought, "Hot in August...go figure." I've been waiting for him to tell the equivalent story when it snows in February. I suspect I'll be waiting awhile. So, to summarize:
        1. Hot in August - It's supposed to be hot in August!
        2. Snow in February - Climate change is a lie! Suck on that Al Gore!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by David2012 (June 30, 2012 8:14 pm ET)
        5  
        At some point, soon, unless it rains, soon, this is going to become a major topic. The corn crop is being devastated.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Conchobhar (July 01, 2012 2:31 pm ET)
          2  
          The corn crop is being devastated. It's probably already too late. Corn needs a wet spring and relatively dry summer. Here in the Berkshires we had the mildest, driest winter I can recall and my dad's old dictum about corn, "Knee high on the Fourth of July," is a sad joke. Talk shows on WAMC, the NPR affiliate up here, are discussing the long-term environmental damage the strange winter will wreak. I've lost one mature sugar maple (not sure of the cause) and my raspberry bushes are giving very little fruit. This time last year I was getting a cup to a pint a day; now it's maybe 1/2 dozen berries, some delicious, some tasteless.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by David2012 (June 30, 2012 11:41 am ET)
      11  
      Employers are not hiring because there is inadequate demand for their goods and services. It has nothing to do with uncertainty.

      The lack of demand is due in considerable part to the layoffs of public employees and their consequent loss of income. That and the hoarding and accumulation of wealth by the richest among us, that and their ability to buy politicians to attempt to build walls around them and the piles of dough upon which they sit.

      Take heart. It won't, it can't, last forever.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by CAL (June 30, 2012 2:02 pm ET)
        10  
        O'Reilly knows as much about economics as he does the tides. I own several small retail shops. Demand, and nothing else, determines the success of my stores. If a higher percentage of folks feel comfortable spending a little extra disposible income, my stores do well. If the middle class and lower are feeling pinched, my stores struggle. This whole idiotic notion that we have to bend over for corporate America is a hugely flawed crock of dung. Corporate America and business owners like myself are more likely to thrive if economic policy is geared toward easing the financial burdens on those in the middle class and below. Wealth trickles up. Not down.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by danielsangeo (June 30, 2012 2:49 pm ET)
          8  
          Agreed. That's why I don't call businesses "job creators". I call businesses "beneficiaries". They benefit from what we do (working and spending). That's what, in my opinion, these people that scream "socialism" any time there's an attempt to help the working class is what has been harming capitalism.

          And I don't know why these people on the right can't see that they're the biggest threat to capitalism.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Andy Kreiss (June 30, 2012 3:11 pm ET)
          9  
          I'm always amazed at how many of the zombies who call in to righty radio claim to be struggling small business owners, CAL. Most are probably full of sh*t, but if any of them really are running a business, the reason they're struggling is more likely that they're not very good at it, and believe that they should hire people to unload extra money.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by CAL (June 30, 2012 5:29 pm ET)
            10  
            Amazes me as well. Sales volume is the sole determining factor of my hiring practices. If sales volume (demand) dictates, I'll hire sales and/or support staff to accomodate the need. Once again, this tells me small businesses, and owners like myself are more likely to prosper if our economic policy makes effort to ease the pressure on a greater number of people. Trickle up. Not trickle down.

            BTW... Andy Kreiss. I appreciate your input on MMFA. your posts are thought provoking and intelligent.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Andy Kreiss (June 30, 2012 7:09 pm ET)
              8  
              Thanks, Cal, always enjoy yours too, as well as many others who post here. I guess that's why it's one of my favorite sites. Well, the unintentional comedy from the wingnuts keeps me coming back, too, although there don't seem to be many of them around lately.

              I've been in construction most of my life,I've worked for other people, and for myself, and I've never seen a person hired or fired because of a tax cut or hike, or because of "uncertainty" about what was going to happen next year.

              People may drag their feet on projects when the economy's bad, so I guess technically they're "uncertain" about when things are going to turn around, but I never made decisions based on some potential minor change in taxes, codes or regulations.

              I've seen fluctuations in the price of plywood or fuel or concrete that affected profit margins, but they go both ways. Over my life, I've seen a lot of contractors hang it up, or move to another state, blaming taxes, but their competitors stuck it out and succeeded.

              I think most of these things are excuses right wingers use to blame some outside, uncontrollable force for their own failure.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by danielsangeo (June 30, 2012 7:45 pm ET)
                8  
                I've said it before and I'll say it again: The scene in "Little Shop of Horrors" expressed it best when Mushnik was going to close the shop and lay off his two employees because of lack of customers. When they started getting customers, Mushnik not only kept them on but Mushnik was raking in the dough. Before they started getting customers, even if Mushnik's tax rate was cut all the way to 0%, he could not keep his two employees on. After they started getting the influx of customers, he couldn't afford NOT to keep them on. Had the influx continued to grow, he would have to hire more help and expand his business. Even if Mushnik's top marginal tax rate was 70%, he'd still have to hire more people to accommodate the demand.

                I really don't think these "small business owners" that call into these radio shows complaining about taxes are small business owners at all.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Andy Kreiss (July 01, 2012 2:47 am ET)
                  8  
                  Yep, I really don't understand how anybody who has ever worked for a living, let alone run a business, could be a Republican. The whole ideology ( today, anyway) is based on something that doesn't jibe with reality.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by MsYellowDog (July 01, 2012 5:41 pm ET)
                    2  
                    OMG,you said the Magic Word! REALITY. Rethuglicans all live in Backwardistan,where up is down,the Queen plays croquet with flamingo heads,and everyone pretends it's "normal." They also never noticed that Emperor Shrub wasn't wearing any clothes.But they couldn't say anything about it for fear of a smackdown from Ham Rove.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by bilbo_dies (June 30, 2012 7:46 pm ET)
                7  
                Andy, if you can make a living as a contractor, my hats off to you. It is a difficult business where you are dependent on your supply line, and all your sub contractors coming in on time and on price. I've know several otherwise intelligent and hardworking people who couldn't make it as contractors.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Andy Kreiss (July 01, 2012 2:56 am ET)
                  6  
                  I've actually spent a small amount of my life making a living solely contracting for myself. For a lot of people, that's the dream, being the business owner, but I never bought into what is the right wing fantasy nowadays, that you have complete control in that position.

                  You're still dependent on your employees, and the whims of your customers. I truthfully feel more control and independence working for others at times. I still have my own small potatoes thing going, but I've done more work in sort of a consulting mode, and with some union certs I've earned in the last few years as an inspector, than I have with my own business.

                  I'd rather concentrate on my work, and not deal with the headaches of looking over other peoples' work. That's another right wing fantasy, the idea that running a business is freedom, that you get to determine your own destiny in that role.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by n'est-ce pas (July 01, 2012 2:17 pm ET)
                3  
                Like all psychoses, the Platonic nature of free market ideation allows some people to disregard their lyin' eyes in favor of a reality their little authoritarian brains have allowed someone else to construct for them. There's just a certain segment of the population that wants someone else to do their thinking for them, even if it means casting aside their own experience and self-interest.

                Thinking is hard.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 3:23 am ET)
              5  
              Hey, CAL, I have a question:

              Isn't there always "uncertainty" where it comes to running a business?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by CAL (July 01, 2012 11:13 am ET)
                4  
                Absolutely. Our sales are heavily dependent on the holiday season. Every year feels like a roll of the dice, balancing inventory levels with projected sales, hoping in January there is enough to pay vendors and square up credit lines. Leases are another big area of stress and uncertainty. Will they be re-newed? Will rent raise? Will a competitor show up that hurts us, and puts our business off-sides on what is generally a 7 year lease agreement?

                Speaking for my business, I can say emphatically tax rates are not one of the things I stress about, despite being a significant expense. My only concern with regard to taxes is if they are raised to a level that prevents the bulk of my customers, middle cless and lower, from having a little extra disposible income. I support economic and tax policy that encourages the most people to enter my shops. If that means I pay a little more for that to happen, I still come out further ahead.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 11:32 am ET)
                  4  
                  That's what I thought. So, O'Reilly's complaint about the "enduring threat of uncertainty"....

                  ;)
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by MsYellowDog (July 01, 2012 5:44 pm ET)
            2  
            They're in the business of running their computers from their mom's basement.I don't think there's a name for that line of business.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by David2012 (July 01, 2012 10:01 am ET)
        2  
        I believe, truth be told, that most small business owners are Democrats.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by draftedin68 (June 30, 2012 1:31 pm ET)
      5  

      Excuse No. 11...

      BO's just meeting some clause in his contract with Roger Ailes that stipulates that he, BO, along with the other big name on-air bile-spewers, will faithfully repeat whatever horseshcitt Roger Ailes comes up with on certain issues.

      On this issue, the excuses are getting pretty lame, even for Roger Ailes.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by ajohnston (June 30, 2012 5:02 pm ET)
      4 1
      the NHS is great don`t let bill tell you otherwise
      everybody pays whats called "national insurance" of there wages
      employers also pay a contribution and that mean Everybody can get medical care and that means the employers don`t need to worry about separate insurance provide a health care benefits to there employers

      OK its not perfect but i tell you what beats what you guys have

      Any civilized country should provide free health care at the point of use for it`s citizens
      but the fact that you seem to be very litigious when it comes to your health care professionals cant help
      Report Abuse
    • Author by IBmoderate (June 30, 2012 7:06 pm ET)
      5  
      One interesting issue is that BO says the government will be selling insurance and charging you what ever they want. Not quite true. The government won't be selling any insurance period.

      He said the more affluent citizens will have tax increases to help pay for those who can't afford it. I am not sure what he considers affluent but it is over $250k/yr according to the new law.

      Business aren't making decisions on whether or not to hire based on the cost of the health care. They are hiring and firing based on their business, their customers, the demand for their services. As a small business owner, my son says he will be waiting to see the final impact and cost. He really doesn't care at this point. If he needs help he hires, if he has too much help he doesn't hire. Thats the reality.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Chameo (June 30, 2012 10:04 pm ET)
        5  
        Bill apparently doesn't pay attention to the news. "the government selling insurance" was the public option that was either going to drive all the other companies out of business because people would desert their private plans in droves to buy it, or it was going to be so poorly run that it would bankrupt the country because the government can't do anything right.

        For the record, if your son has fewer than 50 (or 100, I forget which it is and I'm too lazy to look it up) employees and decides to provide health insurance for them, he'll have access to health insurance exchanges (once they're operational) where he should be able to get more competitive prices than if he tries to negotiate with insurance companies on his own.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by MsYellowDog (July 01, 2012 5:34 pm ET)
      2  
      What's stopping any of these "business owners" from READING what's in the legislation,and then making decisions based on the results of their INFORMING THEMSELVES ABOUT CURRENT LAWS/EVENTS? All these Rethugs talk as if it's an inscrutable mystery,totally unlike ANY LEGISLATION MADE INTO LAW IN THE PAST,and therefore impossible to deal with. Are they really so stupid? Worse yet,do they take the American public as being so stupid? I think all of us(except the trolls)that post here,know the answer to that one,unfortunately.
      Report Abuse

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.