Today's Paper Latest Elections Coronavirus 🔵 Covid Classroom Cooking Families Core values Story ideas iPad Weather Newsletters Obits Puzzles Archive
story.lead_photo.caption U.S. Rep. Bruce Westerman of Hot Springs said the Save American Workers Act of 2015 would be a boon for employers and employees. (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette / SARAH D. WIRE )

Arkansas' all-Republican U.S. House delegation supported legislation Thursday that would increase how many hours an employee must work before his employer is responsible for providing him health insurance.

This story is only available from the Arkansas Online archives. Stories can be purchased individually for $2.95. Click here to search for this story in the archives.

Print Headline: State's 4 like 40-hour jobs for coverage


Sponsor Content

Archived Comments

  • cliffcarson
    January 9, 2015 at 7:42 a.m.

    The Republican proposed "Save American Workers Act of 2015" will negate insurance coverage for marginal workers that is now covered in Obamacare, and notice that the Republicans name it as if it would do something for the worker. What the Republican law really would do if passed is take away from workers, insurance coverage from workers who work less than 40 hours a week, something that Obamacare prohibits.
    Well you who voted for the Repubs, who told you they would do things to you, while all you chose to hear is that they would "do things for you", will soon remember the days of Bush - it won't be pretty.
    The age of 1984 has arrived.

  • 3rdWorldState
    January 9, 2015 at 8:38 a.m.

    It would gut the employer mandate, which is a controversial part of the ACA. Employers would only be required to provide health benefits for workers who work 40 hours or more per week. Employers would then be able to give full-time workers 39 hours of work - nearly a full work week that would not hurt employee output - and avoid providing health insurance to the employee, which is required under the ACA. It's much more difficult to cut a full-time worker's hours to 29 hours to avoid providing health care. Moving this to 40 would also cost the US 53 billion over the next 10 years.
    More important, raising the law’s threshold from 30 hours a week to 40 hours would make a shift toward part-time employment much more likely — not less so. That’s because only a small share of workers today — 7 percent — work 30 to 34 hours a week and thus are most at risk of having their hours cut below health reform’s threshold. In comparison, 44 percent of employees work 40 hours a week, and another several percent work 41 to 44 hours a week. Thus, raising the threshold to 40 hours would place many more workers at risk of having their hours reduced. In short, it’s the present legislation, not health reform, that threatens the traditional 40-hour work week the legislation’s sponsors say they want to protect.
    I thought the GOP was concerned about people losing their insurance coverage? They've been screaming non stop about it.

  • cliffcarson
    January 9, 2015 at 9:35 a.m.

    Yes 3WS

    The Republicans baffle the non elite with Doublespeak but the Rich and Powerful know who butters their bread.

    All they need the average Joe for is his vote. And buzz words like Patriot, Liberal, communist, Socialist, and freeloader can be sold to Average Joe by the men with forked tongue, as Patriot Christian speak.

    I believe this last election proves it.

    In Animal Farm the farm animals chose the pigs as their representative to protect their rights with the farmers then found out that they couldn't discern the difference between the pigs and the men.

    Poor Republicans - and there are many - voted for the Elite Republicans song of good times are coming if you just vote out those Liberal, communist, Socialist, and freeloaders, and are going to quickly find out that they can't discern the pigs from the owners.

  • cliffcarson
    January 9, 2015 at 10:15 a.m.

    The House on Tuesday passed legislation laying out parliamentary rules for the year. The bill included a little-noticed provision blocking Congress from shifting funds to prevent a 2016 shortfall in Social Security's disability insurance program.
    "The Social Security Administration's actuaries have projected that the disability insurance program's trust fund will run out of money next year, resulting in a 20 percent benefit reduction for nearly 11 million Americans."
    Such shifting funds (re-allocations) are part of the normal course of administering the Social Security Trust fund and have occurred 11 times since 1968. There is nothing "unusual" about the reallocation procedure.

    What is unusual is a Congress occupied by fanatics who couldn't care less about the needs of ordinary Americans:
    Reallocating the income, however, would keep both the old-age and disability programs solvent until at least 2033, giving Congress plenty of time to assess the programs' needs and work out a long-term fix."
    And don't forget that the U S Government has "borrowed" over $5 Trillion dollars from SS collections in the last few decades - which if repaid per law, would fund SS shortfalls well into the 2100's.

    Didn't the Republican s tell you they were going to do this before you voted for them?

  • Goad
    January 9, 2015 at 10:48 a.m.

    Another reason to extend Medicare to everyone. Health care is to important "for profit". Saving from the fragmented system would pay for increased coverage and reduce the deficit. Please don't give me the argument about decline in quality. Just compare our for profit system to other countries health numbers. We lag yet spend two and three times GDP on healthcare.

  • Slak
    January 9, 2015 at 11:22 a.m.

    Here is an article by a liberal NBC correspondent living in London who compares British and American healthcare systems. She tries as hard as she can to spin the tale for the socialized medicine side, but the truth she has to reveal cannot be overcome by spin.
    h ttp://w ww.nbcnews.c om/id/26794291/ns/health-health_care/t/tale-sickbeds-health-care-uk-vs-us/#.VLANhXk5DnM
    There are dozens of studies which knock the quality of socialized medicine in comparison to free market medicine, but I thought an article from a liberal would be more palatable to you proglibs.

  • Packman
    January 9, 2015 at 11:26 a.m.

    Elections have consequences. Roll on, Republicans, roll on!
    Hey cliff - Yep, surfer dude is mad as all get out over this. Now, he can't suck at the government teat quite so much as he pursues his dreams of being a professional surfer dude. Slackers, deadbeats, and liberals from coast to coast are spewing lattes in all directions at the thoughts of an honest week's work. The era of personal responsibility hopefully has arrived, but don't say that out loud. Surfer dude might hear you and say a bad word.

  • 3rdWorldState
    January 9, 2015 at 12:50 p.m.

    One of the main pillars of the ACA is personal responsibility. All the loser Repugs want to save their 345$ a month on their paycheck and have us hard working Americans pay for their health insurance. Meanwhile they are eating gravy and bacon (mmm gravy and bacon) every day, then have a massive stroke at 56, that we pay through the nose for and then their disability check for the next 20 years.
    It's funny, the people that benefit the most from the ACA - the repugs vote against their best interest and the dems don't vote at all. Both losers.

  • carpenterretired
    January 9, 2015 at 1:05 p.m.

    Looks like these four Bozos are staying true to the GOPs Holy Grail of taking health care away from those unlucky enough to not have sufficient wealth to not need health insurance. With this vote they would enable employers to avoid providing health care coverage by sending their employees home a half hour early on Friday and there fore lowering the work week to 39 and a half hours or part time. Stipulate that this would be fair for people to lose health care coverage by being cut back to 39and one half hours who voted GOP and for these four horse men who are riding about DC with sickness and death for the poor and working people. Perhaps they will also ride with young Tom for war and famine. Now they have theirs but the odds are that they have relatives or fellow church members that have had or will have the bad luck to need the social safety net . Now these guys will claim to be Christians yet they seem to have a hardness of heart and mean spirited need to take health care away from the least among us.

  • nwar
    January 9, 2015 at 1:46 p.m.

    It's sure hard to see this as pro-worker in any way shape or form. Let's see, I only let you work 29 hour a week now so I don't have to buy you insurance. Congratulations, you can now work 39 hours a week and I still don't have to buy you insurance. Or guess what, you used to work 40 hours a week and I bought you insurance. Now you get to work 39 hours a week and I can pay you less and take away your insurance too! Oh, and I have shortened your lunch hour to make up for this. Yipee! Another blow to the middle class.