Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

still_one

(98,883 posts)

5. The assumption was that it would remove the ACA requirement that

Reply to mobeau69 (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 23, 2017, 02:30 PM

Mar 2017

companies over a certain number of employees would not have to offer health insurance, and that would be good for business

It is a BS argument. Companies that offer their employees better benefits, have better productivity, and loyalty

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Stocks give back most gains after Paul Ryan delays news conference [View all] mobeau69 Mar 2017 OP

gee, you mean Wall Street was hoping the bill would pass so more people would still_one Mar 2017 #1

No, but corporate America was/is. mobeau69 Mar 2017 #2

The assumption was that it would remove the ACA requirement that still_one Mar 2017 #5

Wall Street is salivating over the massive tax cuts to the wealthy When the ACA is gone. displacedtexan Mar 2017 #3

That is a big factor still_one Mar 2017 #6

You realize that a lot of equities are held by institutional investors...like Unions? brooklynite Mar 2017 #4

I realize that, and I realize also that most of the health insurers are not for still_one Mar 2017 #7