Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
a reduction in pay to 28 hours, means they get to have 2 part time jobs, meaning they will now work 56 hours to earn what they did in 40, and Obama gets to take credit for creating 1 more job.
Applebee's International Inc. APPB.O on Wednesday reported lower quarterly earnings due to weak sales at its chain of bar-and-grill restaurants and costs for closing poorly performing outlets and evaluating strategic alternatives for its business.
First-quarter net income was $9.5 million, or 13 cents per share, compared with $27.2 million, or 36 cents per share, a year ago.
I think my thread title sums it up. I really don't have sympathy for these people (the bosses using increasing costs as an excuse, not the employees). If you're laying people off because of who won an election, you're not the kind of employer most people want to work for anyway.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,477,888 times
Reputation: 6671
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
That's only a small fraction of what Obamacare will cost employers.
Imagine you're an employer providing healthcare "insurance" to your employees and you suddenly have to pay for your employee's children up to 26. Then you have yearly limits removed and your "insurance" provider has to cover all per-exisiting conditions. Then you have lifetime limits removed.
You think all that is going to cost less to employees and employers?
Some of the industries where profit margins are very high might be able to suck up those cost but to companies where profit margins are 5 -10% are going to have a hard time justifying keeping employees on the payroll so that they can just break even or make instead 1% of profit.
The best case scenario is employers will find ways to keep their employees but will find a way so that they don't have to absorb the cost of having to "insure" that employee.
Regardless of what some of you think, businesses aren't created to make friends, employ people or to subsidize your lifestyle.
Read the links (or show some proof)...
"However, the minimum amount per family is capped at triple the per-person tax, no matter how many individuals are in the taxpayer’s household."
And BTW, you know nothing about my lifestyle. Although suffice to say its one where sneering whenever folks disagree, is considered rude and frankly, not too bright. Then again, conservative folks seem to think even rape is "understandable", so reflex hostility towards total strangers is probably no big thang...
Read the links (or show some proof)...
"However, the minimum amount per family is capped at triple the per-person tax, no matter how many individuals are in the taxpayer’s household."
So now you're trying to say that adding people to the "insured" pool along with removing checks and balances on how much that pool is going to cost is going to result in less spending?
You do understand the consequences of removing yearly and lifetime limits don't you? That alone will increase the overall cost substantially.
But of course no one can say exactly how much it will cost because the H&HS is cranking out regulation after regulation and there appears to be no end for the foreseeable future...
Paul Howard, PhD, Director and Senior Fellow at the Center for Medical Progress of Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, stated in his Aug. 1, 2012 article "Making Health Care Worse," available at National Review Online
"Health-insurance costs have already risen significantly since the passage of Obamacare, albeit at a slower rate than before, owing to a stagnant economy. Since the law imposes heavy costs on the insurance industry — through taxes and onerous regulations that force insurance companies to spend more on health expenses — insurance premiums will likely continue to rise.”
Quote:
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, PhD, President of the American Action Forum, wrote in his Mar. 9, 2011 paper "Higher Costs and the Affordable Care Act," available at American Action Forum
"Objective analysts have uniformly concluded that the new law raises – not lowers – national health-care spending. The rising bill for national health care spending will produce sustained upward pressures on health insurance premiums.
In addition, the law's array of insurance market reforms will increase premiums. Barring limits on annual and lifetime out-of-pocket spending, coverage of children's pre-existing conditions and the ability for children to stay on parents' policies are all initiatives that enhance benefits. These benefits must necessarily be covered by higher premiums."
Quote:
Chris Carlson, Fellow of the Society of Actuaries and Actuarial Principal at the consulting firm Oliver Wyman, wrote in his Oct. 31, 2011 report "Estimated Premium Impacts of Annual Fees Assessed on Health Insurance Plans," available at AHIP Coverage
"Our analysis estimates that the insurer fees [under Obamacare] will increase premiums in fully insured coverage markets by an average of 1.9% to 2.3% in 2014. The impacts generally increase over time such that we estimate by 2023, the fees will ultimately increase premiums by an average of 2.8% to 3.7%. For small group coverage, this will on average increase the cost to cover an individual by about $2,800, and a family by about $6,800 over a 10-year period, beginning in 2014."
"…[R]egardless of how you feel about the Affordable Care Act, its effect on premiums this year is modest. Most of the law's provisions don't go into effect until 2014. The two biggest changes this year allow young adults up to age 26 to stay on their parents' insurance policies and require some insurance plans to cover preventive services at no cost to patients. These are popular provisions that provide real benefits, and combined they account for about one to two percentage points of this year's premium increase."
Quote:
Originally Posted by mateo45
And BTW, you know nothing about my lifestyle. Although suffice to say its one where sneering whenever folks disagree, is considered rude and frankly, not too bright. Then again, conservative folks seem to think even rape is "understandable", so reflex hostility towards total strangers is probably no big thang...
Nice straw man you fluffed up there...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
