Obamacare impacting more and more businesses

http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?_blg=2&post=fe512da1-cf07-4df5-94cb-2541f5ea4448



The business mentioned at the middle to end of the article will incur 500k more in medical premiums if it has to insure the additional workers required under Obamacare (those at 30 hours per week) and that will make a majority (10 of 18) of his stores unprofitable.



From the article:

But the Affordable Care Act considers an employee working 30 or more hours a week a "full-time equivalent." Restaurants will have to insure them or pay them more so they can buy their own health insurance.

For Hodges, that means 150 more employees will be considered full time. And that's a huge new expense for his business. He told the Huffington Post that those 150 employees would add some $500,000 in premiums, making 10 of his 18 stores unprofitable.

This is a very tight spot to be in. But kudos for Hodges for talking about it rationally and showing exactly what he's dealing with under Obamacare. He's trying to do the right thing by his employees, but he's got a tough road ahead.

"We're not cold people who don't want to insure people," he told the Huffington Post. "It's not a nasty greediness on our part. But if I'm unprofitable I can't go on, I can't exist and I can't employ anyone."

Don't worry... this was designed to fail.

Already, 38 of Hodges' 550 employees receive health care benefits because they are full-time employees. You can only get those benefits after working full-time for six months, and so another eight or nine workers will become eligible next year, the Post reports.

But the Affordable Care Act considers an employee working 30 or more hours a week a "full-time equivalent." Restaurants will have to insure them or pay them more so they can buy their own health insurance.

So this guy is proud he covered only 38 employees out of 550.

It's been for years that if you offer health coverage to anyone in a 50 plus group that 30 hours has been considered full time, this was nothing new with obamacare. That is also an average hour over a 52 week period. If he is covering only 38 I would think that the other 512 employees hours vary from week to week and that is why he does not cover them. Plus a high turnover rate in the restaurant business.

heh

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?_blg=2&post=fe512da1-cf07-4df5-94cb-2541f5ea4448



The business mentioned at the middle to end of the article will incur 500k more in medical premiums if it has to insure the additional workers required under Obamacare (those at 30 hours per week) and that will make a majority (10 of 18) of his stores unprofitable.



From the article:

But the Affordable Care Act considers an employee working 30 or more hours a week a "full-time equivalent." Restaurants will have to insure them or pay them more so they can buy their own health insurance.

For Hodges, that means 150 more employees will be considered full time. And that's a huge new expense for his business. He told the Huffington Post that those 150 employees would add some $500,000 in premiums, making 10 of his 18 stores unprofitable.

This is a very tight spot to be in. But kudos for Hodges for talking about it rationally and showing exactly what he's dealing with under Obamacare. He's trying to do the right thing by his employees, but he's got a tough road ahead.

"We're not cold people who don't want to insure people," he told the Huffington Post. "It's not a nasty greediness on our part. But if I'm unprofitable I can't go on, I can't exist and I can't employ anyone."

This guy is a liar and greedy and who the law was designed for. These are the kind of people I like to hear about having to insure people he should have insured.

You surely hate facts from people who are actually running businesses. More evidence of HATE from the left.

No hate at all.Businesses have been getting away for years not providing insurance and their time is up.

Dreamsglore wrote:No hate at all.Businesses have been getting away for years not providing insurance and their time is up.

There is nothing that says businesses are required to do so gumby. Businesses exist not for people to have jobs, but to make the owners ( the risk takers) a profit. That is why insurance was considered a "fringe benefit."

Hmmm...

The most vocal wingnut opposing Obamacare has threatened the consumers w/ higher prices and his employees with layoffs, etc.

Maybe they can get a job giving tours of his McMansion, or scrubbing the floors of his 22 car garage, or stocking the 6,000 sqf Guest House with towels and pillow mints.

http://homesoftherich.net/2008/12/the-house-that-papa-johns-built/


But wait...there's more...

Like the snake in the grass he is, PJ is now walking back his reported remarks as just a huge misinterpretation of his bloviating and bluster. Apparently he is only too happy to provide that health care he has denied his employees long enough to build his fiefdom.

Isn't it odd that it was misunderstood long enough for several national boycotts to affect his pie in the face bid'nes...?

Why would a savvy dude like PJ allow this unjust misunderstood situation to escalate w/out correcting the public's perception that he is a greedy SOB w/ little to no regard for his serfs...? Was there a cover-up...? What is he hiding...?

I DEMAND an investigation into the erroneous public statements. Perhaps McCain and Graham would like to call him in for a light grilling, hold the onions please...they give me the wind something awful.

If he wasn't the CEO he would fire himself for incompetence.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:No hate at all.Businesses have been getting away for years not providing insurance and their time is up.

There is nothing that says businesses are required to do so gumby. Businesses exist not for people to have jobs, but to make the owners ( the risk takers) a profit. That is why insurance was considered a "fringe benefit."

Oh yes,they are required.It's called Obamacare,Dolt!

grimreaper1910 wrote:Already, 38 of Hodges' 550 employees receive health care benefits because they are full-time employees. You can only get those benefits after working full-time for six months, and so another eight or nine workers will become eligible next year, the Post reports.

But the Affordable Care Act considers an employee working 30 or more hours a week a "full-time equivalent." Restaurants will have to insure them or pay them more so they can buy their own health insurance.

So this guy is proud he covered only 38 employees out of 550.

It's been for years that if you offer health coverage to anyone in a 50 plus group that 30 hours has been considered full time, this was nothing new with ObamaCare. That is also an average hour over a 52 week period. If he is covering only 38 I would think that the other 512 employees hours vary from week to week and that is why he does not cover them. Plus a high turnover rate in the restaurant business.

Why does anyone think their employer is responsible for the payment of their health insurance? If that's so, then shouldn't the employer also be responsible for the employees mortgage payment?

Dreamsglore wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:No hate at all.Businesses have been getting away for years not providing insurance and their time is up.

There is nothing that says businesses are required to do so gumby. Businesses exist not for people to have jobs, but to make the owners ( the risk takers) a profit. That is why insurance was considered a "fringe benefit."

Oh yes,they are required.It's called Obamacare,Dolt!

Not if he reduces all of their hours to under 30 each week. Then he has to do JACK SQUAT, but underemployment is fine with you huh?

Markle wrote:

grimreaper1910 wrote:Already, 38 of Hodges' 550 employees receive health care benefits because they are full-time employees. You can only get those benefits after working full-time for six months, and so another eight or nine workers will become eligible next year, the Post reports.

But the Affordable Care Act considers an employee working 30 or more hours a week a "full-time equivalent." Restaurants will have to insure them or pay them more so they can buy their own health insurance.

So this guy is proud he covered only 38 employees out of 550.

It's been for years that if you offer health coverage to anyone in a 50 plus group that 30 hours has been considered full time, this was nothing new with ObamaCare. That is also an average hour over a 52 week period. If he is covering only 38 I would think that the other 512 employees hours vary from week to week and that is why he does not cover them. Plus a high turnover rate in the restaurant business.

Why does anyone think their employer is responsible for the payment of their health insurance? If that's so, then shouldn't the employer also be responsible for the employees mortgage payment?

Point out to me where I said "Employer was responsible for their payment of healthcare", I never said that, nor implied it.

Dreamsglore wrote:No hate at all.Businesses have been getting away for years not providing insurance and their time is up.

I completely agree, but I'll go farther.

As PKR wrote, this is planned to fail. By the time it fails, many if not most of the people in our country will join the hue and cry for Medicare for All.

PBulldog2 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:No hate at all.Businesses have been getting away for years not providing insurance and their time is up.

I completely agree, but I'll go farther.

As PKR wrote, this is planned to fail. By the time it fails, many if not most of the people in our country will join the hue and cry for Medicare for All.

I'm leaning more towards this conclusions also, it was a plan in the beginning.

Medicare for all is the only solution at affordable premiums. Premiums should be based on age and in 5 year increments, example 20-25 pay $200 per month in premium and it goes up for every 5yr increment until age 60 then starts sliding down to 67 and the premium's in line with Part B premiums of today that would increase 10% per year for the life of the individual. Also the Medicare payroll tax raised to a manageable amount per the income of each individual.

Well I could be wrong, here is a post that just came down.
http://www.lifehealthpro.com/2012/11/30/feds-propose-ppaca-multi-state-plan-regs?eNL=50b8eaf2ca9f80297300017f&utm_source=HCRW&utm_medium=eNL&utm_campaign=LifeHealthPro_eNLs&_LID=99975512

Here's another reg for state's who do not implement an exchange.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-30/insurers-to-pay-fees-in-states-rejecting-health-law

http://news.yahoo.com/brinksmanship-obama-medicaid-expansion-poor-093958134.html

We may never recover from the expansion and overreach of all of the edicts, regulations, mandates, rules, laws... of the last two presidents. We were headed this direction for about a hundred years... but progressivism is completely out of control now. If people think only one party or the other is out of touch with reality... they are indoctrinated and delusional.

Agreed.

But the last article intrigued me, because doctor's and hospitals (probably the not for profits) say the expansion will create jobs and they will profit and especially make up any Medicare cuts they will receive. So if this is true other business will profit. Some states may not have the money to cover their share of medicaid expansion down the road, but there are ways they can add monies to their state budgets without taxing everyone, rather tax only the ones who would choose to participate in any unpopular laws that were enacted, casino's, legalization of marijuana, etc.

Have to add, my money is on Scott to accept, too many non profit hospitals and insurance companies are lobbying him for this.

Yea, the more business open their mouths the less business they do.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/04/papa-johns-applebees-and-others-pay-huge-price-for-anti-obamacare-politicking/

grimreaper1910 wrote:Agreed.

But the last article intrigued me, because doctor's and hospitals (probably the not for profits) say the expansion will create jobs and they will profit and especially make up any Medicare cuts they will receive. So if this is true other business will profit. Some states may not have the money to cover their share of medicaid expansion down the road, but there are ways they can add monies to their state budgets without taxing everyone, rather tax only the ones who would choose to participate in any unpopular laws that were enacted, casino's, legalization of marijuana, etc.

Have to add, my money is on Scott to accept, too many non profit hospitals and insurance companies are lobbying him for this.

please show proof of what you just claimed about hospitals going to create job. lol

orlando is already laying off 3% due to obamacare, and this is just a start.

Id love to see where you get non profits are loving obamacare and will hire.

thanks

It's in the link 5 posts above, read it.

Just doing some searching of the Ft Myers area for hospital jobs, so they're hiring 400 plus workers in your area hospitals. link to the jobs

http://www.indeed.com/q-Hospital-l-Fort-Myers,-FL-jobs.html

60 Minutes Sunday had a piece about hospitals pressuring doctors to admit more patients who come to the ER to boost profits. Some had management software that automatically added a list of tests if the patient was 65 or older. The doctors were protesting because the policy had nothing to do with helping patients get better but only to make more money.

So, a contributing factor to higher and higher medical expenses is over testing and over admitting so the hospitals can make more money. Then they turn around and point to the ACA as the culprit when it turns out, once again, to be the greedy business people jacking up the cost!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57556670/hospitals-the-cost-of-admission/