|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,566
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,566 |
Quote:
My girlfriend had her hours cut to under 30 at the country club she works at as the concierge/marketing assistant because of this disaster. The plan sucks and it is going to pull us into the sinkhole faster. What in the previous 4 years makes you think these to sides can work together? The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over, getting the same results....
I'm awfully sorry to hear about your girlfriend, but the part of Obamacare that requires employers to provide insurance hasn't even kicked in yet. So I have doubts that her hours were cut because of that. That may be the reason they are giving her, but why would they do that now.
As for why I think these TWO sides can work together, it's fairly simple, they don't have a choice. I mean, they'll act as if they do but they don't.
There are compromises to be had. they just have to quit listening to the extremes of their respective parties and get down to doing the work we hired them to do.
Pessimistically speaking, I'd say,, that's not easy.
But,, hey, I'm an optimist. I think they can get it done.
But we'll hear the normal hissy fits thrown by various politicians. they'll cry over a tax hike or a tax cut, yet every damn one of them let this come to this point. So I honestly don't believe they have a choice.
I was listening to the Today program today,, Newt Gingrich was on promoting his new book on George Washington (actually sounds interesting by the way)
Two things he said that tells me that the republicans recognize something is wrong with the way they have approached issues.
1. The republican party was actually shocked that Obama won
2. Gingrich said that if you would have told him that Romney would have had less votes then McCain, he'd have not believed it.
So I honestly think there is some soul searching going on and I think they'll move more towards the center.
As for Obama moving more towards the center,, it's simple, he can now because he can't run for office again. before this election, he couldn't let the republicans win any points.. now he can.
That's why I think they can and will sort this out.
You asked and I answered,,, didn't say you would like it.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,960 |
Quote:
I'm awfully sorry to hear about your girlfriend, but the part of Obamacare that requires employers to provide insurance hasn't even kicked in yet. So I have doubts that her hours were cut because of that.
I'm not so sure about that. My wife got a letter from her company stating flat out "the employee contribution WILL be going up this year." (much more than in previous years) That's for the employees. The family contribution (money paid by employee to cover family members) will increase even more.
They listed a few reasons for this - and interestingly, 2 of the reasons were: No lifetime cap, and being on the hook for covering children til possibly until age 26.
Like it or not, even without all of the mandates kicking in yet, costs are going up...........and who pays them?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,449
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,449 |
Quote:
Quote:
I don't know too many pizza places that employee many full-time people to begin with.
That's why I don't understand his comments at all on that part of it.
I mean you may have a manager and a couple of asst. managers as full time employees. But you would have to own a lot of Pappa Johns franchises to have 50 full time employees.
And for you to be required to have health insurance or Obamacare, 50 full time employees are the minimum requirement.
I think in this case, it's much a do about nothing.....
Probably is a case of mountains being made out of molehills. I guess it would all depend upon the wording of the law - like, is it possible that they have somehow managed to apply the requirement to franchises? It would make sense that they'd try as the vast majority of the uninsured that this was marketed as helping would be hourly 'fast food/minimum wage' workers.
Then there is the part where one parent holding company that owns 'n' number of franchises could be required to offer it.
In any case - two things are certain: business will adapt their staffing to avoid as much of this as possible, and any costs incurred WILL be passed on to the consumers.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
I'm awfully sorry to hear about your girlfriend, but the part of Obamacare that requires employers to provide insurance hasn't even kicked in yet. So I have doubts that her hours were cut because of that. That may be the reason they are giving her, but why would they do that now.
To prepare for the future? You own a business, and I'm sure you don't only think about tomorrow, but what the future also holds. I know I certainly do with mine. Their small operation of a CC is not the first business to state this or do something about it. I seem to recall Red Lobster doing the same thing recently.
Quote:
As for why I think these TWO sides can work together, it's fairly simple, they don't have a choice. I mean, they'll act as if they do but they don't.
There are compromises to be had. they just have to quit listening to the extremes of their respective parties and get down to doing the work we hired them to do.
Pessimistically speaking, I'd say,, that's not easy.
But,, hey, I'm an optimist. I think they can get it done.
But we'll hear the normal hissy fits thrown by various politicians. they'll cry over a tax hike or a tax cut, yet every damn one of them let this come to this point. So I honestly don't believe they have a choice.
I was listening to the Today program today,, Newt Gingrich was on promoting his new book on George Washington (actually sounds interesting by the way)
Two things he said that tells me that the republicans recognize something is wrong with the way they have approached issues.
1. The republican party was actually shocked that Obama won
2. Gingrich said that if you would have told him that Romney would have had less votes then McCain, he'd have not believed it.
So I honestly think there is some soul searching going on and I think they'll move more towards the center.
As for Obama moving more towards the center,, it's simple, he can now because he can't run for office again. before this election, he couldn't let the republicans win any points.. now he can.
That's why I think they can and will sort this out.
You asked and I answered,,, didn't say you would like it.
I hope you are correct. I just don't see either side compromising. Nothing to do with the government has shown us they are capable of this in years.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,061
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,061 |
Man ..... my brain is completely gone. Per week ..... not per month on the sales end. The profit numbers per month are close to accurate though. I knew that the sales to profit ratio didn't seem right when I wrote it ..... I knew that a 20% profit ratio was not right. I knew about what we were making in overall profit and tried to push it into my mistaken numbers. This is what happens when I write stuff from memory with my brain turned off sometimes.  *Sigh* My brain is gone. Regardless, we had stores doing in the $45,000 sales range per week making $9000-$10,000 or so profit for the month. We ran about 27% food cost, about 35% labor, including salaried management and payroll taxes, (higher volume stores had more salaried management than lower volume stores) 2% paper cost, 3% supply cost, and 1.5% cleaning supply cost. (if memory serves, but I believe those are close to accurate) Then we had utilities (which really freaked me out, especially the first time I saw the number for the gas bill) franchise fee (which was around 3.5% IIRC) somewhere around 3% for advertising, then rent/mortgage, office costs, workman's comp charges, building and equipment maintenance, and so on. I actually did manage a pizza store for a major pizza delivery company that did less than $3000 per week when I took it over many, many years ago. I went from the Kent State store, that was one of the busiest in the company, to this other store that was just horrific. We were open from 4PM - 1 AM, and my first day there we sold something like 10 pizzas the whole night. I had one driver scheduled, and asked why I only had one driver. lol I found out. We did get that store up to the average for the area, which was around $7000/week (this was in the mid 80s) but it was real culture shock at first. Anyway, I need to stop posting numbers like this when my back is absolutely killing me. I always make mistakes when I do.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
I'm awfully sorry to hear about your girlfriend, but the part of Obamacare that requires employers to provide insurance hasn't even kicked in yet. So I have doubts that her hours were cut because of that.
I'm not so sure about that. My wife got a letter from her company stating flat out "the employee contribution WILL be going up this year." (much more than in previous years) That's for the employees. The family contribution (money paid by employee to cover family members) will increase even more.
They listed a few reasons for this - and interestingly, 2 of the reasons were: No lifetime cap, and being on the hook for covering children til possibly until age 26.
Like it or not, even without all of the mandates kicking in yet, costs are going up...........and who pays them?
Our was just renewed and my portion of the premium went up only about $10/wk and but so did the deductable, I presume to help offset the change.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,566
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,566 |
Quote:
Quote:
I'm awfully sorry to hear about your girlfriend, but the part of Obamacare that requires employers to provide insurance hasn't even kicked in yet. So I have doubts that her hours were cut because of that.
I'm not so sure about that. My wife got a letter from her company stating flat out "the employee contribution WILL be going up this year." (much more than in previous years) That's for the employees. The family contribution (money paid by employee to cover family members) will increase even more.
They listed a few reasons for this - and interestingly, 2 of the reasons were: No lifetime cap, and being on the hook for covering children til possibly until age 26.
Like it or not, even without all of the mandates kicking in yet, costs are going up...........and who pays them?
First, there hasn't been a year in the last 20 that I can remember when costs haven't risen.. the amount of the rise is the question of course.
I believe what your saying, my wife, if she remains with her company, will probably get told the same thing.
But, the rates aren't going up significantly, they are raising them to prepare and build a war chest for when they do rise a bunch. I can understand that thinking.
Most insurance carriers have a minimum amount that the employer has to cover, in the past it's been only 25%. I'm old enough to remember when the employer paid the entire amount for health coverage. And the plans were amazingly good.
It's funny, the only parts of Obamacare that I like are being able to carry your children until 26 (although that one doesn't effect me at all) and the elimination of Pre-Existing conditions. (that one has a direct effect on my ability to even get insurance so it's VERY important to me personally)
The answer to all of this is so simple,, it's right there in front of us.
The Federal Government has a Procurement office right? They are supposed to know how to send out RFP or RFQ's whatever they want to call them.
OK,, so the federal procument office sends out an RFQ to all major insurance carriers to obtain group rate healthcare coverage for anyone that wants to use the program.
The cost to the government is only in the procurement phase. Once the procurment office selects several carriers, it informs those that have entered the group and then they can buy insurance under a group plan with no participation (cost wise) from the government.
This basically means that me an individual can get group rates, also a guy that runs a company with let's say 10 employees, can get better group rates than he can on his own.
Cost to the government is probably a couple of Million. Not billions and certainly not trillions.
And it allows for the free market to dictate rates and coverages in a highly competitive environment. Talk about "the American way"
I gotta pay for insurance anyway, so I'd be more than happy to pay for it through this method. Whatever gets me the biggest bang for my buck is fine by me.
They can deduct it directly from my bank account. Boom, done.
The other method that would have worked is, allow anyone to buy into Medicare.
I'd take medicare right now and pay a premium and for the additional coverage, I'd like to be allowed to get a supplimental plan.. that would be terrific.
That would work for me also.
it wouldn't hurt the country or it's tax payers any at all.
And we wouldn't need all the bull that comes with Obamacare.
My point is, there were ways to do this without wrecking the country. And the Dems didn't do that.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 80,719
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 80,719 |
Quote:
I guess it would all depend upon the wording of the law - like, is it possible that they have somehow managed to apply the requirement to franchises? It would make sense that they'd try as the vast majority of the uninsured that this was marketed as helping would be hourly 'fast food/minimum wage' workers.
As of now, unless you have 50 full time workers, you are not required to have health care for your employees. So unless some sweeping change is made in the laws, unless someone owns several such franchises, the law doesn't apply to them.
From my understanding, the reason the number was set at 50, was so that small businesses starting out, would not be burdened by the health care law.
Quote:
Then there is the part where one parent holding company that owns 'n' number of franchises could be required to offer it.
Yes I believe if the parent company owned enough franchises that it had more than 50 full time employees thay would be required to offer health care.
Quote:
In any case - two things are certain: business will adapt their staffing to avoid as much of this as possible, and any costs incurred WILL be passed on to the consumers.
I do agree that unless someone wishes to grow their company into a larger business, this will be the case. And that would be solely based on their long term aspirations and goals for their company.
And in the end, it's my belief that the consumer for the large part is already paying for it any way you slice it.
As we saw in another thread, many uninsured poor people as of now, enter the hospital and use emergency rooms for basic health care. An emergency room visit or any hospital stay is an astronomical cost.
This cost is passed on to everyone eldse that has health care insurance. It helps drive up the cost of every health service recieved in hospitals because as you have stated, "any cost incurred is passed on to consumers".
So as of now, businesses that do have health insurance are footing the bill for the uninsured through much higher premiums. Those who do have health care are paying for it through increasing deductibles and co-pays. And in many cases, ever increasing higher rates they must pay.
IMO- As of now, those who have health care and employers who provide health care are being singled out as the sector of our society that is footing the bill for the uninsured.
If and when far more people have health care, less people will be have the need to use the ER, which is the costliest single way to recieve healthcare.
Any way you slice it, consumers are paying for the uninsured now. Much like it was when auto insurance wasn't mandated. Everyone who drove a car and was insured shared the brunt of paying for the uninsured.
To me, this is more a question of semantics. The question becomes do we pay a little more for goods and services? Or do we see healthcare costs go up 131% over yet another decade?
Either way, we pay for it. It's more a question of which form we use to pay for it.
Much like with school tax levies. I think it's quite unfair to try to pass a school levy that is paid for with increased property taxes. This puts the burden of such a levy on a much smaller percentage of those in a school district. Homeowners must pay for the entire district. To me that's quite unfair.
However, if you propose a levy that calls for an increase in sales tax to pay for that levy, I'm far more inclined to consider voting for it. This helps spread the cost of the levy out to every consumer in that district.
To me, this is much like health care laws. As of now, a much smaller percentage of people are paying for the uninsured. I'm far more inclined to pay a little more for goods and services so the cost of healthcare is absorbed to everyone, than to see a situation where only those who have healthcare and empoyers who offer healthcare are shouldering all of the burden.
So it's not a question of if it's paid for, because it already is being paid for. It's more a question of how we pay for it IMO
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,449
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,449 |
Quote:
As of now, unless you have 50 full time workers, you are not required to have health care for your employees. So unless some sweeping change is made in the laws, unless someone owns several such franchises, the law doesn't apply to them.
From my understanding, the reason the number was set at 50, was so that small businesses starting out, would not be burdened by the health care law.
What I was trying to say, but apparently not doing a good job of it, is just how do they define "company/business" for the purpose of the count?
Do they look at all of Papa John's, all franchises included, and call it one business and apply the requirement to all franchises down the line, or does each franchise get treated independently, or, is it based simply off of whether or not you have a unique Taxpayer ID? So, if anyone has the precise wording for how they determine what defines the entity that has a minimum of 50 employees, that'd be great to see.
I see one scenario as a means that they could catch all fast food and minimum wage jobs under one umbrella rather easily, thus vastly increasing the scope of things, but the other being the traditional means for applying law. Given how much they have bent things to get this to fit as it is, neither one would surprise me.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
If and when far more people have health care, less people will be have the need to use the ER, which is the costliest single way to recieve healthcare.
How do you come to this conclussion? And this is not a sarcastic question I'm truly asking because I don't see that as the outcome.
As it is now, unless I'm on my deathbed I can't get to see my doctor in less than a week if I call for an appt. So I don't see how having healthcare will stop many of these folks from going to the ER, they will just feel more entitled because now they are "insured".
I'm sure it may cut some as I'm confident there are some legitimate ER visits that are the result of having no other option, and if given one they will see a physician, but I don't think it will be as much as we would like.
Last edited by FloridaFan; 11/13/12 03:57 PM.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 80,719
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 80,719 |
I guess that would be a possibility. But it would seem as though with these franchises being owned by seperate individuals, that would be quite a reach for them to attempt.
As I said, from my understanding, the reason for requiring 50 full time employees is to not burden very small business owners with such health care costs.
If it turns out your scenario plays out as you have described, that would fly in the face of everything that has been claimed in that regard to this point.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 80,719
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 80,719 |
Quote:
How do you come to this conclussion? And this is not a sarcastic question I'm truly asking because I don't see that as the outcome.
If you have 60% or 70% of the population paying into the healthcare system verses 30% or 40% paying into it, there are far less uninsured in our society and far more people sharing the unpaid bills of the uninsured.
Secondly, the newly insured would then have such options as urgent care facilities available to them which are a fraction of the cost of ER's.
Quote:
I'm sure it may cut some as I'm confident there are some legitimate ER visits that are the result of having no other option, and if given one they will see a physician, but I don't think it will be as much as we would like.
I'm not saying that it would eleiminate the problem. But I do feel people having places like urgent care facilities as an option to an emergency room would reduce the problem a lot.
Even when you look at it from a purely selfish point of view. Waiting time at an urgent care facility would be far less than the waiting time at an ER. ER's take patients on a priority of need basis. So if you are there for something minor, every case that walks through the door that is more severe than you, pushes you back in the time you wait.
While we may disagree, I do see far more people going to an urgent care facility over an ER if they had such an option. And much like you, waiting times for doctors appointments have forced me to go to urgent cares in the past. And they are a fraction of the cost of an ER visit.
I don't see any "perfect plan" out there as an option, however, if a much larger part of society was paying into health care and we could help cut the cost of such fequent visits to ER's, I do believe it would help cut costs and increase those paying into the system. To some degree, that would have to help.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,449
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,449 |
Quote:
I guess that would be a possibility. But it would seem as though with these franchises being owned by seperate individuals, that would be quite a reach for them to attempt.
As I said, from my understanding, the reason for requiring 50 full time employees is to not burden very small business owners with such health care costs.
If it turns out your scenario plays out as you have described, that would fly in the face of everything that has been claimed in that regard to this point.
1. It's just law.... it can be written however they want it to be.
2. lol, it's government.. do you seriously expect it to be as it was sold to everyone? 
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 80,719
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 80,719 |
No I don't expect honesty or candor from any politician or political body.
I'm also not going to make far reaching assumptions on what might or might not be done.
As I stated above,"it is a possibility"
I've also seen people try and use "possibilities" as some measure to try to undermine anything and everything proposed by both parties many times that end up never happening.
So I guess only time will tell.....
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
If you have 60% or 70% of the population paying into the healthcare system verses 30% or 40% paying into it, there are far less uninsured in our society and far more people sharing the unpaid bills of the uninsured.
Where did you get those numbers?
Quote:
49.9 million -- The number of uninsured Americans in 2010. That's 16.3% of the total population.
18.4% -- Percentage of uninsured Americans younger than 65 in 2010.
28.4% -- The percentage of Americans 25 to 34 without insurance.
7.3 million -- The number of children in the United States without health insurance, 9.8% of all children in the country.
15.4% - The percentage of children living in poverty who are also uninsured.
26.9% -- Percentage of people earning less than $25,000 a year who are also uninsured.
256.2 million -- The number of Americans who were insured in 2010.
195.9 million -- The number of Americans with private health insurance in 2010, 64% of the total population.
169.3 million -- The number of Americans who get their insurance through the workplace.
95 million -- Number of people in the United States covered by government health insurance, 31% of the population.
44.3 million -- Number of Americans receiving Medicare coverage in 2010.
48.6 million -- The number of Americans covered by Medicaid in 2010.
$940 billion -- The amount of money the Congressional Budget Office estimates it will cost to provide the expanded insurance coverage over 10 years.
$143 billion -- The amount by which the plan could reduce the deficit over the first 10 years. And over the following decade, the CBO projected, health reform could reduce the deficit by more than $1 trillion, although the agency stressed such long-term projections are highly uncertain.
2.35% -- The tax rate high-income individuals would pay into Medicare, up from 1.45%. High-income is defined as individuals making more than $200,000 ($250,000 for couples filing jointly).
LINK
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 80,719
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 80,719 |
2 trillion in increased spending over the next ten years to build more war ships. It seems that Romney wished to spend over twice as much in increased spending to build war ships over the next ten years than Obama wishes to spend on healthcare. And BTW- Have you actually seen the cuts in the proposal that Obama offered in 2011 to achieve a budget? Obama proposed spending cuts 2011And according to the GOP and Romney, Obama has already cut medicare spending 716 billion dollars. So it sounds to me that you may be barking up the wrong tree. I don't know.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 80,719
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 80,719 |
Those were just general numbers as an example. The more people you have paying insurance premuims, the cheaper it is to pay for the uninsured for each person. It's a very basic concept.  And in your numbers, you seem to indicate people on medicaid, which are people who live well below the poverty level and still work full time, would not change. Those numbers would change to a lot. Far more people being insured "by insurance companies" instead of strictly from tax payer dollars. Let's use a security gaurd as an example. Security gaurds have an average income of 28k per year. Did you know that a family of four can make 44k and still be eligable for medicaid for their small children? _________________________________________ In general, children in families with incomes up to $44,700/year (for a family of four in 2011) are likely to be eligible for Medicaid or CHIP coverage. In many states, families with higher incomes can still qualify for coverage for their children. This includes children in mandatory Medicaid eligibility groups, which states must cover in order to participate in Medicaid, as well as children in optional eligibility groups that a state may elect to cover. All children from birth to age 6 with family incomes up to 133% ($29,700 for a family of four in 2011) Medicaid eligability____________________________________________ So while the numbers you gave are "currently correct", if employers had to give medical coverage to their full time employees, it's obvious to see how the current numbers you provided would in no way be accurate moving forward. Just think of how many children are being covered, in full, strictly on your tax dollars right now. People seem not to wish to look at how many employers do not offer health insurance to their workers and force that burden on to the tax payers. Wal Mart has been doing it for a very long time now and most people seem to be perfectly fine with it. I don't really see how people can be fine with the idea that corperations making billions in profits pass the cost of the healthcare of their employees on to the taxpayer. But it seems a lot of people do........
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Those were just general numbers as an example. The more people you have paying insurance premuims, the cheaper it is to pay for the uninsured for each person.
It's a very basic concept.
I'll chalk that up as you being funny, and not as a masked insult.
Quote:
And in your numbers, you seem to indicate people on medicaid, which are people who live well below the poverty level and still work full time, would not change. Those numbers would change to a lot. Far more people being insured "by insurance companies" instead of strictly from tax payer dollars.
Medicaid apparently isn't going anywhere even with the Obamacare plan, and if they are far below poverty level they would be exempt anyway wouldn't they, so that would make them part of the non-paying portion.
Quote:
Let's use a security gaurd as an example. Security gaurds have an average income of 28k per year. Did you know that a family of four can make 44k and still be eligable for medicaid for their small children?
See answer above.
Quote:
So while the numbers you gave are "currently correct", if employers had to give medical coverage to their full time employees, it's obvious to see how the current numbers you provided would in no way be accurate moving forward.
Just think of how many children are being covered, in full, strictly on your tax dollars right now.
People seem not to wish to look at how many employers do not offer health insurance to their workers and force that burden on to the tax payers. Wal Mart has been doing it for a very long time now and most people seem to be perfectly fine with it.
I don't really see how people can be fine with the idea that corperations making billions in profits pass the cost of the healthcare of their employees on to the taxpayer. But it seems a lot of people do........
Your correct, I don't know those numbers. And apparently you don't either, so we are both assuming one position or another. Either way, I don't think the numbers are off by as much as your example and my posting.
But this wasn't really about the number of people paying for health insurance or not, it was about the number of people using ERs as doctor visits, which if they have medicare or medicaid wouldn't they already be able to visit a physicial or emergency care facility rather than need to use the ER as an only outlet? (Seriously asking as I know very little of medicaid and medicare provisions)
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 80,719
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 80,719 |
The vast majority of people who use the ER for basic medical services are uninsured.
Some people seem to misunderstand something. In Ohio, adults are not eligable for medicare or medicaid unless they are deemd disabled by a doctor. Only children are.
This leaves a large section of adults who have an employer who does not provide health care or they are underemployed without healthcare. And yes, some are simply people who won't work.
Now getting back to the security gaurd issue. If the company he works for has more than 50 employees, he would be recieving health care while at this time he is not eligable for any health care unless it's out of pocket on a 28k income. Not medicaid nor medicare unless he is deemed disabled.
Just so you understand, I know there are those who abuse the system. I'm not advocating that nor am I trying to excuse that. To me that's wrong and any way you slice it, when you pay your insurance premiums, co-pays and deductables, you are paying for that.
I do believe however that if you are a tax paying citizen you should have some form of health care. If you're working for a company who makes billions in profits every year ie... a Wal Mart situation, these corperations should not be able to bend the rules and force the healthcare costs of their empoyees children on the American taxpayer.
I really don't feel that the vast majority of people who have medicare or medicaid would elect to use the ER. Why would they? They can go to an urgent care and cut their waiting time down a great deal.
Just like yourself, would you go to an ER and wait for hours upon hours for basic medical services when you have the option of urgent care that would see you in a fraction of the time?
I'm not trying to say it never happens, but if people truely have easier and quicker options than the ER, in the vast majority of cases they will use those options.
And that's a huge issue in cutting costs. If adults who are making under 40k have health insurance via their employer, every time one of those people go to an urgent care instead of an ER, it saves tons of money.
So I think the problem of using ER's is due to those who have no insurance for the most part rather than those who do. Be that medicare or medicaid.
It's those who only have one option, and that is the ER where they can not be turned away.
I do believe that it's a common misconception that adults without disabilities are permited to recieve medicaid. Now it may be different in other states, that I can not say for sure. But in Ohio, adults who are not disabled do not qualify for medicaid.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,368
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,368 |
Quote:
Here is my question. Why should employers be forced to offer health insurance at all? There is no credible reason today for the two to be tied together. Employers should employ you and pay you for a job or service you perform for them. Period.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,061
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,061 |
That's why employers, especially those with narrower profit margins, are cutting out their full time employee staffs.
Hell, even WalMart is doing so.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 |
J/C
Did anything like this happen in Massachusetts when Romney enacted his plan?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,630
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,630 |
My guess would be because by going through an employer it makes it harder for the insurance companies to screw you over. If you were on your own and had to find insurance and had a pre-exsisting condition i'm sure the insurance company could find some way of turning you down where as going through an employer they wouldn't be able to do that.
RIP GM
Live, Love, Laugh
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,061
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,061 |
Romneycare didn't have a major effect on wages or employment because he negotiated higher payments for their Medicaid program from the federal government.
There is a difference between enacting a program in a state, and over the entire country. The only place the federal government can pass costs onto is the taxpayers.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802 |
Food for thought. States and their money contributed in taxes to the federal gov't compared to what they take in from federal funds. It doesn't factor in international programs or interest (which would really make the data more concrete and detailed- though I wonder how drastically different that makes the data as I'd be curious to how much interest rates would fluctuate on a state-to-state level). http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-unionFor all the hot air coming from conservatives about the deficit/debt, how is it so many red states find themselves as deep in the red as they are? How is there no outrage over a non-state (Puerto Rico) being at -290% over twenty years? And seriously, Alabama and Mississippi? Negative $290 billion and $240 billion respectively. Just curious to what might explain that. I'm sure there are plenty of valid reasons, exceptions, and spin attempts to explain it. I ask that without snark, but must say thinking about the contradiction between talk and walk that I lean towards calling that a bit hypocritical.
Last edited by 4yikes2yoshi0; 11/17/12 02:57 PM.
Politicians are puppets, y'all. Let's get Geppetto!
Formerly 4yikes2yoshi0
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,061
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,061 |
I wonder what is included in these numbers?
Is it building facilities for federal offices? Federal courthouses? Social Security payments to seniors? Medicare/Medicaid? Is it 100% of federal spending? (which would cause some states with poor urban areas to receiver more in some cases, but less in others, depending on the overall size of the state) Do some states have federal parks and landmarks that are paid for from the federal government?
Way too many questions to look at that chart and use it for any really constructive purpose.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802 |
The particulars of what the money is spent on would be very interesting. That said, it's not a flash in the pan sampling of one year. It's a two decade period. Valid inquiry on the Medicaid/care, federal structures, and the like; but you can't think the "poor urban areas" angle can explain a good bit. Just off the top of my head on places with impoverished inner cities: New York, Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, Jersey, Boston Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Philly, Milwaukee, Columbus/Cleveland/Cincy, etc.'s states overall are in black ink.
As for national parks, I'd be interested at a budget chart (couldn't find one) view of what percentage of overall red ink it would be- but even so- only 27 states have national parks. They're mostly concentrated in The Dakotas, Utah, 'Zona, and Alaska as far as the red states go. The black ink states have a good amount too- particularly California, Washington, and Colorado.
While we don't have a concrete sculpture of what's going on, I don't think you can call it a blind, abstract random heap. It's money put into the system as opposed to taken out per percentage of the respective states total output (GDP).
Politicians are puppets, y'all. Let's get Geppetto!
Formerly 4yikes2yoshi0
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,061
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,061 |
Some more sparsely populated states will also have interstate highways that are federal responsibilities.
A state like Wyoming, for example, only has just over half a million people, but is the 9th largest state by size. I would guess that they have a lot of interstate highways and bridges that the federal government has to build/maintain.
Alaska is also lightly populated, but is, by far, the largest state.
There are a ton of things that go into taxes collected vs taxes spent.
You brought up New York as having poor areas .... but they also have some of the richest areas in the entire country. Detroit has poor areas, but also collects taxes from the Big 3. Chicago has poor areas, and also very rich areas. Most of these big cities have enormous dichotomies. Very rich areas exist within 5-6 blocks of multi million dollar properties.
I remember many year ago when I went to Baltimore at the Inner Harbor for a business meeting. I decided to go exploring one night ..... it was nice out ..... and I decided to go for a walk.
I walked about 2 blocks, and went from the most beautiful area to one of the seediest in a matter of a couple of blocks.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
If you walked north in Baltimore from the harbor you would get to that neighborhood... believe it or not, you were just a few blocks from University of maryland and Johns Hopkins medical schools... had you gone about 5 more blocks, you would have come to Fells Point.. Baltimore's best party area on the water.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,061
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,061 |
I don't know where I was .... (this would have been mid 80s) but there were strip joints, and some guy came up to me and asked "Hey man, whachuneed?". 
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
I don't know where I was .... (this would have been mid 80s) but there were strip joints, and some guy came up to me and asked "Hey man, whachuneed?".
Sounds like an episode of The Wire
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,151
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,151 |
Papa John's CEO: My Obamacare claims were twisted November 21, 2012, 12:08 PM Papa John's founder and CEO John Schnatter wrote Tuesday that the media had it all wrong in its reporting on his comments on how the national health care law known widely as "Obamacare" will negatively impact his business. "Many in the media reported that I said Papa John's is going to close stores and cut jobs because of Obamacare," he wrote in the Huffington Post. "I never said that. The fact is we are going to open over hundreds of stores this year and next and increase employment by over 5,000 jobs worldwide. And, we have no plans to cut team hours as a result of the Affordable Care Act." Schnatter, who supported and fundraised for Mitt Romney in the presidential election, went on to say that while his company is still researching the impact of the law, "we will honor this law, as we do all laws, and continue to offer 100% of Papa John's corporate employees and workers in company-owned stores health insurance as we have since the company was founded in 1984." Schnatter wrote that his remarks to a class at a Florida college were taken out of context. According to his telling, he was asked if franchise owners would cut back hours to make them part time in order to keep from having to provide health insurance. "Well, in Hawaii there is a form of the same kind of health insurance and that's what you do, you find loopholes to get around it," he responded. "That's what they're going to do." He also called it "common sense" that some business owners would cut hours to avoid paying for health insurance. Schnatter stressed Tuesday that he was taking about the actions he expects Papa John's franchisees to take, not the plans of his company. "Since our franchisees own the restaurants they operate, who they hire, how many hours they give each employee and what they pay each employee is up to them, not me or Papa John's," he wrote. He also noted that he told the class that he was "cool with" more Americans getting health care and that under the health care law "I get to provide health insurance and I'm not at a competitive disadvantage ... our competitors are going to have to do the same thing." Not addressed in the post are Schnatter's reported comments on a conference call that "Our best estimate is that the Obamacare will cost 11 to 14 cents per pizza, or 15 to 20 cents per order from a corporate basis." "If Obamacare is in fact not repealed, we will find tactics to shallow out any Obamacare costs and core strategies to pass that cost onto consumers in order to protect our shareholders best interests," he reportedly added. Schnatter's comments prompted reports that some supporters of the health care law were vowing to no longer order food from Papa John's. A handful of business owners have said they have had to lay off workers because Mr. Obama was reelected. web page
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,393
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,393 |
I thought I heard this was "clarified"; was he not vocal during the election and a Romney supporter. as is his right? Point is this was not unbiased or spontaneous.
"Every responsibility implies opportunity, and every opportunity implies responsibility." Otis Allen Glazebrook, 1880
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,566
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,566 |
Under 50 Full time (120 hours per month) employees, it doesn't have an effect on your business at all.
Corporate offices of large resturant chains may have hundreds of employees but they already most likely offer medical insurance that meets or exceeds healthcare requirements for Mass. Which is the template for National Healthcare.
Now,, each franchisee may have a problem. Most franchisees don't own just one facility. They own several. But again, if it's a franchise corporate entity, they probably offer benefits to full time employees. In fact, it's probably the same plan that they offer the workers in each unit. But look around, most of these chain pizza shops or hamburger joints are staffed with part timers now. Most are college or High School kids. Management staff already gets benefits and they won't cut them down because the costs are already built in. Nothing changes.
Just thought I"d point that out.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,061
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,061 |
Fast food does not generally provide full benefits for full time employees.
When they do, they are usually a reduced benefits package that allows for a balance between affordable and beneficial for the employee.
For example, McDonald's used to offer a medical insurance package for all of their employees. It wasn't a great program, but it covered catastrophic hospital expenses. This was one of the stated goals of Obamacare ..... to keep people from having to go bankrupt if they encountered a medical disaster.
Now those employees have lost their coverage, because McDonald's is no longer legally allowed to offer such coverage.
As far as "nothing changing" in fast food .... that's not correct. Many employees in the evenings are indeed high school kids and maybe college kids. Most are part timers. However, lunch is usually staffed by adults. (and late night shifts as well) My restaurant had probably 15-20 full timers. People wanted their hours. Many of the guys needed their hours. They didn't get massive benefits from the government. There is a class of people in fast food who need full time employment, and who will no longer receive full time hours.
A lot of people will be hurt trying to figure out how they are going to be able to live on part time hours.
Also, what I have heard/read about what "full time" is under Obamacare disagrees with what you posted. I have been told by numerous people working for many different companies, that 30 hours/week will be considered full time employment under Obamacare. I have also read the same online, at a variety of sources. Maybe you have a different source that gives a different definition. If so, please share it so I can correct those I know who have told me otherwise.
However, as I understand it, if you have more than 50 employees averaging 30 or more hours per week, then you have to either provide health insurance for them, or pay the tax.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,566
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,566 |
You need to check your facts a little better
McDonalds for instance, has one of the better benefit packages for full time McDonalds employees. Franchisees may not and I said as much. but they do have benefits.
While it's true that evening shifts are staffed with college and HS kids who work part time, the day shift, staffed by adults are also part timers..
We're talking to different entities here.
Corporate ie: McDonalds corporate office which has outstanding benefits and Franchiees which, depending on the number of stores the operate, may or may not have outstanding benefits.
What some of them offer is something called a Limited Liability plan. It's more or less built on an indemnity platform.
they are OK as long as you don't have a major illness. for instance, it would not work for you. It wouldn't work out well for someone with Cancer that needs Chemo or radiation or an operation or all three.
But, if you break your leg or arm, or need glasses or an eye exam, or prescriptions, they aren't bad at all. And the cost is very reasonable.
They also have life insurance, Accidental Death and Disability (both long term and short term) components.
Again, the only thing they lack is catastrophic coverage.
Let me add something else here, a healthy 25 year old person can buy outstanding coverage for very very affordable prices today if they want to.
I mean,, a young couple, 20 somethings into the 30 somethings can get a Medical Mutual plan to cover both of them if they are in good health and it will cost them about 350 to 450 a month.
Don't know why I told you that, you probably have seen those plans and like me, don't quality..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,061
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,061 |
I worked for a McDonalds' franchisee here in Youngstown years ago.
They offered one insurance plan for their managers and shift managers ...... and another, different plan for their employees.
The employee plan was a McDonalds plan. It became available after an employee had been with the company for a certain period of time. (I don't remember the exact amount of time, but 6 months sticks in my head) IIRC, the plan was called "McBenefits", or something like that. It was a limited insurance plan. Like I said, I seem to recall it as being a plan with higher deductibles, but it might have even been the opposite now that I really think about it. It might have been a plan with a lower total annual limit. Maybe Ballpeen can check with someone in McDonald's, since IIRC, he still knows people in the company and/or franchisees.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
I worked for a McDonalds' franchisee here in Youngstown years ago.
They offered one insurance plan for their managers and shift managers ...... and another, different plan for their employees.
The employee plan was a McDonalds plan. It became available after an employee had been with the company for a certain period of time. (I don't remember the exact amount of time, but 6 months sticks in my head) IIRC, the plan was called "McBenefits", or something like that. It was a limited insurance plan. Like I said, I seem to recall it as being a plan with higher deductibles, but it might have even been the opposite now that I really think about it. It might have been a plan with a lower total annual limit. Maybe Ballpeen can check with someone in McDonald's, since IIRC, he still knows people in the company and/or franchisees.
Speaking of Youngstown McD's...
Is the one on Midlothian Blvd still there across from some horses? After all these years, I'm sure one of the two, if not both are gone.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,061
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,061 |
The horse pasture is now some sort of factory, and the McDonalds moved down to the SE corner of South Ave. and Midlothian. There are drug stores on 2 of the other corners.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405 |
Quote:
I worked for a McDonalds' franchisee here in Youngstown years ago.
They offered one insurance plan for their managers and shift managers ...... and another, different plan for their employees.
Off on a tangent....Wouldn't it be ironic if McD's banned its employees from smoking like the casino thread? 
"My signature line goes here."
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Papa John's CEO John Schnatter:
Obamacare likely to raise costs,
employee's
|
|
