Obamacare Causes Companies to Cut Hours

189 posts

Flag Post

Fair Warning: It’s a Fox News article. If you can’t handle that, then this isn’t your thread! http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/12/teen-rallies-social-media-effort-to-support-papa-john-others-amid-liberal/?intcmp=trending

For those of you still reading, I’m interested in little more than the facts:
1) Obamacare forces companies, by law, to provide health insurance, at least to some degree, to their employees, if they have over 50 full time employees.

2) This will cost large companies (like this pizza co) millions.

3) In response, the companies announce that they may need to cut employee’s hours to cope with the added costs of providing insurance.

4) Liberals protest these companies.

My beef with all of this is, what did the liberals think was going to happen? Where are these companies getting the money, if not from INCREASING the price of the goods, DECREASING the pay rate of employees, or DECREASING the hours the employees have? All three of these equal a drain on the economy. How long before liberals realize that neither companies nor government have magical pockets full of money they refuse to share with anybody?

 
Flag Post

Like any movement, there’s pros and cons to it. Although I’m not sure if we need to go straight to the liberal vs. conservative pissing…but I’ll get back on point.

About cutting the employee hours—weren’t we doing that already (Walmart and their shitty practices come to mind)? I mean, I’d heard a lot of antedotal stories about companies keeping several employees part time rather than manning up and having a few full time. Might be good for the company, but I think it wastes the employees time overall as they can’t live on that job and have to now find a second one to miraculously work around it.

The labor and employment outlook is rough. No doubt about it.

 
Flag Post

Ya know, MyTie….
“they” say the same fucking bullshit nonsense when the MINIMUM wage is raised.
A hard kick in the nutsack to all those who piss, whine, moan, wail, sob about SHARING this country’s great wealth (wealth, by the way, that also IS CREATED BY the working poor) w/ those who have no REAL, SENISBLE health care.

All this crap about Obamacare is just the new bigotry.
Ya can’t hate niggers,,,,
ya can’t hate faggots,,,
ya can’t hate Jews,,,
ya can’t hate Pollocks,,,

SO, let’s hate those fucking POOR PEOPLE who ought to be pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. YEAH. They are the cause of all the problems in America. Let’s blame them.

Sound familiar?

 
Flag Post

Well, two parts of your post that stand out as factually incorrect to me. The first is that you actually CAN hate anyone you want. The second is that I actually am a poor working class person, without health insurance. I don’t have a hatred for myself, nor for anyone else in my class. I don’t blame them nor myself for anything. I’m simply pointing out that the money for healthcare has to come from somebody. Why do you feel the need to paint me as a bigot for that? Have you read that thread about ad hominem? The OP posted this:

An exchange between two posters (usually very polar) where one poster was blatantly haranguing the other person’s character.
Advice you could take!

 
Flag Post

I don’t think the concern is necessarily that companies have to provide healthcare. Sure, some companies don’t and that will be an added cost. The main concern these companies have is that health care premiums have consistently increased over the years and the fear is that Obamacare will accelerate the cost of premiums. While the President promoted his policy as one that would decrease premiums, that is not the case.

All this crap about Obamacare is just the new bigotry.
Ya can’t hate niggers,,,,
ya can’t hate faggots,,,
ya can’t hate Jews,,,
ya can’t hate Pollocks,,,

Since when? I’m pretty sure I know people who hate ‘faggots’ and they continue to be perfectly capable of doing so.

SO, let’s hate those fucking POOR PEOPLE who ought to be pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. YEAH. They are the cause of all the problems in America. Let’s blame them.

Yes, hating the poor is the only way someone could be opposed to Obamacare. You nailed it once again Karma.

 
Flag Post

MyTie & issendorf, I’m pretty sure KKK wasn’t stating that its literally impossible to hate ‘faggots’. The fact that I’ve actually had to state that makes me cringe. To give you the benefit of the doubt, I’m pretty sure he was implying that people used to publicly blame the four aforementioned demographics, but now that thats socially unacceptable (at best, criminal at worst), they pick on the poor.

You know what you also haven’t addressed? Why do companies cut the wages of the lowest payed workers to make enough “room” in the budget to pay for healthcare? Why don’t they cut their own salaries?

Also, found out from Louis CK’s show that the term ‘faggot’ came about when the homosexuals were literally used as faggots for the fires that they used to burn ‘witches’. Faggots are the pieces of wood that they’d use to fuel the fire.

 
Flag Post
MyTie & issendorf, I’m pretty sure KKK wasn’t stating that its literally impossible to hate ‘faggots’. The fact that I’ve actually had to state that makes me cringe. To give you the benefit of the doubt, I’m pretty sure he was implying that people used to publicly blame the four aforementioned demographics, but now that thats socially unacceptable (at best, criminal at worst), they pick on the poor.

I’m pointing out the idiocy of Karma’s claim that people are against Obamacare because it’s another instance of the poor getting a handout. Cost, more bureaucracy, and higher premiums are why people are opposed to it. The left needs to stop feeling like they are always the victims. It’s a really irritating bogeyman that’s great for winning elections, but really shitty in terms of uniting the country.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NickWalker12:You know what you also haven’t addressed? Why do companies cut the wages of the lowest payed workers to make enough “room” in the budget to pay for healthcare? Why don’t they cut their own salaries?

They could cut their salaries, and they might, I’m not sure. Why should they have to? Why should the CEOs have to take pay cuts to pay for the healthcare of others? I mean, why don’t they have to take pay cuts to pay for the food and housing of employees as well? Why not just make the CEOs pay for everything?

This is the healthcare of the workers coming out of the pockets of other people. Why is that the noble action? Further, there are many companies where the CEOs have taken pay hits in the past just for this kind of thing, but it doesn’t end up amounting to a whole lot. At the end of the day, this will affect the workers, or the consumers, who in many circumstances, are the same people. If it does hit the customers, it will often impact sales, which will then impact workers. Obamacare will hurt the very ones who it professes to help, and then blame people who didn’t enact it for the impact. BRILLIANT!

I’m poor, but I don’t expect other people to pay my way, nor vote people in office who demand that they do so.

 
Flag Post

Just for a little perspective:

Papa John Schnatter’s Kentucky Estate

Not that I have anything against him owning whatever home he likes. That’s his right. He earned the money, he can spend it as he pleases.
But to claim that you can’t afford to cover your employees, whilst dumping cash on a 40,000 square foot home?

Yeah, sorry.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by softest_voice:

Just for a little perspective:

Papa John Schnatter’s Kentucky Estate

Not that I have anything against him owning whatever home he likes. That’s his right. He earned the money, he can spend it as he pleases.
But to claim that you can’t afford to cover your employees, whilst dumping cash on a 40,000 square foot home?

Yeah, sorry.

Simply pointing at Schnatter ignores the issue. He gets the attention because he owns a large, successful, multi-million dollar company. He is speaking for the army of business owners (such as my parents) who are going to have a hell of a time continue to maintain all their current employees while at the same time having to pay mounting health insurance premiums. If the owner of a paper mill says it, no one outside of the community is going to hear it. If the CEO of Papa John’s says it, people listen.

I get that these fat cat CEOs complaining about having to fire people is a bit off-putting. But, I think you’re missing the bigger picture at what is occurring. You’ve said yourself you own a business (I believe I remember that correctly). Perhaps you aren’t having to deal with this issue. You are fortunate, but I would hazard a guess you are in the minority.

On a side note – that is one of the sweetest rich people houses I have ever seen. If that golf course is his private course…. good lord that would be amazing.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:

On a side note – that is one of the sweetest rich people houses I have ever seen. If that golf course is his private course…. good lord that would be amazing.

It’s quite large, isn’t it? You could have several whole families live in that thing, and never even see each other for years.

 
Flag Post

I’m going to have to agree with MyTie for once. There is no reason to protest against cutting hours. The firm’s costs increase, so they have to decrease costs elsewhere. Smart firms do this where it cuts profits the least (and naturally reduces their own income the least, but shht, we’re not going to say that to the employees). If it is with the employees, then that is what those firms should do. “Liberals protest these companies”, however, is just a unnecessary jab at labels. There is no need to involve them.

The topic doesn’t actually ask to discuss whether this program should be active at all, but I’m going to go ahead and state that it’s not just a profit versus loss decision here.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Ya know, MyTie….
“they” say the same fucking bullshit nonsense when the MINIMUM wage is raised.
A hard kick in the nutsack to all those who piss, whine, moan, wail, sob about SHARING this country’s great wealth (wealth, by the way, that also IS CREATED BY the working poor) w/ those who have no REAL, SENISBLE health care.

All this crap about Obamacare is just the new bigotry.
Ya can’t hate niggers,,,,
ya can’t hate faggots,,,
ya can’t hate Jews,,,
ya can’t hate Pollocks,,,

SO, let’s hate those fucking POOR PEOPLE who ought to be pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. YEAH. They are the cause of all the problems in America. Let’s blame them.

Sound familiar?

Actually, it isn’t the poor, it is the liberal bleeding hearts that are the big problem. You know, those rich elites that want to tax the rich but missed their target and are socking it to everyone?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

The topic doesn’t actually ask to discuss whether this program should be active at all, but I’m going to go ahead and state that it’s not just a profit versus loss decision here.

No. more of a complete reorganisation. Approaching healthcare from a very different angle. Long-term it’ll create more jobs, but the long-term is never very political.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

The topic doesn’t actually ask to discuss whether this program should be active at all, but I’m going to go ahead and state that it’s not just a profit versus loss decision here.

No. more of a complete reorganisation. Approaching healthcare from a very different angle. Long-term it’ll create more jobs, but the long-term is never very political.

Explain how it will create more jobs.

 
Flag Post

1. I have a great distrust of companies blaming that government actions force them to do negative action X. While i am not saying that it does not happen. Its just that the amount of time when its just a convenient and false excuse makes me skeptical.

2. A company that has to struggle to pay for the employees insurance as necessary with Obama Care, will already have been close to or over the edge already.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:

1. I have a great distrust of companies blaming that government actions force them to do negative action X. While i am not saying that it does not happen. Its just that the amount of time when its just a convenient and false excuse makes me skeptical.

2. A company that has to struggle to pay for the employees insurance as necessary with Obama Care, will already have been close to or over the edge already.

1. The government admits that they are actively doing this.

2. We aren’t actively talking about companies “on the edge”. We are simply talking about companies doing ok, who will cut employee hours to cover the cost of their healthcare. To a more direct point, we are talking about the silly people who are protesting against the companies who are cutting hours to cover the costs of this.

Further, with enough government regulation and burden, no company will survive. That’ll be when nanny government steps in and takes over. What a lovely day that will be.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:

1. I have a great distrust of companies blaming that government actions force them to do negative action X. While i am not saying that it does not happen. Its just that the amount of time when its just a convenient and false excuse makes me skeptical.

2. A company that has to struggle to pay for the employees insurance as necessary with Obama Care, will already have been close to or over the edge already.

1. The government admits that they are actively doing this.

I rather doubt that the government is saying that they are forcing private company X to do negative action X (for example cutting work hours). The Government generally does not have the power to do that and specifically not in this case(cutting work hours).

2. We aren’t actively talking about companies “on the edge”. We are simply talking about companies doing ok, who will cut employee hours to cover the cost of their healthcare. To a more direct point, we are talking about the silly people who are protesting against the companies who are cutting hours to cover the costs of this.

If the companies are doing Okay then they would not need to cut hours and then protesting is not so silly.

Further, with enough government regulation and burden, no company will survive. That’ll be when nanny government steps in and takes over. What a lovely day that will be.

Go Troll else where. You sound like some shouting that vitamins are evil because to much vitamins will kill you.

 
Flag Post

The government is forcing companies to provide X to their employees. That will cost money. A good company will mitigate those costs somehow, or go under. Cutting employee hours, number of employees, or increasing price of goods are the three major ways this is done. That is a negative. The reason that companies do “ok” is because they cut costs when necessary. That’s good business.

Are you comparing government regulation to taking vitamins? Are you calling me a troll because I point out that government regulations burdens private enterprise, and the economy? I mean, I just want to make sure I’m understanding that correctly before I disregard your post completely.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

The government is forcing companies to provide X to their employees. That will cost money. A good company will mitigate those costs somehow, or go under. Cutting employee hours, number of employees, or increasing price of goods are the three major ways this is done. That is a negative. The reason that companies do “ok” is because they cut costs when necessary. That’s good business.

Forcing to provide health care is not negative action reducing working hours. Good companies will not go under if they do not lessen(mitigate) those costs. Only the first two ways you mentioned actually lessen(mitigate) those costs. Increasing price of goods does not, though it can compensate the effect of such costs would have on profit.
There is also another solution that any good company thats at least doing okay should be able to do, reduce profits to cover for the extra costs.

Are you comparing government regulation to taking vitamins? Are you calling me a troll because I point out that government regulations burdens private enterprise, and the economy? I mean, I just want to make sure I’m understanding that correctly before I disregard your post completely.

Yes, like vitamins to little, too much or the wrong type is bad. Yes, because your making false claims by stupidly overgeneralizing. For example not enough regulations actually do burden private enterprise and the economy to make such a claim as you are. Some don´t burden them and a significant number actually help same said private enterprises and the economy.
My own country Germany has an exceptional amount of regulations, making almost everyone else look like Anarchy in the works. But our economy is actually flourishing under these conditions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#Economy

 
Flag Post

Well if the people working for a company worry about this they can ask for the money for the Insurance to be taken from their pay. Everyone should be insured so if they don’t want the company to pay they can pay for it themselves.

 
Flag Post

Tell me how the effect of Greek liberalism is having on Germany’s recovery under it’s economically conservative Hartz concept of the early 2000 decade? This should be good!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

The topic doesn’t actually ask to discuss whether this program should be active at all, but I’m going to go ahead and state that it’s not just a profit versus loss decision here.

No. more of a complete reorganisation. Approaching healthcare from a very different angle. Long-term it’ll create more jobs, but the long-term is never very political.

Explain how it will create more jobs.

By changing over time the way we handle health care. Increasin administration of it and creating more beaurocratic jobs in the long run. Also more nursing and health care supportive jobs as the proportion of the population covered by regular health careapproaches 100%.

Long-term companies should not be offering their employees health insurance anyway. If we continue these changes through to their logical conclusion, health care insurance will become highly optional, with it being something 90% of companies don’t bother with.

The system is so broken howevr, that right now we need to mandate insurance as an intial precursor to doing away with it entirely.

 
Flag Post

Reducing profits to compensate for additional costs is completely contradictory to what commerce and business is for. Putting more costs on all producers will raise prices, lower product quality, or lower money going to employees whether it be by lowering hours or number of employees. The entire extra cost on all producers cannot and will not be compensated only by profits of all those businesses and to think so is idealistic thinking. Businesses operate first and foremost to make profits, not attend to the needs of the employees. That is the result. It sounds harsh and cruel, but its true. People inherently work for themselves first and others later, even if it should be the other way around.
Additionally, Health Care is a privilege not a right.

 
Flag Post

Long-term it’ll create more jobs, but the long-term is never very political.

Not sure what it would do to America, but I’m fairly sure many Americans are simply opposed to change, making them oppose the entire idea out of principle (and maybe profits).

Further, with enough government regulation and burden, no company will survive.

Sounds like a slippery slope to me.

Tell me how the effect of Greek liberalism is having on Germany’s recovery under it’s economically conservative Hartz concept of the early 2000 decade?

Here’s a case study: explain why I should believe it’s not the norm? Shouldn’t we look at the average?

With that all said, I’m not sure why firms should be required to provide health insurance instead of requiring every person to have individual health insurance.

Additionally, Health Care is a privilege not a right.

No, it’s an obligation here. Quite a different thing.