Omaha Franchiser Cuts Employee Hours in Response to Obamacare
Businesses will respond to forces in the market. Obamacare is one of those forces.
The company has announced that all non-management positions will have their hours reduced to 28 a week. Gary Burdette, Vice President of Operations for the local franchise, says the cuts are coming because the new Affordable Health Care Act requires employers to offer health insurance to employees working 32-38 hours a week. Under the current law they are not considered full time and that as a small business owner, he can’t afford to stay in operation and pay for everyone’s health insurance.
There are 11 Wendy’s restaurants in the metro.
Hat tip Lakeshore Laments.
But just think about how many MORE part-timers they will need to hire to maintain their staffing levels…..more job creation care of your President!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 0316 hrs
It’s a misconception that an employer can escape the bureaucratic clutches of Obamacare by simply cutting employees back to part-time.
Under Obamacare, it is the Full Time Equivalent (FTE) calculation that matters.
This Wendy’s cannot add more part-time people. You will see less staff in the restaurant, which means a whole host of things, including slower service times.
Simply adding part time employees and having the same number of hours worked would still place this employer under the yoke of Obamacare.
Several franchisees in our system are scrambling. Obamacare will wipe out their profit and then some. (And that is calculating the “cheaper” penalty option!) They have investigated splitting companies, cutting employees back to part time, etc.
All answers come back as: If you have any interest in any company, or simply hire more part-timers, that counts toward the Obamacare 50 employee FTE limit.
So small restaurant operators, subject to the Obamacare mandates, will be forced to bankrupt, or furiously sell off units, which destroys economies of scale on multi-unit ownership. Problem is: these units do not sell quickly. the regulatory and franchisor approval process can take months, even years.
What will happen is: you will see closures across the restaurant industry as a result of Obamacare. (Units that can’t be transferred, and will be bankrupt because of Obamacare.) The people at these closed will be out of work, thanks to Obama. Tax bases will be hurt. You will see vacant buildings and blight.
So much for government looking out for “the least of these”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 0820 hrs
Obamacare is a force in the market businesses will respond to. People would rather work full time than part time. employers who offer full time employment will succeed while those balancing their books on the backs of their employees will not. Weaker places close, stronger ones rise up to take their place. Market forces at work.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 0927 hrs
People would rather work full time than part time.
Not true!
Again, the “one size fits all” socialist thinking hurts people.
Teenagers and college student love part time work, especially the type of part time work that allows them to work only when they are available! People in this age group especially like part time flex when it comes to extra curricular activities.
If we force all jobs to full time…teenagers will never be able to hold a job.
Why do supporters of Obamacare HATE teenagers?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 0939 hrs
Our economy put my 25+ year photography studio out of business - we depended on disposable income and profitable businesses for commercial work - neither of which exist today.
Now, being unemployed, I would gladly take part time or full time work but nobody wants to hire an old, small business owner.
Of course, as self employed, I could qualify for nothing but paid for everything. Timing is everything, I guess.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 1000 hrs
Kevin-
Point (about part time jobs being desirable for many people) taken. Thanks. But why must you call names, for heaven’s sake?
I support Obamacare and dont hate teenagers. I am not a socialist.
It is possible to handle political differences more maturely than that.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 1004 hrs
I’m right there with you Bill.
Mike,
If you support policies that bankrupt and destroy the primary employers of teenagers…what word would you use besides “hate”?
I find it hateful to teenagers to destroy those job creators that employ teenagers.
I got teenagers begging me for a job nearly everyday. I’d love to hire all of them, but I cannot afford it. The new taxes and regulation from Obamacare (even though I’m under the 50 FTE limit) still has me consumed with paperwork and expense. (Especially from my vendors that are required to comply with Obamacare).
I simply cannot afford to get near the 50 FTE threshold. If I went over, I would certainly be bankrupt from the mandate.
So “hate” is the kindest word I can find for supporters of this socialist bill. “Mean”, “mean spirited”, and “cruel”, would also be terms I’d use to describe supporters of Obamacare.
If you realize what socialist France does to the young people in that country 25%+ unemployment…you see the violent protests, and what the systematic socialist hate does to that age group in that country.
I was hoping we could avoid the socialist hate here, so we don’t become France.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 1035 hrs
Kevin-
Your business is being burdened by the effects of Obama Care. Presumably so are others.
Yours may fail, or it may survive. Others likewise. Some will fail and others will adapt and survive.
Whichever businesses adapt to the forces in the market will stand stronger and employ people in what results in a more stable environment, having overcome the difficulties presented by the forces in the market. Market forces at work. Socialist?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 1048 hrs
Mike,
Consequences of your attitude:
1.) Businesses left will become larger getting more market share (aka read Golden Guernsey shutting down from alleged Dean foods monopoly)
2.) Barrier to entry for start up will be much harder to impossible (Certainly politicians will call for more welfare to SBA as a result).
3.) People who earned and built there business to 8-12 locations over 30 years and faced with prospect of more than their profit being wiped out will be bankrupt and/or will have nothing to sell. (negative cash flow business, sells, at best, at fire sale prices.)
So using government policy to bankrupt a small business owner is “fair”?
Why take the risk and start a business at all if hateful socialists will come along and wipe it out?
All this leads to the result: It’s not about satisfying market need, its about political connections, favors, and government pork.
Running an economy where one’s success is based solely on one’s ability schmooze politicians is BAD FOR CONSUMERS! (aka: see Stalinist Russia)
I’m not so dumb as to believe that hateful socialists are not coming for all business. There is no end to the liberal taking and coveting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 1105 hrs
I’m not so dumb as to believe
No, you are that dumb. You’ll believe anything that Rush, etc… tells you, and you’ll just put the word “socialist” or “liberal” in front of things you are too dumb to understand. How you’re a successful business owner while being such a complete and utter moron with no talent for nuance or complexity is astonishing to me. Congrats on using your extremely limited faculties to overcome the oppressive yoke of the socialist, liberal, facist, stalinist, French, Obama-ist, woman-hating, teen-hating government…that apparently was perfect and great just 5 short years ago
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 1123 hrs
Geez Kevin-
Comin’ a little unhinged?
My responses to your “consequences”:
1. That doesn’t even make any sense. Maybe I am dumb.
2. Are you saying that the SBA welfare would be a good thing? Would you need it? Or maybe the high barriers would help to ensure that no ill-prepared business ventured into the marketplace.
3. These business would be bankrupt/have their profit wiped out, OR they’ll adjust and make things work for themselves, their customers, and their employees.So, are we becoming France, or Stalinist Russia? I am confused.
Do you really think there are hateful socialists coming for your business?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 1135 hrs
Geez Kevin-
Comin’ a little unhinged?Please consider not responding. People that get into things endlessly with Kevin are not exchanging ideas.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 1217 hrs
Mike,
1.) As businesses bankrupt fro the regulation, remaining business will invariably gain some market share, making them larger. (Putting some of them in the position of being Dean’s foods, to be ripped apart by Feds and state officials).
2.) More SBA is a bad thing. It gets back to the Reagan adage. If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If its dead, subsidize it. That’s where we are heading with increasing the barrier to start-up…more welfare.
3.) Those “adjustments” mean either higher prices for consumers (hidden tax on poor and middle class) or less employment.
Some industries cannot make those adjustments. No one is willing to pay $10 for a $5 hamburger.
Jim,
I understand. Liberals do not want to debate the hurt they cause.
Take. covet. Deny….the trifecta of liberalism.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 1231 hrs
Geez Kevin-
Comin’ a little unhinged?It’s heartbreaking seeing many of my friends in our franchise system nearly “breaking down” and realizing Obamacare may have not only destroyed their profit, income, and cash flow…but the very equity in their business they worked 20,30,40, and sometimes 50 years, to build.
All gone in the blink of a bureaucratic eye.
It gets me upset.
Liberals purport to be the defenders of “fairness”. when did it become “fair” to destroy people who have met and succeeded in every marketplace challenge, only to be wiped out by the swift stroke of government?
If one does not get “unhinged” about that, I would consider you a cold, unfeeling, downright evil, person.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 1252 hrs
It’s heartbreaking seeing many of my friends in our franchise system nearly “breaking down” and realizing Obamacare may have not only destroyed their profit, income, and cash flow…but the very equity in their business they worked 20,30,40, and sometimes 50 years, to build.
Substitute “Open Gate” for Obamacare. Any worse? Any better?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 1354 hrs
Mike,
If I knew what you meant when you say “open gate”...
I can’t envision anything being worse than Obamacare. (N. Korean socialist torture camps possibly excepted.)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 1747 hrs
Can anyone spin Aurora’s announcement of $13M shortfall and the resulting effects to its workforce?
In the 50s, GM pushed to offer healthcare insurance to their unions as a way to stop them from forming co-ops. With insurance premiums/healthcare, in essence, being free bringing unfettered spending, is it any wonder the marketplace responded.
The Political Class, coveting more and more of our money, saw (or sees?) healthcare not as a public benefit but as a giant pile of OPM (Other People Money) that rightfully should belong to them. Watching all the pieces fall in to place as was predicted years ago, I find it difficult to believe anyone can that is not in the “taker” category could support this further dismantling of our economy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 1121 hrs
Bill,
Excellent post.
The start of destroying the finest health care system on the planet.
Why it is noble to bring us down to the level of Cuban “health care” is beyond me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 1210 hrs
the finest health care system on the planet
ಠ_ಠ
It’s like you live in a fantasy world. Fifty million people with no health insurance in the world’s most expensive health care system. 45,000 people die prematurely every year for lack of insurance. And even people who do have insurance pay far too much for it and sometimes get screwed the minute they find themselves seriously ill. Even they can end up ruined, losing everything—including their health insurance.
But this is nothing—nothing!—when compared to the suffering of fast food franchisees under Obamacare.
I wonder what percent of these restaurants we can expect to see closed. One in five? More? I want a prediction. When will I be able to drive down a main thoroughfare and count the shuttered drive-thru windows.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 1621 hrs
The start of destroying the finest health care system on the planet.
I am not a huge fan of Obamacare. I think changes should have been made, but to state what you did shows how delusional and completely out of touch with reality you truly are.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 1629 hrs
“I believe every human being has a fundamental right to affordable health care. But at what price? There has to be a line we do not cross. And it’s 14 cents.”
I know y’all saw Colbert rip up Papa John’s.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 1654 hrs
Scott,
National Policy Center disputes your number:
http://www.healthblog.ncpa.org/does-lack-of-insurance-cause-premature-death-probably-not/
Even if we believe your 45,000 number, U.K. premature deaths from there socialist health care system JUST FROM CANCER far exceeds that:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/237040.php
Pretty startling given how much smaller Britain is in population.
Government run health care sentences people to death.
Here’s another article on how evil socialist national health care is in U.K.:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20187273
BBC is hardly a conservative news source.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html
Kill the old people…that is what nationalized health care means.
Obamacare will drive out all private health ins. and drive us toward this evil.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 1657 hrs
Scott,
I got a post in moderation showing your 45,000 number is bunk and the evil and death of U.K. NHS. (pretty eye opening)
But,
Let’s say for sack of argument, we accept your false premise, we cannot fund these people’s heath care with the $60 billion in fraud, waste and government abuse?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-5414390.html
Instead, you are gleeful about bankrupting people who have sweated all their lives to build?
Why don’t we take it out of public employee pensions instead?
Stealing equity in a business is stealing a small business owners pension.
Your lack of compassion is very, very disturbing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 1745 hrs
My lack of compassion? I think you should quit whining. Things are tough all over. And if you have good health care, be glad. Millions of people do not have that luxury.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 1916 hrs
Scott,
Did you look at 60 minutes report?
$60 billion in ANNUAL Medicare waste, fraud, and abuse?
I ask again, wouldn’t this money be enough to fund the people you allege have no health care?When you steal the earnings of people that have dedicated long hours to building their small business…it is evil to covet and waste someones lifetime earnings like this.
Covet. Take. Waste. Liberalism at its core.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 1931 hrs
Whining.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 2012 hrs
I think changes should have been made, but to state what you did shows how delusional and completely out of touch with reality you truly are.
QFT
Why we’re so caught up with whether or not someone has insurance is beyond me. We should be talking about care, not insurance.
I know y’all saw Colbert rip up Papa John’s.
I did not, and Colbert is, to borrow a phrase, a “no-talent assclown”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 2103 hrs
Whining.
Two different discussions where the baby has started crying and sucking his thumb in the same night. Must be some type of record.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 2127 hrs
Whining
So when someone is robbed blind by the mob…it is “whining”?
I laugh you do not want to address the $60 billion in ANNUAL waste and fraud, just on Medicare!
Your concern is only to punish, take, and covet, not to actually deliver services appropriately.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 0853 hrs
You seem to want to make some kind of point about “waste, fraud and abuse,” Kevin. What is it you want to say about it? I’ll contribute this: when Obamacare saved billions in overpayments to providers, people like yourself didn’t support it. In fact, Paul Ryan made entirely disingenuous attacks on the president for it, implying that it was reducing benefits instead of saving money and making the program more solvent.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 0925 hrs
Scott,
What is it you want to say about it?
I want you to explain how a government that grossly wastes resources before Obamacare, can deliver Obamacare better than the marketplace?
You see what happens in the U.K. People die waiting in line for treatment. They kill the old people prematurely. The cost is killing the country.
Explain to me how the government monster can do it better than the marketplace?
Explain to me what incentive there will be to work if socialists will come along and steal everything you have worked for on a whim?
Explain to me how $60 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse, every single year is effective delivery of Medicare resources? (and that is just one program!)
If you are going to advocate immorality, it would be nice to know the reason behind it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 0935 hrs
Without even getting into whether the government is more wasteful with regard to health care dollars, what part of Obamacare is being delivered by the big scary government? What exactly is the government going to “do” that the “marketplace” used to do?
Also, your understanding of health care in other countries, seems… shall we say, flawed?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 0950 hrs
Scott,
Let’s start with the government mandate to force people to but health ins….
The extended mandates on 1099’s issuence (which is huge even to business not “subject to Obamacare).
Have you read the first 900 pages? It is scary. (I realize Nancy Pelosi has not, but she doesn’t mind being scary, evidently.)
We can address shameful government waste later…and how this will kill business and destroy business.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 1004 hrs
I don’t understand a lot of what you’re saying, but I know what the individual mandate is. What about it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 1008 hrs
Scott,
Mandating someone to buy something will drive the price up, tremendously….thus making health ins. even more unaffordable.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 1012 hrs
Do you even understand the rationale behind the individual mandate?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 1014 hrs
Do you even understand the rationale behind the individual mandate?
The rationale: force private health ins to be so expensive that single payer (governement) becomes the only option.
Again, when government forces people to do something, it ceases to be a market.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 1019 hrs
Sick people with preexisting conditions who can’t get insurance need insurance. The Affordable Care Act forces insurance companies to cover them. But this is expensive. What do we do to help them out? We give also give them a really profitable group to insure: healthy young people who freeload, think they won’t get sick. They probably won’t, which is why they’re so cheap to insure. And this balances it out. It’s how insurance companies can afford to cover the sick—we also make it so they profit from the healthy. Risk sharing. It’s what insurance is all about, after all. This idea was cooked up at Heritage Foundation and championed by many Republicans, including Newt Gingrich. And it’s only been put into effect in America in one instance: by a Republican governor you may remember called Mitt Romney.
Or it could be a radical communist plot to destroy private insurance and install the great flaming eye of Sauron as ruler of the earth.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 1027 hrs
And it occurs to me, Kevin, that the Affordable Care Act really is an attempt to preserve the private insurance industry, not destroy it. This is its only chance to survive long-term. if not for the ACA, the industry would in time eventually be marginalized in favor of single-payer. The act is an attempt to prevent that from happening—much to the dismay of liberals who would have liked to see a single-payer system.
It’s the best outcome people like yourselves could have hoped for. Learn to take yes for an answer. Recognize victory when it comes your way.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 1038 hrs
And it occurs to me, Kevin, that the Affordable Care Act really is an attempt to preserve the private insurance industry, not destroy it. This is its only chance to survive long-term. if not for the ACA, the industry would in time eventually be marginalized in favor of single-payer. The act is an attempt to prevent that from happening—much to the dismay of liberals who would have liked to see a single-payer system.
You keep living that delusion.
I think the last time the “government is needed to preserve an industry” argument was brought out for the horse whip industry when automobile came out.
When you force people to by a good, through Stalinist edict, you will drive the price of the good, or service, through the roof. This makes private health ins. even more unobtainable.
Probably good time to address this now. Part of the inflation and unaffordability of private ins. is that Medicare and Medicaid do not cover all the costs of participants and those costs get passed on as a hidden tax to productive America.
What do we do to help them out?
Badgercare
Medicare
Medicaid
The policy at emergency rooms that anyone can get treatment, regardless of ability to pay.
Private charityPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 1054 hrs
Well, you can lead a man to reality but you can’t make him drink.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 1103 hrs
Scott,
The problem is: the reality of Obamacare is far more monstrous.
What do you do with those poor and middle class that cannot afford to pay the fine and cannot afford the premium…throw them in jail?
You still have not addressed the waste, fraud, and abuse of government. That is supposed to get better now that government is seizing more resources and a lifetime of hard wok from many business owners, bankrupting them?
I’m sorry that I do not drink your immorality and covetousness.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 1115 hrs
They say you can’t argue with crazy, and dude you’re kind of nuts.
Anyway, I hope others can go back and read things like comments 38 and 39 and get something out of our exchange.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 1134 hrs
I agree, Scott. Join the rest of us and stop feeding the troll.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 10, 2013 at 1239 hrs
Both of you make me chuckle.
It makes you look foolish when you ignore the evidence that Obamacare is making health ins. even more expensive:
Neither one of you, seems to want to deal with the bankrupting of small business that Obamacare would cause.
Is “fairness” dead in this country?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 1315 hrs
Well, you can lead a man to reality but you can’t make him drink.
You missed it, man…
Well, you can lead a man to reality but you can’t make him think.
I have been very interested in what the doctors and nurses have had to say about Obamacare, thinking they would have the best understanding(not paid public or internet testimonials, real people). I have asked every one of them I have come in to contact with over the last couple of years. The range of response is from dislike to despite. No one has thought it a good thing, the reasoning for the negativity has varied pretty widely and none of it has been that they would be paid less. I am not asking you to heed my anecdotes. The next time you go in for anything, ask your nurse what they think. Then ask your doctor. Maybe they are attempting indoctrination of their patients and have been blowing smoke up my prostate exam, but you would think then they would bring up the topic. Who else should we go to for good info? Politicians and MSM will answer according to party lines. There is way too much in the Act to decipher oneself, even the writers couldn’t summarize. I half believe both Kevin and Scott could both be 100% right on every stated point above. Only an idiot thinks the entire Act is all good or all bad…hopefully.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 1323 hrs
The next thing I want to happen after Obamacare is fully in effect is for doctors and hospitals and drug/device makers to all take a pay cut.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 1426 hrs
The next thing I want to happen after Obamacare is fully in effect is for doctors and hospitals and drug/device makers to all take a pay cut
.
There you go, another market destroyer.
Did you not see the nursing shortage problem posted by Owen? How do you think a pay cut will affect that shortage?
Hint: it will make it much worse. Care shortage in Britian leads to death.
Tuerqas,
I do like one thing about Obamacare: the tax credit for churches. That is outstanding.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 1818 hrs
Well, the reason health care costs double here is because prices are so much higher. I’m open to suggestions. But if your solution is making people pay higher co-pays so they shop around more or maybe to make it harder to sue for medical malpractice, or price transparency, then I’ll probably remain unimpressed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 2034 hrs
Well, the reason health care costs double here is because prices are so much higher. I’m open to suggestions. But if your solution is making people pay higher co-pays so they shop around more or maybe to make it harder to sue for medical malpractice, or price transparency, then I’ll probably remain unimpressed.
...and how much recourse, legally, does one have in a single payer system like the U.K.
If the government refuses to fund it, you are screwed, no choice at all.
Obamacare is speeding us to the single payer system.
Heck, Obama took apart the dairy in Waukesha for 80% market share. Why is it OK for government to have 100% control of any industry…which is what Obamacare represents?
The solution is giving people an economic incentive to minimize their health care spending with health savings accounts or some other market based incentive. This requires socialists to stop thinking they are smarter than the marketplace.
Just on the $60 billion in Medicare waste alone, that would be a free $1000 for a family of 4, (probably closer to $2500 oer family if we exclude Medicare recipients out) if we just gave it to them in an HSA. So yes, what is wrong with a $2500 or $5000 deduct in that scenario? If the family does not use the HSA, they can bank it for future or use it elsewhere.
That is a far better plan, just using the waste of government.
You want to have it all, and take from others to get there.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 2207 hrs
If the government refuses to fund it, you are screwed, no choice at all.
Wrong.
Obamacare is speeding us to the single payer system.
Wrong. It’s preventing us from going to a single-payer system.
government to have 100% control of any industry…which is what Obamacare represents?
Wrong.
The solution is giving people an economic incentive to minimize their health care spending
Wrong. You’d give people an economic incentive to minimize routine and preventive care. And this does nothing to give insurance to the tens of millions without it.
You want to have it all, and take from others to get there.
I want to have what the rest of the civilized world has: every citizen with comprehensive health insurance and costs that are affordable. And for you to stop whining about what it’s going to personally cost you. I’m frankly more sympathetic to your employees who don’t have health insurance.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 2256 hrs
Scott,
1.) So people in UK are free to sue their government for being denied treatment? (hopefully, before death).
2.) Making private ins. more expensive, through Obamacare regulation mandates, is not speeding us toward a government run system? (you don’t deny Obamacare is making private health ins. more expensive)
3.) Ins. “exchanges” in Obamacare, and the individual mandate is NOT 100% control? (I’d hate to see what you mean by “government control”)
4.) Taking just the Medicare waste, you would give everyone about $2500 in “free” healthcare….increasing the possible use of preventive visits.
Isn’t that a better use of the criminal resource level waste by government?
I want to have what the rest of the civilized world has: every citizen with comprehensive health insurance and costs that are affordable.
Paid for by whom? When you insist on this, you obligate others to provide it. When you take lifetime savings of others, by government edict, that is wrong. That is slavery.
We fought a civil war over that.
The fact you want to cut the pay of doctors, and provide even more disincentive to be a doctor or nurse means even worse rationing in the future.
Obligating medical professionals to slavery never produces the best results in health care.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2013 at 0722 hrs
I do like one thing about Obamacare: the tax credit for churches. That is outstanding.
Even if it included the federally sanctioned Icelandic church?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2013 at 1157 hrs
Tuerqas,
It depends, does the “federally sanctioned Icelandic church” meet the requirements for the Obamacare tax credit? (There are hoops to get through for the church, or any nonprofit, to get the tax credit.)
If this church does qualify, sure.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2013 at 1248 hrs
The fact you want to cut the pay of doctors, and provide even more disincentive to be a doctor or nurse means even worse rationing in the future.
Ummm, teachers?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2013 at 1540 hrs
Oh look Kevin comparing things to slavery!
Hardly surprising.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2013 at 1542 hrs
Ummm, teachers?
Care to try to correlate your strawman to what you quoted? (This should be entertaining)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2013 at 1557 hrs
Ummm, teachers?
So you are missing the fact that nearly every teacher opening has HUNDREDS of applicants?
Please point out the “shortage” of teachers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2013 at 1600 hrs
Speaking of dreams and achievements, this year I wish I could just move to a new house. I live for many years with rent and now I really want a house in Texas. Now that I have shared my dream with you, I am sure it will come true:)
New Braunfels Real EstatePosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 03, 2013 at 1026 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 53
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/22/2013 01:02 pm
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).