Obamacare Has Unforeseen Consequences
 

Denny's to charge 5% 'Obamacare surcharge' and cut employee hours to deal with cost of legislation.

We're going to being seeing a ton of this kind of thing happening all over the country. Workers are going to get their hours cut. As this Denny's franchise owners explains, "To pay $5,000 per employee would cost us $175,000 per restaurant and unfortunately, most of our restaurants don't make $175,000 a year. I can't afford it."

Are there good things about Obamacare? Sure there are good things but you have to look at the bad things too.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2CJXXUzai
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Unforseen? I think some idiot predicted similar 2 years ago after finding out that the legislation was funded by hocus pocus...

I just meant "unforeseen" in the sense that some people have just been looking at the positive things Obamacare will do without considering all the possible negative consequences. For the critics of Obamacare, these negative consequences were not unforeseen in the least bit.

So let me get this straight- Denny's is going to charge a 5 percent surcharge for health care costs that they aren't actually going to incur, because they are also cutting employees' hours so they don't actually have to offer health care coverage?

Sounds like Denny's is just looking for a way to make people pay even more money for their crappy food and blaming the ACA for it.

I would assume it's still going to cost them some money even if they cut the hours down on a lot of their employees. If by cutting employees hours down was going to get them off the hook entirely, I doubt they would be charging the 5%. Maybe they will have to keep a small percentage of their employees full-time such as mangers, cooks, etc.

:tro:


i think a lot of these companies hollering (papa johns is another-he can give away 2 million free pies, but health insurance?!?! aw, hell no) is just window dressing to be honest with you. these companies need to do the math. if you hire more people, it's more workers comp, more training, more expense, more time which also costs money...so, is it better to keep folks at the hours they're at, or hire more? i'm figuring it's the first. we all know companies will work people overtime before hiring more, for the very same reason.

Where does $5,000.00 per employee come from?

The way I was led to understand this - and feel free to correct - any company with over 50 employees can either sponsor a healthcare plan for each employee or pay a 750.00 per person fine to Obama.

not sure how it would work with a restaurant like denny's. is it a franchise or corporate? if it's a franchise, it's going to be under 50.
as for over 50-what if the company didn't have insurance, does it have to start having it now? i don't think that's correct. i think they just want those with large group to keep it for now. eventually that'll change.

and that brings up an interesting point. you see, if you work at a place with group coverage, you cannot leave the group and go on your own. which means, no subsidy. so, what does a company do? some of their employees will wish to keep the group, while others may not, because if they didn't have group, they may qualify for subsidies by going thru an exchange. and if you qualify for a subsidy, your coverage also would be subsidized (your stop loss and deductibles would be different than others who make more money).
also, take not-there aren't currently five different pay levels for age groups. that's going to change to three, which will make older people happier. younger, not so much.

Arguing the semantics is pointless. The issue is that we were told that this was going to save everyone money and it most obviously isn't. Just like the banking regulations that were going to rein in all those nasty bank practices and charges most of which the banks have simply passed on to customers in terms of higher fees and more restrictive terms. For every action there is a reaction which seems to elude some. The fact remains that businesses exist to make money and anything the gov't does that costs business money is going to trigger actions that are designed to maintain the bottom line including cutting back or changing hiring practices. Obamacare is funded using dubious means (at best) and more or less is going to become a giant tax increase on all Americans.

i agree. and it already is one of the largest tax increases in our history. i doubt any of the consequencs are unforeseen, there will be many.

like jon stewart said the other day, obama should have fought a lot harder for single payer. it would have taken every company, regardless of size, out of the game.
of course insurance companies would have paid the price-but in the long run, who will end up paying? we all know the answer to that one. it's the same people who always pay.

The line item thing is a good idea.

The fact is that the prices of everything will be going up due to ObamaCare. And there will be layoffs for the same reason.

If the politicians did not foresee that business owners would not absorb the cost as they do necessary expenses, shame on them. The cellphone and telecom companies have been doing that for years. The FCC cost is a separate line item. It tells the customer, directly, "Don't blame me for this part of the price - it wasn't my idea. If you don't like it, call your Congressman."

More businesses should do this, and for other motivations as well. Businesses collect sales taxes for local and state governments and list it separately too.

There is no right of the government to expect the business owner, in addition to being a tax collector, to also be a "public relations" agent to also hide that cost from the consumer.

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...orm-rules?lite

18 million people times and average of a $6,000 subsidy comes to $108 billion a year. Or in Obama terms over a trillion over 10 years. And we were lied to saying this would save money based on ER visits.

We've been screwed again! Should have read the details before signing on