Interesting ACA side effect (Page 3)

BikerGrrrl - 2012-11-16 4:08 PM

I would like to know how many people actually work full-time at a job that pays $7.25/hour.  Unless you're single, that puts you right at the poverty level.  These people have other problems.  I think it's more realistic they will take their 30 hours at this job, plus two or more other part-time jobs.    They probably have another job already.   So, I have to wonder if we're making a mountain out of a molehill...

Good Question (i was curious too)  According to http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011tbls.htm#9 there were about 55 Million people 16 and over that were working in excess of 30 hours per week at or below minimum wage.

I also don't think that folks this close to the line will be wasting time at the clinic now that they have health insurance, for the slightest thing.  My mom, as a single parent and a secretary, absolutely would not take time from work for just a sniffle for me or my sisters.   And she had health insurance from the get go.  She worked at Mayo Clinic, the best sniffle fixers you can find!  

I agree that this demographic statistically speaking is not going to be lining up at the health clinic.  This is why they don't necessarily need insurance and even if it were available would choose to not purchase it.  With Obamacare though they are all going to be forced to purchase healthcare and based on their income level it will likely be 100% subsidized by you and me.

Also, if an employer made a statement that they would keep their full-time employees, despite having the extra expense, and would then have to raise prices a bit, it would be good marketing.  Shoot,  I already paid almost $20 for the good pizza place even though I can get Pizza Hut for almost half.   No one called it a national crisis when pizza delivery places started adding 1 or more dollars in delivery fees a few years ago!

You may be right, but I'd say statistically people want the best value no matter where they go.  I have no clue what my local pizza shop has for benefits, i just know they charge me $15 and Little Ceasars is across the street and charges me $5.  I have three teenage kids, so we pretty much always get Little Ceasars. 

I don't really know anything about the ACA, but it seems to me these news items about restaurants changing policies for full-time employees are a little overly dramatic.

They may seem that way, but as a business owner I see it more as people trying to provide a good product to their customers at a competitive price balanced with paying competitive wages/benefits.  The ACA threw a big ole wrench into the mix and businesses are trying to deal with it.

Marvarnett - 2012-11-16 2:33 PM

How is this any different than if the cost of dough went up?  It's a cost increase, nothing more.  If people are going to blame the ACA for layoffs then they also need to blame shipping cost, etc.  So UPS can be blamed for layoffs just as much as the ACA can be.

In the end, as a SBO, I can choose to shift a new or increased cost to the consumer, to the employee or to my profit.  Either one is a business choice and I, the SBO, take responsibility for it.  Not who is in the Oval Office (D or R)

briderdt - 2012-11-16 5:37 PM

There's a difference between the cost of dough going up, which affects this ONE example, vs a law that makes the costs go up for EVERYONE across the board.

chirunner134 - 2012-11-16 5:42 PM So you want people who handle your food to void treatment (because they can not afford it) and basically come to work sick (because they can not afford not too)?

Marvarnett - 2012-11-16 4:33 PM

How is this any different than if the cost of dough went up?  It's a cost increase, nothing more.  If people are going to blame the ACA for layoffs then they also need to blame shipping cost, etc.  So UPS can be blamed for layoffs just as much as the ACA can be.

In the end, as a SBO, I can choose to shift a new or increased cost to the consumer, to the employee or to my profit.  Either one is a business choice and I, the SBO, take responsibility for it.  Not who is in the Oval Office (D or R)

JoshR - 2012-11-16 5:04 PM I know it's slightly off topic, but who is comparing prices for pizza or any other restaurant? When I want some pizza delivered I want Papa Johns (my personal favorite chain). I drive by a guy swinging a little Caesars sign screaming $5 pizza everyday on my way home, never once am I tempted because little Caesar's is gross (sorry tuwood, it is). If I want something higher quality, I go to a local pizzeria. The only time I am comparing prices it's between a regular "cheap" place ($8-10/plate) or an expensive place (everything else to me).

tuwood - 2012-11-16 4:10 PM

lol, it's an acquired taste.  After eating it for 10 years I have grown to really like it. 

JoshR - 2012-11-16 5:19 PM

 

Come on, even as a little kid I knew it was gross. I even really wanted to eat it because of the little dancing Caesar saying "pizza, pizza". It still wasn't good. Now Papa Johns on the other hand, mmmmmmmmm. I might have to order one when I get home :0

tuwood - 2012-11-16 4:47 PM

Friday night is pizza night at our house.  Just got done eating my Little Ceasars.  haha
I've always loved their sauce.  When they first came out in the late 80's or whenever it was I loved it then and still love it now.

I do agree that Papa Johns is good pizza too.

tuwood - 2012-11-16 5:47 PM

Friday night is pizza night at our house.  Just got done eating my Little Ceasars.  haha
I've always loved their sauce.  When they first came out in the late 80's or whenever it was I loved it then and still love it now.

I do agree that Papa Johns is good pizza too.

crusevegas - 2012-11-16 4:18 PM

 

So in your world what is a fair percentage of profit?

$55M dollars net income last year on $1.22B in sales; 5% is greedy?

Profit per employee $3,437 per employee per year or $66. per week per employee....,,,,,,

Possibly if the health care providers were as efficient at providing a product/service as Pappa Johns, healthcare would be a lot more affordable than it is today.

Yeah, I can see where that $.14 per pizza on a quarter billion pizzas or $35,000.000.00 should just be sucked up by the company.......

gearboy - 2012-11-16 7:47 PM Well you totally missed the point. If it is only going to cost $0.14 or even $0.50 per pie to provide health care to the employees, then he should raise the price and provide the insurance. Instead, he's planning to raise the price and keep the cash. Is it legal? Of course. But its not ethical. I don't understand why people willing to work full time should have their hours cut in order to not receive health insurance, especially in a first world country.

Marvarnett - 2012-11-16 3:47 PM

This is a strawman in so many ways. 

I will take the opposite stance and say that the *standard* person that says they can't afford treatment has a cell phone, car, cable, name brand food in their pantry, goes out to eat at least 1x/week, etc.  Lots of extra money they can put towards healthcare yet they choose not to.

People come into work sick that make $100k.  There is a special place down under for them.

gearboy - 2012-11-16 6:47 PM Well you totally missed the point. If it is only going to cost $0.14 or even $0.50 per pie to provide health care to the employees, then he should raise the price and provide the insurance. Instead, he's planning to raise the price and keep the cash. Is it legal? Of course. But its not ethical. I don't understand why people willing to work full time should have their hours cut in order to not receive health insurance, especially in a first world country.

Marvarnett - 2012-11-16 2:33 PM

How is this any different than if the cost of dough went up?  It's a cost increase, nothing more.  If people are going to blame the ACA for layoffs then they also need to blame shipping cost, etc.  So UPS can be blamed for layoffs just as much as the ACA can be.

In the end, as a SBO, I can choose to shift a new or increased cost to the consumer, to the employee or to my profit.  Either one is a business choice and I, the SBO, take responsibility for it.  Not who is in the Oval Office (D or R)

gearboy - 2012-11-16 5:47 PM Well you totally missed the point. If it is only going to cost $0.14 or even $0.50 per pie to provide health care to the employees, then he should raise the price and provide the insurance. Instead, he's planning to raise the price and keep the cash. Is it legal? Of course. But its not ethical. I don't understand why people willing to work full time should have their hours cut in order to not receive health insurance, especially in a first world country.

Aysel - 2012-11-23 8:29 AM

I am curious what will happen when the state and national health exchanges are set up.  The larger the pool of people in a plan, in general, the lower the costs are for health insurance.  Perhaps we will come to a day where the insurance offered by the state/federal gov't is better and cheaper than what is offered by the employer and workers will reject employer funded health insurance thus making the 30 hours a week a moot point.  It's a huge burden and a huge cost for employers to offer insurance...so why make them?  Healthcare was not a benefit for working until WWII when "hospitalization" was offered.

I think for the next 10 years we will find that those minimum wage employees will work 30 hours at one job and 15 or 30 hours at another job just to make the ends meet.  My theory is that employers do not want to schedule an employee for just one shift a week, that's a waste in onbording/training resources.  This will drive the avg work week from 38-40 hours to 45-60 hours a week negatively effecting quality of life/ leisure time.  Just imagine never getting a day off- always working at one job or another.  Never having the opportunity to sit down with your family because you are never home at the same times. Having to miss your child's soccer game, not getting any time for a long ride or run because you are working 16 hour days and are exhausted when you get home.  I know this is the reality for many families already, but imagine it getting worse.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

I believe that healthcare, like school, is an unalienable right.  It is self-evident that it is in our best interest as a society to offer basic preventative health care to everyone. Sure I don't think it's fair that my property taxes go towards the education of other people's children as I myself can not have any.  However I don't want the next generation to grow up so ignorant that they don't have the necessary skills to take care of me when I'm old and gray. So yeah, we are all going to pay a little to improve the potential for the quality of life to improve.  Sure there will be people who continue in unhealthy lifestyles, sucking up resources.  Just like in school there are children who pass notes and cheat on homework.  However we have to give them the chance to succeed, not set them up to fail. 

Aysel - 2012-11-23 9:29 AM

I am curious what will happen when the state and national health exchanges are set up.  The larger the pool of people in a plan, in general, the lower the costs are for health insurance.  Perhaps we will come to a day where the insurance offered by the state/federal gov't is better and cheaper than what is offered by the employer and workers will reject employer funded health insurance thus making the 30 hours a week a moot point.  It's a huge burden and a huge cost for employers to offer insurance...so why make them?  Healthcare was not a benefit for working until WWII when "hospitalization" was offered.

I think for the next 10 years we will find that those minimum wage employees will work 30 hours at one job and 15 or 30 hours at another job just to make the ends meet.  My theory is that employers do not want to schedule an employee for just one shift a week, that's a waste in onbording/training resources.  This will drive the avg work week from 38-40 hours to 45-60 hours a week negatively effecting quality of life/ leisure time.  Just imagine never getting a day off- always working at one job or another.  Never having the opportunity to sit down with your family because you are never home at the same times. Having to miss your child's soccer game, not getting any time for a long ride or run because you are working 16 hour days and are exhausted when you get home.  I know this is the reality for many families already, but imagine it getting worse.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

I believe that healthcare, like school, is an unalienable right.  It is self-evident that it is in our best interest as a society to offer basic preventative health care to everyone. Sure I don't think it's fair that my property taxes go towards the education of other people's children as I myself can not have any.  However I don't want the next generation to grow up so ignorant that they don't have the necessary skills to take care of me when I'm old and gray. So yeah, we are all going to pay a little to improve the potential for the quality of life to improve.  Sure there will be people who continue in unhealthy lifestyles, sucking up resources.  Just like in school there are children who pass notes and cheat on homework.  However we have to give them the chance to succeed, not set them up to fail. 

powerman - 2012-11-23 12:42 PM

RIGHTS guaranteed in the Constitution you are born with.

Correct, an unalienable right is a natural right- the right you were born with.  The right for each individual to have the necessary conditions for leading a minimally good life.

Health care is a service... it is not a RIGHT. You generally can't "limit" rights. You said "preventative" health care is a "right". So you can get a cancer screening, but the actual treatment of it is not a right? Treatments, are not preventative.

So then to what end does that go to... "RIGHT" do not have price tags. Anyone and everyone would have the right to the most expensive treatments for anything, because of course you can't discriminate. So everyone gets what ever they want, when ever they want. How exactly do you pay for that? And speaking of paying for it, how do you control the "cost" of a "right"?

I had originally typed my post without the word "preventative" because I knew someone would jump in with an elective surgery being a 'necessary right' (like a breast augmentation for a strip club employee).  This is a slippery slope when we look at what treatments are available.   For instance, 42% of men will develop prostate cancer.  To simplify the treatments, you can do a radical prostatectomy (Cost Xxx), Chemo (Cost Xx) or hormonal therapy (Cost X).  You can remove the prostate and have a pretty good survival rate.  However if you have less than a 10 year lifespan, it does not make sense to spend Cost Xxx on a surgery.  You will probably be better off with chemo or hormonal therapy.  It's up to your healthcare provider to decide what they will cover.  I'm of the opinion that if you want the expensive treatment, you can get it but you have to pay the difference out of pocket...which is sort of what we have today.  But instead of a for profit company deciding what treatment you can have that will help their bottom line, we have the ACA created boards that will decide who qualifies for which surgery.  If you are under 65 with a longer life expectancy than 10 years then I would hope the board recommends the removal of the prostate.  If you are over 75, diabetic smoker with hypertension I would hope that you aren't going to receive Xxx but X from the pot of cash because you probably don't have 10 years to live.

On second thought though, the gov't limits RIGHTS all the time- gay rights for one.  Those sure are limited.

FOOD, isn't a right. Housing isn't a "right". Education isn't a right. Heck... WATER isn't a right, and nobody can live without it for more than a week! Something as universal as WATER... isn't even a right, it is a product, or a service government bodies provides.

We are back to naturalistic rights, which our government does cover.  If you are too poor to purchase food the gov't gives you food stamps (if you apply for them).  If you need a drink of water, you can go into any public building and use a restroom or water fountain.  (They frown on washing clothes in the sink!)  If you are too poor to find housing, HUD will help you.  You aren't going to be living next to the Kardashians but you will have a roof over your head, a place to cook food and a restroom with running water.  If you are cold you can apply for heating assistance, for electrical assistance.  Basic education PreK-12th grade is a right that everyone in this country receives. 

On the flip side, as a member of society, you agree to abide by the rules set by the community in which you live.  If your community is not enforcing the existing laws (and you see this though the welfare program and the food stamp program) can you blame them?  If a person can get away with milking the system, of course they are going to try.  If we as triathletes see someone to draft from, aren't we going to try?  Something to make our swim a little easier?  Well it's allowed in the rules, so it must be ok, right?  I can swim right over someone and kick them in the jaw.  Just like buying red bull is allowed by food stamps so why not, right?  There is no magic pill to fix someone's moral compass.

Now I may agree with you that it is a service we can provide and I may even agree we should, but it isn't a right. There is no legal way to enforce it. That right has to be served by someone and you can't force anyone to serve it.