Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 25 Jan '16 17:11
    Worth quoting in its entirety. The source is a NPR station reputed by the RIght to be Liberal Lefties. The unintended consequences (IMO) are bolded.

    None of this is "breaking news."

    quote:

    At a Burger King off Highway 99 in the Central Valley, half a dozen workers in black uniforms scurry around, grabbing packets of ketchup, stuffing paper bags with French fries.

    “Number 22! Two barbecue, two ketchup,” one worker says, handing an order to a customer through the drive-thru window.

    Tiana Mua has worked here almost a year. She’s part time, but she’d like to be full time.

    “Cause I want to become independent,” she says.

    But at this Burger King, only the managers are full time. Mua says it’s like that at fast food joints all over town. It’s hard to get full time work.

    “They’re cutting back on all the jobs, and a lot of people have been let go,” she says.

    One reason is the local economy is bad. People aren’t eating out as much, and sales are down. So restaurants can’t afford a robust staff.

    But there’s another reason that might explain why fast food employees aren’t getting more hours: Obamacare.

    Starting January 1, businesses with 50 or more full time employees must offer health insurance to all full time staff or pay a hefty fine. Employers with 100 or more workers had to start offering coverage last year. But smaller businesses that operate on lower margins, especially restaurants, complained loudly about the cost. And some fast food franchise owners, figured out a way to avoid paying for coverage: just make everyone part time.

    Nearly 60 percent of small franchise business owners said they would make personnel changes like this to avoid hitting the 50 employee threshhold, according to a 2013 U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey.


    But, some of those restaurant owners who cut hours to sidestep the health law –- now regret it, says Kaya Bromley, an attorney who consults with employers on how to comply with the Affordable Care Act, and author of The Employers’ Guide to Obamacare.

    “A lot of the fast food franchisees that did this are now coming back and saying, it was a great idea for reducing the number of people that I have to offer benefits, but now I can’t run my restaurants,” she says.

    They tell her it’s been a nightmare trying to manage a part time staff.

    “Because you’ve got people who are less loyal, you’ve got people who are less skilled who don’t understand the business, and there’s more turnover,” she says.


    So, Bromley has seen a lot of those restaurants reverse course.

    “So they’re backtracking, saying, ‘It’s worth it to me to have a full of time staff of people in every restaurant and offer them benefits,’”she says. “Employers think that there’s a shortcut here or there, and then they realize, yeah, that shortcut really hurt me more than it helped me.”

    The people hurt most by all the workforce management gymnastics are the people at the bottom of the restaurant pecking order who want to advance, but can’t, says Angelo Amador, vice president of labor and workforce policy for the National Restaurant Association.

    “Someone who’s working part time, but wants more hours so they can move up the ladder, they can’t get the hours,” he says. “It ends up taking out that middle rung of employees.”

    Obamacare has made restaurants less flexible, he says, mainly because it defines full time work as 30 hours a week or more. Amador says most other laws restaurants have to comply with, like overtime pay, define full time as 40 hours. He thinks the Affordable Care Act should be changed for consistency.

    “It would be much easier if we could have one definition of full time,” he says.

    Silvia Campos is relieved that she’s allowed to keep as many workers full time as she can at the Carl’s Junior she manages in Chowchilla.

    “It’s a small town. For me, it’s hard to find a really good employee,” she says. “We have employees, and for some reason, they don’t like it and go. So it’s really hard to keep good people.”

    But Campos says some workers don’t want more hours. They get subsidized health care through Covered California, the state’s health insurance marketplace, or free coverage through Medi-Cal. If their income gets too high, they lose eligibility for public benefits.

    “We try but some people, they don’t want the full time,” she says. “They say no, keep me on part time and that’s good with me.”

    The company does offer insurance, at a cost of about $300 a month, according to the workers. But some of them say they’re better off making less money and getting their coverage free from the state.


    http://ww2.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2016/01/25/to-avoid-obamacare-some-fast-food-restaurants-cut-staff-did-it-work/
  2. 25 Jan '16 18:11
    Originally posted by JS357
    Worth quoting in its entirety. The source is a NPR station reputed by the RIght to be Liberal Lefties. The unintended consequences (IMO) are bolded.

    None of this is "breaking news."

    quote:

    At a Burger King off Highway 99 in the Central Valley, half a dozen workers in black uniforms scurry around, grabbing packets of ketchup, stuffing paper bags with F ...[text shortened]... rg/stateofhealth/2016/01/25/to-avoid-obamacare-some-fast-food-restaurants-cut-staff-did-it-work/
    It is interesting to see those "unintended consequences" predicted by the right, happening as a result of gubmint meddling in the market.

    It isn't that people counter-intuitively want less money. I'm betting that many of those "part timers" are working a 2nd or 3rd job, under the table. That subterfuge would not be necessary, without all the gubmint rules and regulations, and benefits.
  3. 25 Jan '16 18:28
    Originally posted by normbenign
    It is interesting to see those "unintended consequences" predicted by the right, happening as a result of gubmint meddling in the market.

    It isn't that people counter-intuitively want less money. I'm betting that many of those "part timers" are working a 2nd or 3rd job, under the table. That subterfuge would not be necessary, without all the gubmint rules and regulations, and benefits.
    If only there was a way to avoid these unintended consequences, increase health care coverage and slash health care costs all at the same time. That would be awesome.
  4. 25 Jan '16 18:33
    I'd prefer to choose the type of coverage I want and choose my doctor.
  5. 25 Jan '16 18:35
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    If only there was a way to avoid these unintended consequences, increase health care coverage and slash health care costs all at the same time. That would be awesome.
    Always the rub. It is only human nature to take "free stuff", and to work for extras. If you can find a way to repeal human nature, that awesome might be discovered.
  6. 25 Jan '16 18:35
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I'd prefer to choose the type of coverage I want and choose my doctor.
    When are you moving to Europe?
  7. 25 Jan '16 18:37
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    When are you moving to Europe?
    Common, we know that's the Utopian ideal, but reality?
  8. 25 Jan '16 18:39
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    When are you moving to Europe?
    Why would I move to Europe if my doctor lives in the US? Besides, in Europe I'd have to pay for stuff I don't want to support because the government would do it for me.
  9. 25 Jan '16 18:43
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Always the rub. It is only human nature to take "free stuff", and to work for extras. If you can find a way to repeal human nature, that awesome might be discovered.
    Yeah, all those societies that have implemented universal health care coverage (i.e. every rich society apart from the US) have all genetically engineered humans to change their "human nature." How else could one explain that they provide superior health care coverage at lower cost?
  10. 25 Jan '16 18:45
    Originally posted by normbenign
    It is interesting to see those "unintended consequences" predicted by the right, happening as a result of gubmint meddling in the market.

    It isn't that people counter-intuitively want less money. I'm betting that many of those "part timers" are working a 2nd or 3rd job, under the table. That subterfuge would not be necessary, without all the gubmint rules and regulations, and benefits.
    It's "W"'s fault and why Bernie will fix health care again.

    If so, who will fix the single payer health care Bernie sets up?

    More to follow I'm sure.
  11. 25 Jan '16 18:46
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Yeah, all those societies that have implemented universal health care coverage (i.e. every rich society apart from the US) have all genetically engineered humans to change their "human nature." How else could one explain that they provide superior health care coverage at lower cost?
    Americans are a bit tired of being lectured by the left about health care. Obviously they are either ignorant or evil to sell us such a horrible plan.
  12. 25 Jan '16 18:46
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Yeah, all those societies that have implemented universal health care coverage (i.e. every rich society apart from the US) have all genetically engineered humans to change their "human nature." How else could one explain that they provide superior health care coverage at lower cost?
    Americans are a bit tired of being lectured by the left about health care. Obviously they are either ignorant or evil to sell us such a horrible plan.
  13. 25 Jan '16 18:48 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    It's "W"'s fault and why Bernie will fix health care again.

    If so, who will fix the single payer health care Bernie sets up?

    More to follow I'm sure.
    Don't forget about Trumpcare.

    If we get Bernie's everyone is on medicaide, then the government can simply claim all assets once a person dies and accumulate all the wealth and land in the US. They've got to get back all that money they've spent giving all these people care.
  14. 25 Jan '16 18:52
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Common, we know that's the Utopian ideal, but reality?
    Admittedly I cannot choose to drop my cancer treatment or emergency room health care coverage. Damn it! How I wish I would die of cancer without treatment like a certain fraction of freedom-loving and un- or underinsured Americans have the opportunity to do.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    25 Jan '16 18:54
    Originally posted by whodey
    Americans are a bit tired of being lectured by the left about health care. Obviously they are either ignorant or evil to sell us such a horrible plan.
    Actually Americans seem a bit tired of right wingers telling them that health care for all is an impossible dream:

    The poll also found that a 63 percent to 21 percent majority favors a universal health care system -- by party affiliation the breakdown is 33 percent Republican, 87 percent Democrat and 61 percent independent. And a 76 percent to 24 percent majority also agrees that since most other advanced countries can afford to provide universal health insurance, so could this country.

    In addition, an overwhelming 84 percent to 16 percent majority believes that having a system that ensures that sick people get the care they need is a moral issue. That includes 75 percent of Republicans and 91 percent of Democrats.

    http://www.philly.com/philly/health/healthcare-exchange/HealthDay702784_20150908_Most_Americans_View_Access_to_Health_Care_as_a_Moral_Issue___.html