How so? It seems like it makes that “feature” of the system even more entrenched.
I don’t care at all about the benefit structure at businesses where I go to eat. If the employees are working around food while sick, I’ll complain but I’ve been eating at restaurants for over half a century and have only really be sick maybe once in my life when I had some norovirus, and a few scattered colds (I don’t believe I’ve ever even had influenza.) So whatever is going on doesn’t seem that concerning to me from a personal health perspective vis-a-vis fears of contagious disease from food workers.
Because a gojillian of small businesses will drop health care and the “50 or more” companies who are required to provide health care (sorry, taxed per the Chief Justice) will reduce worker hours under 30. Many more people will get health care on the exchanges and can start businesses or change jobs and keep the same policy.
All depends on the costs. Large companies will probably still offer it as an attractive benefit.
Hell, my current policy with the company I signed on with as an employee in August is costing me all of $25 every two weeks. Sure, it’s an HSA, but the deductible is only $3,000, which is lower than the vast majority of policies I can get through our state’s exchange, and Minnesota has the lowest ACA premiums in the country. No way I can touch that on my own - but then that’s the negotiating power of having a 6 figure employee base. I’m digging this plan an awful lot, because I just refilled my Metformin for $0.74 for the month (was $15 co-pay under the previous employer).
On the other hand, like I said about my previous company, I was paying $100 every two weeks for insurance that covered precious little. If I was still there and making those wages, I’d be begging them to drop coverage so that I could qualify for a subsidized plan through the exchange. Because I could get one that covered far more than their plan did, for $40 every two weeks after subsidy.
Lots of companies have tried the ‘all part timers’ bandwagon. Walmart is getting raked over the coals by their customers and their investors because their stores have fallen to shit over it. They’re dirty, they can’t stock their shelves properly, the lines at the registers are long because they may only have 2-3 (at my local store) open at any given time, even during rush hour. They just announced plans to hire more full-timers. I wouldn’t bet on them suddenly getting the clue and changing their model, but at least they’re starting to recognize there is a problem.
Any restaurant which decides to go to an all part timer, all under 25 hours a week model is going to have to rely on students, retirees and people working second jobs. Students are notoriously unreliable workers, especially young college students, who may decide they have better things to do than get stiffed on tips while being screamed at by asshole customers and bosses. Any boss who bases their business model on unreliable workers is only fucking themselves over and I won’t weep too hard if they go out of business and are replaced by more competent business people.
What makes you think this is an unintended consequence? I’ve always thought it was part of the plan. I don’t think the exchange would work otherwise.
I’ve always thought that the idea was that, either the employers would step up, or people would buy their insurance elsewhere.
I do not follow what you are saying. How does increasing deduction make it where the penalty can not be enforced? Are the insurance companies increasing deductions, thus meaning they are increasing costs? How does that negate the mandate?
Or do you mean that the IRS will create tax deductions to counter the tax penalty? I can see how that would be connected, but I don’t see how it can happen, unless the IRS sets more policy than I thought. I would think that tax deductions would be in Congress’s domain, and I don’t see any Democrats going along with a new deduction for that purpose.
I do think that, based on what you’ve said, you probably have a point. I know I’m not the smartest when it comes to finances, but, still, I don’t get that point, and I would like to.
Some will, some won’t.
Unlikely.
At the end of the day, there will still be more people getting HC insurance through their employers than not.
Huh. Was that in CA? My experiences at that time were in WA, and in the 80’s when one of my brothers worked at Red Robin, he didn’t get any benefits (or full time hours) until he became a manager.
I’ve had health insurance almost all of my adult life, and I’ve never gone to a doctor for a nagging cough. Having insurance doesn’t mean that people won’t go to work ill.
Will be interesting to see how folks react to this. When I say it, I’m accused of all kinds of interesting shit.
Yep. I don’t know if you get up into North OC often, but they’re still around (also in Long Beach and the South Bay).
I’m up there all the time. Don’t get into restaurants much since I can’t afford to eat out all that often. I suppose I’ve seen a Spires, it just doesn’t spring to mind.
Relax. It’s still dumb as fuck when someone else says it.
From my understanding, the IRS cannot force a taxpayer to write a check to pay the ACA penalty/tax. The only way it can be enforced is to withhold it from a tax refund.
When people get wind of this, they will adjust their deductions on their W-4 so that they are not owed a refund at the end of the year, but pay as they go, or even owe a few bucks at tax time. Better than the IRS keeping $700 or 2.5% of income.
Good.
Oh, maybe an (un)intended consequence - if they cut the hours of existing employees, but want to maintain their service levels, they may have to hire more 25<hr/week workers… meaning unemployment will go down.
Everyone “wins”.
If the payments required can, in fact, severely hamper a small business’ ability to keep afloat, obviously some adjustment should be made.
If the small business is profitable, and would remain viable and profitable while offering its employees the same benefits other such businesses are required to provide, then they are simply seeking a competitive advantage and taking it out of the hide of their employees, and all to make a bigger profit for persons we may fairly assume are already comfortable.
A decent person would be ashamed to do something like that.
I’m sorry you are unable to understand that there are jobs out there, quite a few really, that are not skilled/important enough to merit a wage that one can raise a family on.
And yet, the families are still there and must be raised.
Which is the thinking that got us in this mess to begin with.
And right-wing elitism raises it’s ugly head.
So just because someone serves you food, cleans up the mess you leave behind (and cleans the toilets, picks up the garbage, etc.), that makes them less than human.
Amazing. Somehow saying that working in a fast food restaurant shouldn’t pay $20,000 - $30,000 a year with full benefits translates into those workers are less than human. That leap of complete illogic should win some sort of prize. Not that you should be proud to display it …
Red Robin is not a fast food place, it’s a full service restaurant.
I honestly have no idea what this means. Perhaps you could elaborate before readers go off assuming you’re saying something akin to, “Them lower class folks shouldn’t be off breeding like rats. They can’t afford all them kids!”