Random thoughts:

 

• Many franchise owners own MANY franchise units, often accross several brands
  
• Most jobs in restaurants are already part time jobs.
  
• Starbucks has been offering health insurance to part time employees who average 20 hours a week for decades
  
• When companies cannot compete because they refuse to hire employees, they will lose more than the cost of providing health insurance for their employees. I assume since so many are of the "if you can't pay for health care, then you will just have to die", the same people will agree that if employers can't compete because they won't hire, they deserve to fold.
  

 

Isn't Starbucks very high priced?

 

The employers who will cut hours are the ones in industries where the labor force is very easy to replace, thus hurting the ones who need the jobs the most. An accounting firm is not going to cut hours to 29 per week. A fast food franchise is going to cut the hours as it will not affect it's ability to operate.

Isn't Starbucks very high priced?

 

The employers who will cut hours are the ones in industries where the labor force is very easy to replace, thus hurting the ones who need the jobs the most. An accounting firm is not going to cut hours to 29 per week. A fast food franchise is going to cut the hours as it will not affect it's ability to operate.

 

Starbucks costs no more than any other coffee shop product. It's certainly no more expensive than buying a $6 burger at a fast food joint, or a $15 pizza from a delivery chain. I love the way everyone wants to always throw out the "expensive" tag on Starbucks. :lol:

 

As to the rest, restaurants thrive already on part time employees. As I said previously, if they want reduce hours, that is their right. However, if their model is to hire full time workers, and losing those affects their quality or service, they will lose business. And they could lose their franchise if the brand suffers.

Why wouldn't I have that choice?

Just stating that in some corners of the world, that is not a luxury afforded by some. Not picking on you, but Obamacare is not exactly gonna be considered a beacon of freedom.

Isn't Starbucks very high priced?

 

The employers who will cut hours are the ones in industries where the labor force is very easy to replace, thus hurting the ones who need the jobs the most. An accounting firm is not going to cut hours to 29 per week. A fast food franchise is going to cut the hours as it will not affect it's ability to operate.

 

Starbucks doesn't cost anymore than any other coffee shop that I've been too. Also their workers are easy to replace as well, no disrespect intended to the coffee shop employees out there, but the truth is the truth.

 

I think a lot of this "assuming" going on with these businesses regarding Obamacare will come back to bite them in the butt, like assuming something always does. Just my opinion.

Starbucks costs no more than any other coffee shop product. It's certainly no more expensive than buying a $6 burger at a fast food joint, or a $15 pizza from a delivery chain. I love the way everyone wants to always throw out the "expensive" tag on Starbucks. :lol:

 

As to the rest, restaurants thrive already on part time employees. As I said previously, if they want reduce hours, that is their right. However, if their model is to hire full time workers, and losing those affects their quality or service, they will lose business. And they could lose their franchise if the brand suffers.

 

You've paid $6 for a burger at a fast food joint? If you ask me all coffee shops have expensive coffee but then I'm not a coffee drinker.

 

Having disposable employees will never hurt a fast food franchise. It's just part of the scene. None of them figure on having the employees long term anyway. As long as there are people willing to take the job, and there will be, the franchise will not suffer.

I work for a major insurance company and have terrible insurance. The only thing the average employee can afford is the high deductible plans. The copay days are long gone.

I know you guys like to insinuate that the 47% that pay no "Federal Income Tax" do so because they don't work. They work and they make up alot of people who get below thier "Federal Income tax" burden by child credits and mortgage interest deductions. So your example falls flat when you consider these folks aren't given anything. They work for it and pay all kinds of sales taxes, property taxes, FICA, etc. They contribute all kinds of money and probably don't appreciate being called takers and freeloaders.

 

I am 100% in support of helping the working poor. The key word is "working". I believe anyone who works will eventually improve their lot in life, and at some point, they will not need aid anymore.

 

I would rather help 10,000 people who are trying to make it and can't quite get there then pay for 1 person to be a freeloader and do nothing, but expect others to pay their way.

 

I personnally think one of the requirements of getting aid should be that you have some kind of job and are earning a part of your own.

 

If everybody who is capable of working, did work. We would not be in this situation.

 

I have a lot of family in Germany. Their system requires you to work or be retired/disabled to get assistance.

Its a tax for not participating in commerce and its government forcing me to buy a product. I don't care if this law was the apotheosis of healthcare legislation, it infringes on my liberty. Its wrong. If people honestly think human begins can't fix a healthcare issue without the use of government has some serious reevaluating they need to work on.

 

And I don't have a right to force myself on a doctor and tell him I have a right to his services. How arrogant.

The irony of it is that the Democrats won on the tide of the young and impoverished. That is exactly who will have their work hours cut. At least the college students or kids still at home can be covered by Mom and Dad. Minimum wage Willy and his family now have to pay for this health care out of pocket, or more than likely, just pay the fine since it is so much smaller than the premium.

Sorry, but when it comes to the "Affordable" Health Care Act I have to keep going back to this....

 

"It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford top pay for doctors, hospitals, medication, and a governmental bureaucracy to administer it." - Thomas Sowell

Sorry, but when it comes to the "Affordable" Health Care Act I have to keep going back to this....

 

"It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford top pay for doctors, hospitals, medication, and a governmental bureaucracy to administer it." - Thomas Sowell

 

This is from someone who is directly in the insurance industry - AHCA does nothing to save any cost at all. Nothing. There is no 'savings' from any medical, technology or process improvement.

 

I will offer that the overall system before ACHA was NOT the best in the world. The care given via that hodgepodge system was the best but the system was not the best. AHCA only makes the hodgepodge worse and as Sowell say so well - adds a 'governmental bureaucracy to administer it.".

 

As for a good model - look to the Germans. Like many things, they seem to have a reasonable approach.

^ If 2014 is indeed the year, why the mad rush? Is there a real need at this point in time?

 

Most companies do not change/renew their health care plans until at least the beginning of the second quarter of the calendar year, some at the beginning of the traditional fiscal year, 4th quarter of the calendar year. A well run company will have plans in place now so they can be implemented at the next change/renewal.

 

I'm pretty sure the employer I work for, as I suspect most small to mid size companies, will forgo providing insurance in lieu of paying the fine.

 

In 2008, we employed 450+ people at 10 locations in 5 states. There are now only 2 locations and less than 50 of us left.

From WaPo. 1/3 of the states will not set up state run exchanges. Leaving it up to the Federal government.

 

OK, so the feds will run exchanges in around 16-18 states.

 

The problem or problems. A - no one really wants to do it. The design point was for state run exchanges. B - there really is no funding for the set up for the federal exchange due to A).

 

Special report: federal health insurance exchange option

 

From link above:

 

"Given the lack of detail about what a federal exchange would look like, and the lack of federal funding designated to build one, there's been speculation that it won't actually happen, according to an Oct. 18 CQ HealthBeat article. In it, a top HHS official assured attendees at a health care conference that there will indeed be a federal exchange."

 

Emphasis added....

Representive Republic, if conservatives win and repeal it I'll still be right here watching people die while insurance executives get mulit million dollar bonuses.

 

I saw that movie too!

Representive Republic, if conservatives win and repeal it I'll still be right here watching people die while insurance executives get mulit million dollar bonuses.

 

Where you doing this before ACHA?