Another example of jobs destroyed by horrible government.
Service employees usually get shafted by their employers anyway, and they make poverty line wages. Nothing new here.
Instead of going to the emergency room for health care with Obamacare they will be able to get medicare if their employer is a tightwad, and the result of them being insured is lower costs for everyone.
Obama care isn't perfect but it is a hell of a lot better than the status quo.
Hey... I used to have a shitty "part time" job while in college that only gave me 39 hours a week every week, because they would have to offer me overtime and benefits if I worked 40 or more.
You know what my solution to this "problem" was? I got my degree and got a better job. Maybe these restaurant workers should do the same thing! If Olive Garden and Red Lobster can't get decent employees anymore for minimum wage and no benefits, maybe they'll start offering better pay and benefits.
Of course they wont own it. I said this years ago that we should let the liberals destroy the country.
What does that actually mean though?
Republicans don't want single payer. Their input is meaningless at this point.
Who do you think pays for medicaid/medicare?
The cost to the tax payer will go down with Obamacare. Businesses don't want to insure their employees, you don't want the government to do it, so you would rather poor people go without medical treatment as they do now, then go to the emergency room when a crisis happens, as they do now?
You will pay either way. But with Obamacare people will have access to preventative care, collective bargaining for rates and prescriptions and the emergency room will be open for emergencies.
The cost to the tax payer will go down with Obamacare. Businesses don't want to insure their employees, you don't want the government to do it, so you would rather poor people go without medical treatment as they do now, then go to the emergency room when a crisis happens, as they do now?
You will pay either way. But with Obamacare people will have access to preventative care, collective bargaining for rates and prescriptions and the emergency room will be open for emergencies.
How can the cost to the taxpayer go down if the taxpayer is covering the cost of the insurance.
The receiver does not control the costs of services.
The government refuses to negotiate and lower the costs of drugs as it is.
It is the drug manufacturers, large pharmacy chains and the existing insurance companies that have worked to pull down many of the co-pays to $4.
Wow, thats awesome. I'm particularly thrilled that Obamacare is going to set contract prices with drug companies so medication costs less. When does that happen? I can't seem to find this good news.
One correction. Pharmacies can't do anything to change copays. Unlike hospitals and physicians they cannot engage in any collective bargaining. The FTC ruled that violated anti trust laws. From the point of compensation pharmacies have no negotiating power and are lowest on the food chain of all health professions.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check-senior-drugs-costs/index.html
"We were actually able to lower prescription drug costs for seniors by an average of $600," Obama said during his debate with GOP challenger Mitt Romney. He went on to say that if Obamacare were repealed, "those seniors right away are going to be paying $600 more in prescription care."
The facts:
Nearly 5.4 million Medicare recipients saved more than $4.1 billion on prescription drugs as a result of the Affordable Care Act, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in an August news release.
"Seniors in the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap known as the 'donut hole' have saved an average of $768," she said.
The law helps make Medicare prescription drug coverage more affordable.
Last year, people with Medicare who reached the donut hole got a 50 percent discount on covered brand-name drugs and a discount on generic drugs.
Recipients will pay less and less until 2020, when they will be responsible for only 25% of the cost of their drugs until they reach the yearly out-of-pocket spending limit, according to a 2010 posting on healthcare.gov by Jonathan Blum, director for the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Conclusion: Seniors, on average, would pay the $600 cited by Obama -- and then some, according to Medicare figures, if the Affordable Care Act was not in place.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...medicare-to-negotiate-for-cheaper-drug-price/
He's trying. Give him a Democrat house and senate with a super majority.
"The Obama administration only has so much control over that, but I doubt Congress is going to pass it," said Lee Goldberg, vice president of health policy for the non partisan National Academy of Social Insurance.
Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., has introduced a bill that would repeal the ban on negotiations, but it is stalled in the Senate Finance Committee.
The administration included as part of its fiscal year 2013 budget a narrower proposal allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices in the same manner as the Department of Veterans Affairs. It would allow Medicare beneficiaries who are also covered by the income-based Medicaid to receive the same rebates that Medicaid receives for brand name and generic drugs.
But this, too, seems unlikely to happen given the near-gridlock in Congress.
True that the pharmacies can not adjsut the co-pay.
However, many of the pharmacies have made it such that a person is able to get many drugs for $4 where the original prices a few years ago was much higher if paying without insurance.
I suspect that Olive Garden and Red Lobster can get people to work. some may be willing to put in more than 40 hrs per week.
The problem is that the people they have had their hours cut because of the ObamaCare rules.
And what difference does it make?You have never worked a service industry job have you?
And what difference does it make?
If you had you would know that most of the scheduling managers are under extreme pressure to keep as many of the hourly workers under 40 hours a week for benefits/insurance purposes already. Get the most work done, with the fewest workers working, the least amount of hours possible, paying them the minimum possible amount. It isn't anything new and I'm certain it has been pointed out several times already in this thread.
You ignoring this fact and continuing your attempt to blame this practice on changes coming down the pipe for ACA is completely asinine.