Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 8 16 17 18
Results 426 to 438 of 438

Thread: "Obamacare" Discuss here.

  1. #426
    Senior Member animosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    17,287
    Rep Power
    21474865
    http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/27/news...e-restaurants/

    what?

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

    Several restaurants in a Florida chain are asking customers to help foot the bill for Obamacare.

    Diners at eight Gator's Dockside casual eateries are finding a 1% Affordable Care Act surcharge on their tabs, which comes to 15 cents on a typical $15 lunch tab. Signs on the door and at tables alert diners to the fee, which is also listed separately on the bill.

    The Gator Group's full-time hourly employees won't actually receive health insurance until December. But the company said it implemented the surcharge now because of the compliance costs it's facing ahead of the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate kicking in in 2015.

    "The costs associated with ACA compliance could ultimately close our doors," the sign reads. "Instead of raising prices on our products to generate the additional revenue needed to cover the costs of ACA compliance, certain Gator's Dockside locations have implemented a 1% surcharge on all food and beverage purchases only."

    The company employs a total of 500 people, with about half working full-time. Currently only management receives health benefits, but the restaurant will have to offer coverage to all full-timers once the mandate takes effect. The fee will allow the company to continue offering full-time hours to many workers, according to Sandra Clark, the group's director of operations.

    "I'm just trying to keep the employees I have that I've worked hard to train," Clark said.

    In addition to the costs of providing health care, the company hired one additional staffer and a consulting firm to make sure it is complying with the law and to assist in the additional tracking of workers' hours and wages required by Obamacare, said Clark.

    Clark is not sure how much the company is spending on compliance, but estimates that it will cost $500,000 a year to extend insurance to its full-time hourly restaurant workers. The surcharge may bring in about $160,000 a year, she hopes.

    Thirteen other Gator's Dockside restaurants, which are run by a different firm and its franchisees, are not implementing the fee.

    Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, an upscale restaurant is also asking guests to pony up for its employee health care costs.

    Since it opened in November, Republique's tab comes with an optional 3% surcharge that allows it to employ all of its 80 workers full-time and provide them with health insurance. The fee is explained in a sign and on the menu, and servers explain it to diners without prompting.

    The surcharge is not related to Obamacare, a restaurant spokeswoman said. The eatery is not subject to the employer mandate until 2016 because it has fewer than 100 workers, but it already offers coverage to its staff.

    How are customers reacting to the fee? So far, most people are paying it, she said.
    Quote Originally Posted by songbirdsong View Post
    "Say, you know who could handle this penis? MY MOTHER."

  2. #427
    Lionfish Whisperer PCP777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    13,271
    Rep Power
    21474866
    So,

    This turned out to be a good thing. I actually found a bad ass health plan through it, we pay more out of pocket each month than we did but the coverage is way better for me and my family. My wife was able to get the surgery on her neck. With the subprime insurance I was paying for earlier, which was less expensive, this could have never happened. The better prescription coverage more than makes up the difference.

    Anyone who is self paying for the insurance should definately hit healthcare.gov before enrollment ends on 3/31. I only know one person who claims their premiums went up. I think they didn't do it right.

    BTW, employers under 50 employees are not effected, others don't have to worry until next year.

  3. #428
    fun hater Shins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    13,529
    Rep Power
    21474861
    That's awesome PCP, glad to hear the good news.


    Three of my cousins have local businesses and it's not effecting them since they don't have over 50 employees. 50 is a lot, so most businesses should be fine. If they have more than that then they're probably doing decent enough in profit to get a plan for their workers.
    Quote Originally Posted by bowieluva View Post
    Listen, if no one cares when a crazy noodle walks in and executes children with a gun, no one cares about anything.

  4. #429
    Moderator puzzld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    21,600
    Rep Power
    21474874
    Glad to hear it PCP.

    Even tho I have insurance from work... it's nice to know that if I changed jobs or something I won't be "pre-existing"ed out of coverage.
    Quote Originally Posted by bowieluva View Post
    lol at Nestle being some vicious smiter, she's the nicest person on this site besides probably puzzld. Or at least the last person to resort to smiting.
    Quote Originally Posted by nestlequikie View Post
    Why on earth would I smite you when I can ban you?

  5. #430
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    4,558
    Rep Power
    0

    Supreme Court appears poised to leave the ACA intact

    https://ktla.com/news/california/gop...o-preserve-it/

    The Supreme Court seemed likely Tuesday to leave in place the bulk of the Affordable Care Act, including key protections for pre-existing health conditions and subsidized insurance premiums that affect tens of millions of Americans.

    Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, among the conservative justices, appeared in two hours of arguments to be unwilling to strike down the entire law — a long-held Republican goal that has repeatedly failed in Congress and the courts — even if they were to find the law’s now-toothless mandate for obtaining health insurance to be unconstitutional.

    The court’s three liberal justices are almost certain to vote to uphold the law in its entirety and presumably would form a majority by joining a decision that cut away only the mandate, which now has no financial penalty attached to it. Congress zeroed out the penalty in 2017, but left the rest of the law untouched.

    “Would Congress want the rest of the law to survive if the unconstitutional provision were severed? Here, Congress left the rest of the law intact,” Roberts said. “That seems to be a compelling answer to the question.”

    For his part, Kavanaugh said recent decisions by the court suggest “that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate and leave the rest of the act in place.”

    A week after the 2020 election, the justices heard arguments by telephone in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic in the court’s third major case over the 10-year-old law, popularly known as “Obamacare.” Republican attorneys general in 18 states and the administration want the whole law to be struck down, which would threaten coverage for more than 23 million people.

    California, leading a group of Democratic-controlled states, and the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives are urging the court to leave the law in place.

    Kavanaugh is one of three justices appointed by President Donald Trump on a court that is more conservative than the ones that sustained the law in previous challenges in 2012 and 2015. The others are Neil Gorsuch and new Justice Coney Barrett, who joined the court late last month following her hurried nomination and confirmation to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    The three Trump appointees have never ruled on the substance of the health care law. Barrett, though, has been critical of the court’s earlier major health care decisions sustaining the law, both written by Roberts.

    The Supreme Court could have heard the case before the election, but set arguments for a week after. The timing could add a wrinkle to the case since President-elect Joe Biden strongly supports the health care law.

    The case turns on a change made by the Republican-controlled Congress in 2017 that reduced the penalty for not having health insurance to zero. Without the penalty, the law’s mandate to have health insurance is unconstitutional, the GOP-led states argue.

    If the mandate goes, they say, the rest of the law should go with it because the mandate was central to the law’s passage.

    However, enrollment in the law’s insurance markets has stayed relatively stable at more than 11 million people, even after the effective date of the penalty’s elimination in 2019. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, enrollment dropped by about 300,000 people from 2018 to 2019. Kaiser estimates 11.4 million people have coverage this year.

    An additional 12 million people have coverage through the law’s Medicaid expansion.

    The legal argument could well turn on the legal doctrine of severability, the idea that the court can excise a problematic provision from a law and allow the rest of it to remain in force. The justices have done just that in other rulings in recent years.

    But in the first big ACA case in 2012, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas voted to strike down the entire law. Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor have voted to uphold it.

    A limited ruling would have little real-world consequence. The case could also be rendered irrelevant if the new Congress were to restore a modest penalty for not buying health insurance.

    A decision is expected by late spring.

  6. #431
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    11,768
    Rep Power
    21474859
    So because some "religious" people think preventative screenings violate their religious rights, we are all going to lose the following free coverage unless a higher court overturns the recent win by the "religious" plaintiffs.

    https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/qa-...s-requirement/


  7. #432
    Moderator Bewitchingstorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Never have I been a blue, calm sea...I have always been a storm.
    Posts
    11,719
    Rep Power
    21474856
    Quote Originally Posted by raisedbywolves View Post
    So because some "religious" people think preventative screenings violate their religious rights, we are all going to lose the following free coverage unless a higher court overturns the recent win by the "religious" plaintiffs.

    https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/qa-...s-requirement/

    Well, that is insane.

  8. #433
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    11,768
    Rep Power
    21474859
    Quote Originally Posted by Bewitchingstorm View Post
    Well, that is insane.
    They are still trying to get rid of birth control coverage and women's preventative screenings. They lost on that but they are appealing, so we'll see what happens.

  9. #434
    Cousin Greg Angiebla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    17,433
    Rep Power
    21474865
    Wait are the religious people retarded? How does preventative care impede on their rights?

  10. #435
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    11,768
    Rep Power
    21474859
    Quote Originally Posted by Angiebla View Post
    Wait are the religious people retarded? How does preventative care impede on their rights?
    Because religious people are evil, selfish assholes who want to control everyone else.

    Also keep this in mind (from my link above):

    What broader implications does this ruling have for the ACA?

    This is not the potentially fatal blow to the ACA like previous court cases, but it would limit a very popular benefit that millions of people use. For people who use preventive services, a key to access is what people have to pay out of their own pockets. Regardless of your plan, these ACA-required preventive services were covered without cost-sharing, meaning that the individual didn’t pay for the services. But if these rulings hold, individuals may have to pay something for the affected services as insurers review what is covered and by how much. This is the first time a court has ruled that the ACA preventive services coverage requirement other than the contraceptive coverage requirement violates employers’ religious rights. This has the potential to open the door to employers objecting to other services, such as vaccines.
    They are going after their cherry picked agenda against things they don't like.

  11. #436
    Cousin Greg Angiebla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    17,433
    Rep Power
    21474865
    I dont understand why they are doing this.

  12. #437
    What do you care? Boston Babe 73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Under your bed
    Posts
    23,483
    Rep Power
    21474870
    Quote Originally Posted by raisedbywolves View Post
    So because some "religious" people think preventative screenings violate their religious rights, we are all going to lose the following free coverage unless a higher court overturns the recent win by the "religious" plaintiffs.

    https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/qa-...s-requirement/

    America is fucked because of Christians. I'm so sorry for all of you
    Quote Originally Posted by Nic B View Post
    That is too pretty to be shoved up an ass.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nic B View Post
    You can take those Fleets and shove them up your ass



  13. #438
    Moderator Bewitchingstorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Never have I been a blue, calm sea...I have always been a storm.
    Posts
    11,719
    Rep Power
    21474856
    Quote Originally Posted by Angiebla View Post
    I dont understand why they are doing this.
    Zealots love to shove their beliefs down everyone's throats. I have never understood why, but they are insane that way.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •