The Economic Ramifications of Obamacare

[Shady]

There have been over a dozen examples over the past couple of months of the economic fallout of some of the new tax increases and regulatory burdens of Obamacare. I'm posting this one because it's the latest one. But feel free to add your own. There are plenty to choose from.

Medical Company Smith & Nephew Lays Off Almost 100 People, Blames Obamacare

Medical technology company, Smith & Nephew, announced Thursday that it would be letting go of almost 100 workers at its plants in Tennessee and Massachusetts. The company, which makes orthopedic reconstruction products, is blaming 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices in President Obama's health care law for the layoffs, according to Fox13 News.

“The nearly $30 billion tax on medical devices that took effect Jan. 1, 2013, has impacted a number of companies across the U.S.,” the company said in a statement to Fox13 News.

Medical companies lobbied to get the tax, which is levied on medical devices implanted by professionals, repealed, according to Reuters. The tax is expected to raise $29 billion in government revenue through 2022.

http://www.huffingto..._n_2607112.html

Edited February 3, 2013 by Shady

[Shady]

Darden tests limiting worker hours as health-care changes loom

In an experiment apparently aimed at keeping down the cost of health-care reform, Orlando-based Darden Restaurants has stopped offering full-time schedules to many hourly workers in at least a few Olive Gardens, Red Lobsters and LongHorn Steakhouses.

Darden said the test is taking place in "a select number" of restaurants in four markets, including Central Florida, but would not give details. The company said there has been no decision made about expanding it

...

In an emailed statement, Darden said staffing changes are "just one of the many things we are evaluating to help us address the cost implications health care reform will have on our business. There are still many unanswered questions regarding the health care regulations and we simply do not have enough information to make any decisions at this time."

http://articles.orla...e-olive-gardens

[punked]

Look at Shady eating it up. Know what I know about Smith & Nephew Shady? They paid out 30 million dollars after getting caught bribing government employees to funnel funds to their products. Lay with the dogs Shady and you get flees. They are company with a track record of Shady, Illegal activity and someone here loves to repeat their lies and be their lap dog.

http://www.justice.g...12-crm-166.html

Bet they could have kept all these people AND buy them healthcare if they weren't using all their money to bribe governments around the world eh? ITS OBAMA'S FAULT THEY BROKE THE LAW Shady says.

Edited February 3, 2013 by punked

[waldo]

Look at Shady eating it up. Know what I know about Smith & Nephew Shady? They paid out 30 million dollars after getting caught bribing government employees to funnel funds to their products. Lay with the dogs Shady and you get flees. They are company with a track record of Shady, Illegal activity and someone here loves to repeat their lies and be their lap dog.

http://www.justice.g...12-crm-166.html

Bet they could have kept all these people AND buy them healthcare if they weren't using all their money to bribe governments around the world eh? ITS OBAMA'S FAULT THEY BROKE THE LAW Shady says.

well done punked! Let's make it 2-for-2... Shady just makes it too easy!:

Darden Restaurants Profit Plunges 37 Percent After Bad Publicity Over Attempt To Skirt Obamacare

this was big times news when it happened last Dec... clearly MLW member, 'Shady's', sources have let him down, once again! The negative publicity shytestorm was so bad it caused Darden to peel back in short order. The official statement as released by Darden:

Darden Provides Update on its Restaurant Staffing Plans Under Healthcare Reform; Company Announces Commitments to its Current Full-Time, Hourly Employees

December 06, 2012 - ORLANDO, Dec. 6, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Darden Restaurants, Inc. (NYSE: DRI) today provided an update on its full-time staffing plans for 2014 following thorough testing of potential changes in the composition of its workforce in connection with healthcare reform. The company has determined that:

• None of Darden's current full-time employees, hourly or salaried, will have their full-time status changed as a result of healthcare reform.
  
• Each of Darden's new and existing restaurants will have full-time hourly employees because that is what it takes to fully deliver the experiences guests expect.
  
• In 2014, all of Darden's full-time employees, including hourly, salaried and executive employees, will have access to the same insurance plan coverage.
  

[cybercoma]

It's Obamacare's fault that greedy bastards like the CEO of Papa John's can give away 2 million free pizzas, but then cut employees' hours so they wouldn't have to pay benefits. This isn't the economic ramifications of Obamacare, this is the economic ramifications of unethical bastards that have absolutely no consideration for the human beings that make up their workforce.

[TimG]

It's Obamacare's fault that greedy bastards like the CEO of Papa John's can give away 2 million free pizzas, but then cut employees' hours so they wouldn't have to pay benefits.

Typically whinging. The fact is this is happening across all employers of all stripes (including "progressive" universities) shows that you cannot dismiss this reaction as 'greed'. It is about cost control and no business stays in business without it. If Dems did not want to screw people who cant find full time work then they should not have passed a bill that places a huge premium on the cost of a full time employee.

Putting healthcare costs on employers is a really dumb way to design a system. The trouble is that is the system that the US has and it is impossible to change because people who do have good employer sponsored healthcare don't want to risk it by replacing it with a single system run by the government. They are no different from the people in Canada who think that allowing people to purchase their own healthcare will 'destroy' the system and block reasonable reforms here.

Edited February 4, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

The only people that are whining are the poor hard done by corporate millionaires that claim they can't afford it. They're so hard done by having to provide benefits to people that live paycheck to paycheck.

[Guest Manny]

It's Obamacare's fault that greedy bastards like the CEO of Papa John's can give away 2 million free pizzas, but then cut employees' hours so they wouldn't have to pay benefits. This isn't the economic ramifications of Obamacare, this is the economic ramifications of unethical bastards that have absolutely no consideration for the human beings that make up their workforce.

Let alone that he had a mistress

[TimG]

The only people that are whining are the poor hard done by corporate millionaires that claim they can't afford it. They're so hard done by having to provide benefits to people that live paycheck to paycheck.

Repeating nonsense does not make it true. Governments create incentives with whatever policy they introduce. Obamacare is a beast that creates many bad incentives that completely undermine the stated objective of the act. It is not the fault of business owners if they simply follow the incentives that the government created.

[Pliny]

The only people that are whining are the poor hard done by corporate millionaires that claim they can't afford it. They're so hard done by having to provide benefits to people that live paycheck to paycheck.

Plus you, punked and waldo. Same old refrain.

Aren't corporate millionaires paying their "fair share" now? You won't rest until their gone, I suppose but that won't make the poor or the middle class any richer you can be assured of that.

[Bonam]

I really can't quite understand why those "on the left" would support Obamacare, it is just a further expansion and strengthening of the idea that workers must be dependent on their employers for healthcare. Why should healthcare be tied to a job in the first place? That is the real question. It makes no sense, and has serious adverse economic consequences. For example, if someone wants to leave a job they are not happy with or to go seek a better job, they have to consider not only the job itself, the pay, etc, but also the implications for health care, which are mired in red tape and bureaucracy.

It greatly reduces the efficiency of the job market, increases costs to employers, increases administrative costs of healthcare, and makes workers dependent on employers for healthcare. It seems to me like the association of employment and healthcare should be strongly opposed by those both on the right and the left of the political spectrum.

Decoupling health insurance from employment (as is already done in many other advanced countries) would be hugely beneficial, in my opinion.

[Pliny]

Look at Shady eating it up. Know what I know about Smith & Nephew Shady? They paid out 30 million dollars after getting caught bribing government employees to funnel funds to their products. Lay with the dogs Shady and you get flees. They are company with a track record of Shady, Illegal activity and someone here loves to repeat their lies and be their lap dog.

http://www.justice.g...12-crm-166.html

Bet they could have kept all these people AND buy them healthcare if they weren't using all their money to bribe governments around the world eh? ITS OBAMA'S FAULT THEY BROKE THE LAW Shady says.

This is from your referenced cite:

"The agreement recognizes Smith & Nephew’s cooperation with the department’s investigation, thorough self-investigation of the underlying conduct, and the remedial efforts and compliance improvements undertaken by the company."

Are you certain it was the corporate millionaires who were at fault and not some of their employees? Ultimately the company holds responsibility but who actually made the bribes? It's an international organization and perhaps Greece is in the tank because accepting bribes is their general way of doing business. Perhaps we should find out what happened to those government employees who accepted bribes and stole all that money that could have gone to Smith and Nephew's employees.

[Pliny]

Decoupling health insurance from employment (as is already done in many other advanced countries) would be hugely beneficial, in my opinion.

Agreed. A step in the right direction.

[bush_cheney2004]

I really can't quite understand why those "on the left" would support Obamacare, it is just a further expansion and strengthening of the idea that workers must be dependent on their employers for healthcare. Why should healthcare be tied to a job in the first place?

It shouldn't be, of course, but WW2 and U.S. government wage/price controls/tax policy changed all that. Government caused the current linkage of employment and healthcare.

That is the real question. It makes no sense, and has serious adverse economic consequences. For example, if someone wants to leave a job they are not happy with or to go seek a better job, they have to consider not only the job itself, the pay, etc, but also the implications for health care, which are mired in red tape and bureaucracy.

Depends on the individual...age...health condition...other factors. I do not ever recall health care being a major consideration for my young peers back in the day. It's a risk worth considering, and a sizable minority of people eschew healthcare benefits by choice for higher/different priorities.

In some ways, the healthcare framework is way overrated.

It greatly reduces the efficiency of the job market, increases costs to employers, increases administrative costs of healthcare, and makes workers dependent on employers for healthcare. It seems to me like the association of employment and healthcare should be strongly opposed by those both on the right and the left of the political spectrum.

This is all possible without healthcare insurance at all, as was the case for many years. The receptionist or nurse took cash !

Decoupling health insurance from employment (as is already done in many other advanced countries) would be hugely beneficial, in my opinion.

Yes, but as described above, the fear of "socialized medicine" is greater than the devil they already know.

[punked]

I really can't quite understand why those "on the left" would support Obamacare, it is just a further expansion and strengthening of the idea that workers must be dependent on their employers for healthcare. Why should healthcare be tied to a job in the first place?

Because if the choice is between healthcare for all even a bad plan is better then seeing people dying from being uninsured. Most on the left don't like Obamacare but we all got tired of seeing both the left (Teddy Kenndey/Nixon deal) and the Right (Hilarycare) blow up any deal on Healthcare.

Edited February 6, 2013 by punked

[Shady]

Because if the choice is between healthcare for all even a bad plan is better then seeing people dying from being uninsured. Most on the left don't like Obamacare but we all got tired of seeing both the left (Teddy Kenndey/Nixon deal) and the Right (Hilarycare) blow up any deal on Healthcare.

But Obamacare doesn't provide healthcare for all. So yours is a false choice. Just like Obamacare is terrible legislation.

[punked]

But Obamacare doesn't provide healthcare for all. So yours is a false choice. Just like Obamacare is terrible legislation.

I'll take more people having access to healthcare over less people. I know many posters here disagree I view healthcare as a human right I will take increase to that care if that is all I can get. Until you side is ready to move to something then all we can get are half assed compromises. You hate Obamacare then you better start providing an alternative because my side only gains more people everyday.

[waldo]

I really can't quite understand why those "on the left" would support Obamacare, it is just a further expansion and strengthening of the idea that workers must be dependent on their employers for healthcare.

no, it is not a further expansion and strengthening of employer based healthcare. Yes, existing incentives for employers to offer healthcare are maintained... and new incentives are offered employers; however, per projections from the U.S. Congressional Budget Office & the Joint Committee on Taxation, there is a net change reduction (albeit it relatively 'small'), in the numbers of Americans receiving employer based healthcare. Of course, the "left support" you question isn't related to the impacts of Obamacare on employer based healthcare... that, obviously, isn't its focus. This projection table clearly shows the year-by-year change in insurance enrollments for Medicaid, CHIP and through Exchanges... along with the real focus on overall gains in the reduction of uninsured Americans:

Why should healthcare be tied to a job in the first place? That is the real question. It makes no sense, and has serious adverse economic consequences. For example, if someone wants to leave a job they are not happy with or to go seek a better job, they have to consider not only the job itself, the pay, etc, but also the implications for health care, which are mired in red tape and bureaucracy.

you answered your own question - if you don't accept that at least some companies offer healthcare in consideration of helping to keep their employees healthy (what a concept!), companies include insurance as another competitive edge/angle in recruitment/retention of employees.

clearly, the above table shows the most significant degree to which Americans rely upon employer based healthcare in the U.S. - in the absence of universality ('single payer'), it is... what it is!

[waldo]

It shouldn't be, of course, but WW2 and U.S. government wage/price controls/tax policy changed all that. Government caused the current linkage of employment and healthcare.

no - during that period, in the absence of being able to offer wage incentives to employees, companies began to offer healthcare benefits as a recruitment/retention tool.

[cybercoma]

Snarky though he may be, there isn't a single poster that supports his/her arguments as well as waldo does on these forums. And to hilarious ends, as his debate opponents then paint themselves into a corner of epistemological nihilism.

[Pliny]

[/size]

no - during that period, in the absence of being able to offer wage incentives to employees, companies began to offer healthcare benefits as a recruitment/retention tool.

Why was there an absence of being able to offer wage incentives to employees? Government made the regulation of course.

[Pliny]

clearly, the above table shows the most significant degree to which Americans rely upon employer based healthcare in the U.S. - in the absence of universality ('single payer'), it is... what it is!

And it is flawed. The CBO projected a loss of healthcare insured by employers to be 3 million employees at this point. In reality it is 7 million, more than double the projection have lost employer healthcare insurance. No problem though public insurance will pick it up. Obamacare is entirely designed to eventually be a single payer system.

And why would you be happy that 27 million will remain uninsured after ten years. That means those uninsured will be fined through taxation. How is that help for the poor who can 't afford insurance?

The whole affordable care act is a horrible piece of legislation that does nothing but centralize federal power and aggrandize government.

[bush_cheney2004]

[/size]

no - during that period, in the absence of being able to offer wage incentives to employees, companies began to offer healthcare benefits as a recruitment/retention tool.

And why couldn't companies offer wage incentives ? Because of government wage controls (National Wage Labor Board - 1942), along with other wage and price control measures to manage entire sectors of the U.S. economy to support the war effort.

Therefore, government actions led directly to health care benefits being coupled to employment and employment incentives (e.g. Kaiser Shipyard > Kaiser Permanente HMO).

Edited February 7, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

clearly, the above table shows the most significant degree to which Americans rely upon employer based healthcare in the U.S. - in the absence of universality ('single payer'), it is... what it is!

And it is flawed. The CBO projected a loss of healthcare insured by employers to be 3 million employees at this point. In reality it is 7 million, more than double the projection have lost employer healthcare insurance. No problem though public insurance will pick it up. Obamacare is entirely designed to eventually be a single payer system.

flawed? No - the projection numbers are net overall and reflect the various movements; specifically, in the case of the 'employer' projection:

The change in employment-based coverage is the net result of changes in offers of health insurance from employers and enrollment by workers and their families. For example, in 2019, an estimated 11 million people who would have

had an offer of employment-based coverage under prior law will lose their offer under current law, and another 3 million people will have an offer of employment-based coverage but will enroll in health insurance from another source

instead. These flows out of employment-based coverage will be partially offset by an estimated 9 million people who will newly enroll in employment-based coverage under the ACA.

as an aside, I don't see how you arrived at a projection of 3 million (your, 'at this point') from the table graphic I provided... or what your source is for the 7 million number. But, again, the projections are net overall. Of course, its a fluid situation, one affected by budget changes... like the recent one in January that, as I interpret, has taken away some of those Obamacare/existing employer healthcare incentives. The CBO projection I offered is from March, 2012... I can't find anything more current.

And why would you be happy that 27 million will remain uninsured after ten years. That means those uninsured will be fined through taxation. How is that help for the poor who can 't afford insurance?

happy? Considering single-payer wasn't going to fly, and as a 'first step'... if I was a thinking/caring American, I would be encouraged to realize that (ultimately) ~26 million more of my fellow Americans, previously uninsured, would have healthcare insurance coverage.

The whole affordable care act is a horrible piece of legislation that does nothing but centralize federal power and aggrandize government.

does nothing but??? I thought you just acknowledged the current uninsured number of Americans (~ 53 million) will be reduced to ~27 million.

[waldo]

It shouldn't be, of course, but WW2 and U.S. government wage/price controls/tax policy changed all that. Government caused the current linkage of employment and healthcare.

no - during that period, in the absence of being able to offer wage incentives to employees, companies began to offer healthcare benefits as a recruitment/retention tool.

Why was there an absence of being able to offer wage incentives to employees? Government made the regulation of course.

And why couldn't companies offer wage incentives ? Because of government wage controls (National Wage Labor Board - 1942), along with other wage and price control measures to manage entire sectors of the U.S. economy to support the war effort.

Therefore, government actions led directly to health care benefits being coupled to employment and employment incentives (e.g. Kaiser Shipyard > Kaiser Permanente HMO).

guys, guys! The war time U.S. government did not cause/make/force companies to begin offering employment based healthcare insurance... I mean, c'mon, the companies could have offered, uhhh... free hams/turkeys to recruit/retain workers! This one's on companies - they cracked open the workplace healthcare insurance door and have been running with it ever since. Why, apparently, there's even this thingee called a healthcare insurance lobby that fights really, really hard for government incentives to employers. I realize these are inconvenient truths for you to accept - that they go against your ready-reach 'Big Government' labeling/talking points.