Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Denny's and others will impose a 5% Obamacare tax...sniggle

Posted by   + Show Post

Some Denny’s Restaurants To Charge 5% ‘Obamacare Surcharge’ To Deal With Health Care Legislation

» 102 comments

In the not-too-distant future, when you dine at some Denny’s restaurants, that “Moons Over My Hammy” sandwich will now come with an extra 5-percent surcharge.

Florida-based businessman John Metz, owner of 40 Denny’s franchise restaurants, plans to add the surcharge directly to customers’ checks as an up-close-and-personal way of dealing with the increased costs imposed by the Affordable Care Act, better known as “Obamacare,” which mandates that businesses with more than 50 workers must offer an approved insurance plan or pay a penalty of $2,000 for each full-time worker over 30 workers.

The ACA comes into full effect in January 2014. Metz says the direct surcharge is “the only alternative. I’ve got to pass on the cost to the customer.”

Metz stressed that he is not “anti-insurance,” but rather he understands the severe costs the legislation will impose on employers and employees alike: “Obviously, I’d love to cover all our employees under that insurance,” Metz told the Huffington Post. “But to pay $5,000 per employee would cost us $175,000 per restaurant and unfortunately, most of our restaurants don’t make $175,000 a year. I can’t afford it.”

The restauranteur is unconcerned with the potential backlash from doing what some might consider an expressly political statement by directly charging the customer for Obamacare. He told HuffPosthe is willing to take the heat, and that “We’re trying to get more restaurant operators rallied around the concept of adding a 5 percent surcharge to their bill to cover the costs of Obamacare as opposed to raising prices.”

Metz also plans to cut employee hours. “I think it’s a terrible thing. It’s ridiculous that the maximum hours we can give people is 28 hours a week instead of 40,” he said. “It’s going to force my employees to go out and get a second job.”

Full HuffPost report here.

LOL

by on Nov. 15, 2012 at 4:58 PM
Replies (11-20):
JustCJ
by on Nov. 15, 2012 at 5:13 PM
2 moms liked this

Way to be progressive UHC fans destroy healthcare and jobs in fell swoop. BRAVO

Pema_Jampa
by 2HotTacoTini on Nov. 15, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Don't eat there.

SeakingPeace
by Bronze Member on Nov. 15, 2012 at 5:14 PM

 LOL.  rolling on floor

Quoting JustCJ:

Possibly they don't...we pay for them AGAIN.

Quoting SeakingPeace:

Wait! Wait! But how will those poor people who can't even afford to eat out be able to afford paying 5% more for their burgers?


 

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Nov. 15, 2012 at 5:24 PM
5 moms liked this

This shouldn't surprise anyone. Employers and economists have been warning the public and the Obama administration about these unintended consequences for the past 4 years. Nobody has an endless supply of funds, especially for cost increases of this magnitude. So basically, this Denny's owner is saying his overall costs (not just his healthcare costs) under Obamacare increased by 5%. That is huge!

MsDenuninani
by Bronze Member on Nov. 15, 2012 at 5:27 PM


Quoting Canvas_says:

I have a problem with it for the drivers out on the road, one of the major customers for Denny's diners as a whole. You can't exactly pull your big rig up to a local mom and pop. 

Quoting MsDenuninani:

I actually don't have a problem with this.

Given how the food contributes to ill health, I'm not about charging a health tax on it.

And if people stop going to the restaurant becuase of the additional charges, then perhaps local diners can get the benefit of their patronage.


Fair point, but basic economics tells me that supply rises to meet demand. The big rigs will either pay for it, or other restaurants will accomodate them.

IHOP, anybody?

MsDenuninani
by Bronze Member on Nov. 15, 2012 at 5:28 PM


Quoting Canvas_says:

What does that have to do with now being forced to work several jobs to support yourself instead of one job? And still not getting those benefits. 

Quoting MsDenuninani:

 

Quoting Canvas_says:

I can only imagine how much harder dealing with family issues are going to be when you are forced to work two or three different part time jobs, just to keep up with bills because this mandate has made it where you can't just work the one you had before. 

Tell that to the 17 million children with pre-existing conditions that now can actually get health care.

"dealing with family issues," indeed.


I'm pointing out that "dealing with family issues" means different things to different people.

Plus, your scenario is speculative.  Mine is fact.

Canvas_says
by Silver Member on Nov. 15, 2012 at 5:31 PM
4 moms liked this

Are those 17 million children now insured? Or are they banking on the insurance afforded by Obamacare? We could have used just the mandate of requiring pre existing conditions coverage under current insurances without mandating coverage to the masses causing more complications in the family dynamic. 

Quoting MsDenuninani:


Quoting Canvas_says:

What does that have to do with now being forced to work several jobs to support yourself instead of one job? And still not getting those benefits. 

Quoting MsDenuninani:


Quoting Canvas_says:

I can only imagine how much harder dealing with family issues are going to be when you are forced to work two or three different part time jobs, just to keep up with bills because this mandate has made it where you can't just work the one you had before. 

Tell that to the 17 million children with pre-existing conditions that now can actually get health care.

"dealing with family issues," indeed.


I'm pointing out that "dealing with family issues" means different things to different people.

Plus, your scenario is speculative.  Mine is fact.


MsDenuninani
by Bronze Member on Nov. 15, 2012 at 5:31 PM


Quoting JustCJ:

That would roll down eventually to the food you buy at the super market. Sorry I don't want to be told what I can, and can't eat. Because of our socialized health care...that I did not want either.

Quoting MsDenuninani:

I actually don't have a problem with this.

Given how the food contributes to ill health, I'm not about charging a health tax on it.

And if people stop going to the restaurant becuase of the additional charges, then perhaps local diners can get the benefit of their patronage.


You're already being told what you can, and can't eat.  It's called the FDA.

As for our health care, I don't want to let free-loaders continue to take advantage of a system that pays for their emergency care when they need it, without them having put in one dime in the meantime just because they "didn't want it."

MsDenuninani
by Bronze Member on Nov. 15, 2012 at 5:34 PM


Quoting Canvas_says:

Are those 17 million children now insured? Or are they banking on the insurance afforded by Obamacare? We could have used just the mandate of requiring pre existing conditions coverage under current insurances without mandating coverage to the masses causing more complications in the family dynamic. 


Yes, they are.

And you can't get insurance companies to pay for pre-existing conditions without giving them more revenue, i.e. new customers.

That was the whole point.

Did you know that you're more likely to divorce if you have a sick child? (speaking of "more complications in the family dynamic")

SeakingPeace
by Bronze Member on Nov. 15, 2012 at 5:36 PM
2 moms liked this

 I agree with Canvas!

"We could have used just the mandate of requiring pre existing conditions coverage under current insurances without mandating coverage to the masses causing more complications in the family dynamic. "  The whole darn health care system didn't need to be revised.

 

Quoting Canvas_says:

Are those 17 million children now insured? Or are they banking on the insurance afforded by Obamacare? We could have used just the mandate of requiring pre existing conditions coverage under current insurances without mandating coverage to the masses causing more complications in the family dynamic. 

Quoting MsDenuninani:

 

Quoting Canvas_says:

What does that have to do with now being forced to work several jobs to support yourself instead of one job? And still not getting those benefits. 

Quoting MsDenuninani:

 

Quoting Canvas_says:

I can only imagine how much harder dealing with family issues are going to be when you are forced to work two or three different part time jobs, just to keep up with bills because this mandate has made it where you can't just work the one you had before. 

Tell that to the 17 million children with pre-existing conditions that now can actually get health care.

"dealing with family issues," indeed.


I'm pointing out that "dealing with family issues" means different things to different people.

Plus, your scenario is speculative.  Mine is fact.


 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN