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

(minimum 6 characters)

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 (41-50):
imamomzilla
by on Nov. 16, 2012 at 8:42 AM
1 mom liked this

 It's proving that Obama's economic policy of "Trickle Up Poverty" sucks.

Quoting kag1212:

What a bunch of Malarky!! Lol, now people won't leave tips. Smart move. These companies raising prices and laying off, there just hurting their companies. One productivity decreases, two sales will go down, what is that proving?

 

just_hc
by Member on Nov. 16, 2012 at 8:44 AM
1 mom liked this

The mandate exists because of the pre-existing condition clause being removed. The insurance company will no longer be able to deny you for a pre-existing condition.  Without the mandate it would allow people to wait until they were sick to purchase health insurance.  Think about it, you opt to not have insurance knowing if anything goes wrong you can just go buy it and they have to cover you.  It would be the equillivant of not purchasing car insurance until you have an accident.   You pay nothing in but then want to draw mass amounts out when you need it.  If you want pre-existings covered there will have to be mandates.

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.



Billiejeens
by Ruby Member on Nov. 16, 2012 at 8:45 AM

No such thing as "insurance" for pre-existing conditions,  having someone else pay for healthcare for pre-existing conditions is simply welfare.

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.



Canvas_says
by Silver Member on Nov. 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM
1 mom liked this

I'm not looking at is as a welfare issue. Just that our current insurance as it is does not permit people with pre existing conditions like myself to use it's coverage for at least a year after I have already been insured. This could have been changed so that people who buy their own insurance had coverage for their children and themselves. Instead of mandating this job loosing dibacle. 

Quoting Billiejeens:

No such thing as "insurance" for pre-existing conditions,  having someone else pay for healthcare for pre-existing conditions is simply welfare.

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.




Billiejeens
by Ruby Member on Nov. 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM


Quoting lwalker270:

Denny's is gross, so I won't be paying their 5% surcharge.

This shouldn't need to be said, but.....

Denny's is just putting a name and a face to it, the surcharge will be everywhere.

More middle class destruction.

Billiejeens
by Ruby Member on Nov. 16, 2012 at 8:54 AM

You can look at it however you want, but the truth is it is welfare, it is not insurance, we may be okay with that, but we should label it what it is.

Agree on the not changing the whole system though.

Quoting Canvas_says:

I'm not looking at is as a welfare issue. Just that our current insurance as it is does not permit people with pre existing conditions like myself to use it's coverage for at least a year after I have already been insured. This could have been changed so that people who buy their own insurance had coverage for their children and themselves. Instead of mandating this job loosing dibacle. 

Quoting Billiejeens:

No such thing as "insurance" for pre-existing conditions,  having someone else pay for healthcare for pre-existing conditions is simply welfare.

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.


 



Canvas_says
by Silver Member on Nov. 16, 2012 at 8:56 AM

How is my personal insurance which I pay 700 dollars a month for a form of welfare? 

Quoting Billiejeens:

You can look at it however you want, but the truth is it is welfare, it is not insurance, we may be okay with that, but we should label it what it is.

Agree on the not changing the whole system though.

Quoting Canvas_says:

I'm not looking at is as a welfare issue. Just that our current insurance as it is does not permit people with pre existing conditions like myself to use it's coverage for at least a year after I have already been insured. This could have been changed so that people who buy their own insurance had coverage for their children and themselves. Instead of mandating this job loosing dibacle. 

Quoting Billiejeens:

No such thing as "insurance" for pre-existing conditions,  having someone else pay for healthcare for pre-existing conditions is simply welfare.

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.






Billiejeens
by Ruby Member on Nov. 16, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Insurance is a gamble, you gamble something bad will happen, the insurance company gambles something bad won't happen, when you "insure" something that has already hapened, there is no gamble.

I have seen you here enough to know that you understand that.

Quoting Canvas_says:

How is my personal insurance which I pay 700 dollars a month for a form of welfare? 

Quoting Billiejeens:

You can look at it however you want, but the truth is it is welfare, it is not insurance, we may be okay with that, but we should label it what it is.

Agree on the not changing the whole system though.

Quoting Canvas_says:

I'm not looking at is as a welfare issue. Just that our current insurance as it is does not permit people with pre existing conditions like myself to use it's coverage for at least a year after I have already been insured. This could have been changed so that people who buy their own insurance had coverage for their children and themselves. Instead of mandating this job loosing dibacle. 

Quoting Billiejeens:

No such thing as "insurance" for pre-existing conditions,  having someone else pay for healthcare for pre-existing conditions is simply welfare.

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.


 


 



Canvas_says
by Silver Member on Nov. 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM

I do understand what you are saying. However, by putting off treatment of those with chronic conditions for a year or 18 months depending on the plan you are only causing more damage to their health, that will result in higher health care costs. By my skipping an entire year of immunosuppressants I have now been opened up to surgery that my insurance will have to cover on top of my regular medications. 

Quoting Billiejeens:

Insurance is a gamble, you gamble something bad will happen, the insurance company gambles something bad won't happen, when you "insure" something that has already hapened, there is no gamble.

I have seen you here enough to know that you understand that.

Quoting Canvas_says:

How is my personal insurance which I pay 700 dollars a month for a form of welfare? 

Quoting Billiejeens:

You can look at it however you want, but the truth is it is welfare, it is not insurance, we may be okay with that, but we should label it what it is.

Agree on the not changing the whole system though.

Quoting Canvas_says:

I'm not looking at is as a welfare issue. Just that our current insurance as it is does not permit people with pre existing conditions like myself to use it's coverage for at least a year after I have already been insured. This could have been changed so that people who buy their own insurance had coverage for their children and themselves. Instead of mandating this job loosing dibacle. 

Quoting Billiejeens:

No such thing as "insurance" for pre-existing conditions,  having someone else pay for healthcare for pre-existing conditions is simply welfare.

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.








chanizen
by on Nov. 16, 2012 at 9:45 AM
Yes. Those who are working and able to afford healthcare but choosing to spend that money on other things thus passing the ultimate cost on to this of us who continue to work.

The typical person who is being forced to pay more with ppaca is white, employed and between 20 and 30 and not currently carrying health insurance. They are low income, but employed.

People on Medicaid have health insurance already. We pay for it. People who are low income with families often have state sponsored insurance for the kids. We pay for that too. Mom or dad becomes disabled.... The whole family slips onto MedicaId an disability. We pay for that too.

Bet most people who are low income have cars and alcohol and cigarettes. And cable.

They are also passing their cost onto us. And there is very little standardization.

In germany.... You don't get antibiotics for strep. In England you don't get a heart transplant if you are overweight or a smoker. Want pins with surgery instead of a cast? Pay for it.

Our healthcare is horrifically expensive. And there is little to no concept of "here is basic", "here is tiered". Basic care should be set and set low. Want more? Awesome. Pay for it.

We already had socialized health. It's called Medicare and Medicaid.

Why should you and I pay for those things for a person who *could* afford healthcare but *chose* to have an apartment or a car or clothes?


Quoting Canvas_says:

I agree that too many people have children they can't afford, that's why I disagree with going along with this Obamacare mandate, it's going to make it even harder to afford for those that are working. 

Quoting chanizen:

Ah yes, it's so much better if we just keep ignoring the problem that those families have kids they can't afford and expect the rest of us to pay for the kid's healthcare.  Wake up.  We have socialized healthcare.  We just don't admit it.

Otherwise, you couldn't show up at an ER without insurance and be guaranteed care.  Grandma and grandpa would be working to afford their healthcare.  Because they aren't paying it.  I am.  And my kids will be.


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. 




Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
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)