Fine post, Moe. Of course, this may be Obama’s way of reducing unemployment — cut back on full time work, but hire extra part-timers to make up for it. Larger employers will drop coverage altogether. It’s a whole lot cheaper to pay a $2,000 fine than to pay $15,000 per worker for coverage.

You better start packing your lunch, Scooter because ALL fast food joints are going to do this. There are no shortage of people willing to work 28 hours a week because they don’t have to work more than that.

It is hilarious that the left figured out that taxing tobacco would lower smoking but can’t accept taxing success won’t lower success.

I don’t hate the game or the player I just think the game should be changed so that the employer doesn’t force their employees’ health cost onto me and other taxpayers. If they want to employ them insure them or don’t hire them in the first place. I don’t want to socialize any private enterprise’s employment costs.

What do you mean “are going to do this”? They have been doing this for years if not decades, it’s just now they’ve gotten everyone’s attention.

I want Wendy’s hand out of my pocket. If they choose to hire someone then they take the responsibility to pay for that person.

I posted that Wendy’s has before Obamacare and after makes me and other tax payers pay for their employees healthcare.

Wendy’s doesn’t force you, or anyone else, to pay for anything. Only governments can do that.

Because in this society if someone staggers into a Hospital bleeding or injured we take care of them. Someone has to pay for that care, either directly or indirectly.

So either:

1) Repeal the federal law that requires that. or

2) Pay for the marginal cost of treating people in that situation by the federal government. Maybe you could give it a catching name like MedicAid or something.

Good question. Where do you think it should be derived from? And when I say derived I mean funded.

The free market and charities.

So, if you believe it is unacceptable to allow people to die at the feet of doctors and nurses, why are you bit**ing about having to pay for it?

So if I want to call the free market who do I call? If I want to bill the free market to what address is the bill to be sent?

Unless we are willing to let people die of infections, heart attacks, appendicitis, etc, etc, etc someone has to pay for those acute life saving treatments. The question is who or what is going to reach into their pocket and foot the bill and I’m afraid the free market isn’t a who or a what.

Please don’t answer a question with a question. Tell me what you believe so I’ll have some context for this conversation. Should people unable to pay be given acute life saving treatments?

Dude, water seeks its own level.

Oh, now I know you’re a leftist. Why are you the only one “allowed” to ask a question?

Hoboken, it is a specious argument (though a common one). As a taxpayer, you are paying either way. Wendy’s employees will be fully subsidized under ObamaCare. The better question is whether you will be paying more than you are today. Clearly you will be. Today you are paying for the medical services they actually consume, tomorrow you will be paying for all kinds of things they would not bother with but for having health insurance — in vitro fertilization, birth control pills, psychiatric counseling, and so on.

The other fallacy is that somehow employers are obligated to pay for a worker’s health needs. Why should they be? They don’t pay directly for workers food, clothing, transportation or housing. They pay the worker money and the workers spend it on what they want. Why should health care be different?

-sigh- I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from. Not answering my question but instead asking one of your own didn’t help that cause.

I don’t understand your frame of reference on giving acute care to those who are unable to pay for it. Can you tell me what your position is on that. Not who should pay for it but should care be given at all.

Does our society have a duty to help the injured? To give a specific hypothetical if someone without health insurance, no money, and no employment comes to a hospital with an appendicitis that will kill them if not treated what should the hospital do?

Before we get into this can we agree that allowing people to die at the feet of Doctors and Nurses who could save their lives is unacceptable?

Yes, I agree that is unacceptable.

But it is a huge leap to say that preventing that situation requires some type of government provided universal healthcare.

We already have a government program to provide care to the indigent called MedicAid, so your question is entirely a strawman.

So if I want to call the free market who do I call?

The same people that you call when you are hungry, or need clothing and shelter.

Those are more urgent needs than healthcare, so perhaps we should have single payer in all those areas too, right?

If only there was already a government program to deal with that situation.

Oh yeah, there is it’s called medicaid. Which everyone is forced to ‘join’ via their taxes.

I’m not qualified to evaluate if costs will go up or down, some suggest that preventive care will lower overall costs and I don’t have the expertise to know if that is true.

To me it all comes back to do our morals require us to lend aid to those who can’t pay for that aid?

I’d agree with you. My morals require me to do so as well. Now the questions is for those who are unable to pay for that aid how is to be paid for, specificaly who’s pocket is it to come from?

Some enterprises have in my opinion been gaming the system and using our moral code to subsidze and socialize the cost of having healthy, able, and living employees at their disposal. These certain enterprises neither provide health insurance nor do they pay enough for their employee to purchase it themselves. Rather these enterprises use tax payers to fun their employees emergency room visits which keep them healthy enough to work.

Now I agree it’s very much open to debate on who should pay and how much/what percentage but I would suggest that part of this debate is who most benefits from having healthy people to employ.

I’m going to disagree with the premise of your second paragrah. In my opinion the situation doesn’t arise from a right I percieve someone to have but a duty I find in myself that requires aid to be given. I further believe that if that duty exists so does the duty to actively fund the aid I am duty bound to give and not leave payment to chance that charities will always be able to step in. Because If we’re wrong, even part of the time, that funding will be available Hospitals, which we all need, could eventually fail and shutdown.

The same goes for food. I believe our society has a duty to not let people starve. I’m satisifed that we actively fund foodstamps and other programs, though they are open to abuse I agree, to fill that need and not rely on charities to be the last resort.

I think food is somewhat different than healthcare in that someone working I hope will be paid enough money to purchase food, though that may be changing and if so should be looked at, and the question of who most benefits from a person without a job being given food is far more complex than keeping an employee able bodied.

Thank you for your reasoned and thoughtful response.

Who said anything about a nation? Conservatives believe in individual responsibility, whereas, you are a big government socialist and want to make everyone responsible for everyone. It never has worked. And yes, before the the socialists kept pushing big government on us, charities did most of the hospital work. You know very little of the topic you are discussing and it shows.

OMG! Trying to follow hobokenred is like the AFLAC duck listening to Yogi Bera!

I love the “lets tax cigarettes, then we’ll bring in millions more revenue”, while the another side squeals lets tax cigarettes so more people will quit smoking. They can’t have it both ways. Ranks right up there with taxing gas to repair and build roads. But with the advent of more fuel efficient, electric and hybrid cars less gas is needed, so less tax is brought in for the road’s upkeep. Even though they travel the same roads as a hummer3.

WAIT a second – if you are talking about morals here, it is your duty to pay for those people to receive care.

Period. So pony up, pal. It’s the patriotic thing to do.

I think YOU have a duty to help the injured. So quit typing and get to it, buster. Hustle up now – there are people who have made crappy decisions their whole lives who need to be bailed out. Go go go!

Why argue with hobokenred as is commie red? The guy is a liberal fool and he is obviously trolling from some lefty sight getting his fellow turd brains to come over and reco his inane comments. Piss on him.

There is another aspect to this. Under 50 employees. Many bigger companies are out sourcing a lot of help. I work in IT, there is lots of work, all temporary. What I am noticing too is that many of the jobs are with smaller companies. Oh, you work full time, but you work for a smaller company with maybe forty full time staff tops, who subcontracts to a bigger company that place hundreds of technicians but spread out over dozens of companies so no one pays insurance. And of course the big companies that hire these techs aren’t on the hook for insurance either.

Great for the small business entrepreneur who wants to take advantage of an opportunity caused by ObamaCare. Not great for the country overall.

Healthcare is not an employment cost. Housing is not an employment cost. Food is not an employment cost. The only employment cost is salary.

Let us also agree that allowing people to starve to death in a grocery store is unacceptable.

Fear not tngal as the same lefty logic and solution for greater mileage is a mileage tax. So save the planet with better mileage cars and less pollution via electric cars and then go in for the punishment for agreeing to their demands with a mileage tax via black boxes to watch our every move! Didn’t O sign an E.O. for 55mpg by 2030 or something? Circular insanity!

Thank Heavens–now I don’t ever have to worry about running into Barbara Streisand in my neighborhood Wendy’s.

McDonald’s has provided ‘mini-med’ low cost catastrophic care insurance. But I hear that might go away because it doesn’t conform to the perfection of Obamacare./sarc

You know full well that the law requires such people to be treated, troll. It’s a non-issue, and yes, we with insurance and taxes do pay. Sounds like you don’t want to. Where is your humanity???

macbookben, most employers are dropping spouse coverage to save costs under O’care since the law only requires employers to cover dependents…not spouses. That’s my understanding of the law.

It’s true littleh’. Everyone deserves a cadillac plan don’t you know. No more mini-plans as they just aren’t fair to low income workers/ sarc.

Exactly. It was a stupid idea but another cause and effect of bad gov’t policies.

Bless their hearts! That was hilarious. Now if on the R’s would blare that O broke his promise to not raise taxes on those making over $250K, so they know for sure it was their chosen one. Maybe 2014 will be better

Here’s what’s going to happen to the Wendy’s owner and other fast food owners who take the action to limit hours to avoid paying for health care.

Over the course of a year or so, their business operations will degrade and their profits will decrease. Why? Because they will lose some of their good employees to owners who do offer health care. Let me explain…
These restaurants usually have only 2-3 salaried managers. Most of “management” is hourly employees for whom this is a full time job. There are usually 6-8 in a restaurant. Many are females in their 20′s and 30′s with families. They actually run the operations of the restaurant day to day and no restaurant operates well without a core of good hourly managers. When they can’t get enough hours of work, they will look for employment at other fast food restaurants.

Smart owners will see this as an opportunity to improve their management teams and will advertise that they offer full time work and health care. Over time, they will attract the best of these hourly managers resulting in improved business operations and increased profits.
This Wendy’s owner and the Taco Bell owner are making a stupid business decision.

The writer of this article has little clue to how these businesses work when he says “Obamacare is a tax on success…” Not for these businesses. The smart owners already offer some form of healthcare. Obamacare may actually lower costs for some of them and increase profits.

The marketplace has changed. A smart businessman will either adjust to the change or his business will suffer.

Can you give an example of a nation implenting your proposal of having independent charities be the final health care payee, if all else fails, and having it be a success?

Try the entire world before the 20th century.

That really, really didn’t work out so well. People were dying at the age of 30.

Come one Jack, your age description is not accurate and even giving you the argument that people were dying younger had nothing to do with who was paying for it, it had to do with the lesser knowledge medical science had when it came to many if not most of the life saving procedures we have now.

Life expectancy has increased due to better medical knowledge which translates in to better care, hospitals having premium equipment, and person knowledge has increased for the patient as to what is good for you, what is bad, and what will kill you.

Quite frankly whether you, hobo, or any of your other leftist/bleeding heart pals think, we are not entitled to the services of other for free nor are we entitled to them on the backs of the working class. People make decisions in their lives, go to school or drop out, keep a clear criminal record or commit a felony, work hard or be a bum, gain a skill or flip burgers for life, have kids you can not afford or be adult like and take the precautions needed to avoid pregnancy until you are ready. These and other decisions will cause you to be where you put yourself to be financially. It is your right to be where you want to be, but it is not your right to make me pay for a heart transplant all because you never earned your way into a job that required skill or an education and would provide the necessary insurance. It is sad when someone needs medical care they can not afford, it is sad when someone is facing serious health issues, but it is not my job, your job, or the governments job to pick up the bill for anyone who chooses their course in life.

That is why so many of us donate to charities. We have worked hard, been successful, and want to help our fellow man even if the help is not deserved. Charities manage the money better and for generations they footed the bill for the person unable to pay and it worked great. But government care has never worked, has always driven the budget of the host country into the crapper, and medical care always suffered. It will happen here especially since our plan is modeled after Canada for the most part and I lived there for some time, and it was abysmal. It was the abysmal nature of the healthcare and government red tape that drove us who could afford it into Michigan to get good care out of our own pockets.

You want to be on the right side of history, start running your mouth about self responsibility. Lecture people/teach people how to pull their own bootstraps up and get off the government cheese wagon. People who are hungry will go work to get food, few are willing to lay there lazy and starve to death. Same applies to everything else in life. And for those who choose to lay there, let them lay there as that is their choice and right to do so.

I find nothing you say humorous.I find you to be a liar, petty, a troll, a lefty, a moron, and so on, but not humorous.

Some people die before the age of 30 now. Your point?