American Thinker had an article that explained that the restaurant chains, and low-paying employers, in general, are not the only ones who are cutting hours due to the new mandates of Obamacare.
the news about the Community College of Allegheny County (CCAC) is so richly ironic. CCAC has just announced that because of ObamaCare, it will have to slash the hours of 400 of its employees, about half of whom are adjunct instructors. This is because under the new law, companies and other organizations employing 50 or more employees are required to provide full health care insurance (at high cost, because of a host of new mandates the law includes) for all employees working 30 or more hours a week. This means that employers have a tremendous incentive -- indeed, virtually a gun at their heads -- to either cut hours for employees to under 30 hours per week or eliminate workers outright (by outsourcing, offshoring, contracting out, and automating), or to keep the employees under 50 by simply not expanding.
This has led numerous private companies start taking precisely those actions -- including Abbot Labs, Applebee's, Boston Scientific, Covidien, Dana Holding, Darden Restaurants, Kinetic Concepts, Kroger, Lockheed-Martin, Medtronic, New Energy, Papa John's Pizza, Smith & Nephew, Stryker, TANCOA Janitorial, and Welch Allyn. For example, major restaurant chains such as Olive Garden and Red Lobster are already moving employees to under 30 hours a week. Boston Scientific has said that it will lay off 1,400 workers and shift production to China.
So CCAC's action is no surprise. At the end of this year, the college will cut 200 temporary part-time workers' weekly hours to 25, and 200 adjuncts will see their courses cut from 12 down to 10 units per semester -- a drop of 16%. But by doing this, CCAC will save $6 million it would otherwise have to spend for health insurance.
As John Dziak, head of the CCAC Federation of Teachers, ruefully acknowledged about ObamaCare, "[t]his is one of those times when the best of intentions do not always end up with the best results." No joke there.
Want to know something scary? First, Obamacare has "covered" millions of people without increasing the number of MD's and RN's. Much could be said about that and has. We can expect severe shortages. BUT... hospitals are employers like anyone else. And they will be putting increasing numbers of people on short hours and making as many as possible "part time." You know... like the part-time clinical pharmacists so you can't get meds for your patient before 8 AM and after 5 PM. And that Cath Lab Tech that isn't "in house" when you have your heart attack. (Don't worry, he'll be doing his best to fight traffic while you're losing most of your myocardium.) And since there will be a shortage of hands to push gurneys... the few nurses taking care of patients will have to take them to procedures throughout the hospital while their other 8 patients suck air. And so on and so on and so on.
Imagine, too ... if someone needs two 25-hour jobs instead of one 40-hour job, but they will earn less in two ways: there won't be any 1-1/2 overtime (so he will work 10 extra hours for $50 less than with 50 hrs on one job, based on $10/hr), and they will now have to pay for their own health insurance.
Will there be more people employed? Would it surprise anyone that the better workers will have two jobs, while the less skilled workers will have no job? The fellow with two jobs might very well get a subsidy for his health insurance (due to now lower earnings), as well as the fellow with no job at all.
So, the poorest will not have their situation change much; nor the top 10% have their situation change greatly. It will be the middle class that will be squeezed the most. Those at the lower end of that group will hurt the most. Yet, a primary focus of this election campaign was about who cared most for the well-being of the middle class. Ironic.
Would expect that the unions would negotiate for a quota on part-time workers. I read one speculation (can't remember where), that the govt would then make a rule that limited the number of part-time workers a company could employ. Just take away another freedom so that the govt gets its way. Seems that this would ultimately lead to a system of 29-worker companies, with lots of subcontracting occurring to other 29-worker companies. (While the law states it applies to firms of 50 or more, some of the requirements kick in at 30 workers).
Something I didn't quite realize on the 2.3% tax on medical devices. Since this tax is on gross revenues, it translates into about 15% on actual "profit" for these companies. So, to stay even, I'm guessing that they will have to raise prices slightly more than 2.3%.
Makes me wonder why it makes any sense to fund health care by a tax on one segment of the health care industry, which will result in higher costs for everyone. Was this the only segment of health care industry that they could isolate for this purpose? Is it a small segment of the industry, so unlikely to put up a big lobbying stink?
It actually makes some sense to tax the tanning salons ... sort of like taxes on tobacco, to discourage people from using something that has negative health consequences. And, of course, they want to tax sugar drinks, too, due to the obesity problems. But doesn't make as much sense to tax something which can have a positive health effect.
In the post that started this thread, Gerry posted this text from the affordable care act:Could you please give me a reference/link to any "federal health insurance" program? All the affordable care act does is set up exchanges for private insurance.Quote:
No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendment), and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs."
I was reading that this college now will not let their instructors teach any more than 10 credit hours per semester at a pay rate of $750 per credit hour per semester. So if you teach there year round (which is a big stretch because most kids go 2 semesters/year) you cannot make any more than 3 x 7500 = $22,500 per year. If you carry two jobs and can somehow manage to teach 3 semesters at each school, that'll bring you a whopping $43,000 per year with ZERO benefits. Sounds like the conservative's wet dream to me, given what little respect that they have for the teaching profession.
One thing the article forgot to mention. Even the guy who is able to pull down 3 semesters a year will qualify to have insurance he buys on an exchange subsidized because if he has a family he is way under 400% of the poverty level. These folks are part of the 47% that Rmoney showed such respect for during the election. Too bad they can't take responsibility for their own lives. In the quote above you state: "low-paying employers, in general, are not the only ones who are cutting hours due to the new mandates of Obamacare." Hopefully now you realize that these community colleges ARE among those "low paying employers," using the exact same tactics as restaurant chains etc to save a buck.