Nevada restaurant owners on Obamacare: ‘We can't pay for this'
150 replies, posted
Nevada restaurant owners on Obamacare: ‘We can't pay for this'
Owners say health-care law's costs hit everyone, affects entire industry
Lahontan Valley News Tuesday, November 27, 2012
[quote]Nevada restaurant owners — increasingly anxious about the future of their businesses under the Affordable Care Act — are echoing statements by national restaurant chains about the excessive costs the law will impose on them.
"I don't know what secret [the politicians] know, where they just assume we can write them a check," said Sam Facchini, owner of Metro Pizza in Las Vegas.
"We can't pay for this. Most of us [restaurant owners] operate on a thin margin and trying to stay in compliance [with the law] will make things much tighter."
The biggest concern restaurant owners have with the law — commonly referred to as "Obamacare" — is Section 1513, the Employer Mandate. Going into full effect in January 2014, it requires businesses with 50 or more full-time employees to provide federally "qualified" health insurance or pay penalties of up to $2,000 per employee.
Nevada will be hit hard, according to the Nevada Restaurant Association, since the state's restaurant industry is the second highest contributor to state taxes and employs nearly 150,000 people.
Because the law defines "full-time employee" as an employee working 30 hours per week, some businesses — including Darden Restaurants, parent company of the Olive Garden and Red Lobster eateries — have stated that, to avoid penalties, they may shift more employees to part-time work.
Other restaurant corporations, including Papa John's and Applebee's, have taken much heat from the political Left for speaking candidly about the law's consequences for their businesses.
"They were public about it, but it's a reality within our entire industry," said Facchini. "Thirty hours is not reflective of any industry, let alone our industry, where there's a lot of different shifts and time frames required depending on how business is doing."
Facchini participated in a nation-wide group of restaurant owners invited to the White House last year to discuss the best ways to implement the law. Despite the meeting, he said, the law, as written, still requires employers to fund it.
The Supreme Court's June ruling upholding the constitutionality of the law, however, does provide an escape hatch for employers in most states — those that, unlike Nevada, chose to not set up one of the nominally state-run but federally controlled exchanges.
As Cato Institute Senior Fellow Michael Tanner detailed in the New York Post:
[S]tates that don't set up exchanges could also escape the "employer mandate."
That is, ObamaCare requires employers with 50 or more workers to provide health insurance or pay a fine ... er, tax. But that tax only kicks in if at least one employee qualifies for subsidies under the exchange. Since subsidies can only be provided via a state-authorized exchange, a state that refuses to set one up could end up blocking the employer mandate altogether.
Early in 2011, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval and legislators rushed to authorize one of the Obamacare exchanges. Thus the job- and cost-saving option available to most employers in the country is not available to Nevada's restaurant owners or other large employers in the state. [/quote]
[url]http://www.lahontanvalleynews.com/article/20121127/NEWS/121129925/1055&ParentProfile=1045[/url]
I guess they know how their employee's must feel.
I remember reading somewhere that 90% of start-up Restaurants fail. I highly doubt implementing Obamacare will make it that much worse.
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;38617003]I remember reading somewhere that 90% of start-up Restaurants fail. I highly doubt implementing Obamacare will make it that much worse.[/QUOTE]
No, it's between 45-55% afaik
60% according to: [url]http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-04-16/the-restaurant-failure-mythbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice[/url]
9/10 is a myth
If only the original bill proposed a single payer system without employment dependent insurance.
so some people will be forced out of the business... too bad
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Economics_Perfect_competition.svg/560px-Economics_Perfect_competition.svg.png[/IMG]
:words:
it's how markets work
At least time it's small business owners who I could believe feeling the pinch, and not a massive multinational corporation complaining about a dent in it's massive profit margin while giving product away.
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;38617003]I remember reading somewhere that 90% of start-up Restaurants fail. I highly doubt implementing Obamacare will make it that much worse.[/QUOTE]
If there's already a high failure rate I don't think it's right to implement penalties that drive the rate higher. I personally know someone who operates a restaurant and I know their profit margins are not that high(their total personal income equates to about $18/hr while the restaurant barely survives, often they invest their own income in upkeep). Of course, they don't qualify since they are well under 50 employees. I'm sure profit scales up once you have a need for that many employees, but I think there might be merit to their claims and not just more Papa Johns bullshit.
I personally find the 50 employee requirement a little broad, a system based on an employee-to-profit ratio would be much better I think. But I'm not well versed in economics and account for all possible scenarios.
So increase every item on the menu by 10 cents. Problem solved and now people don't die for not having health care.
Why do I feel they just don't want to cough up a bit of money?
[QUOTE=Foogooman;38617132]So increase every item on the menu by 10 cents. Problem solved and now people don't die for not having health care.[/QUOTE]
Sounds legit; increasing the profit margin would add extra coin to the pot, though a small increase of 10c would probably only work as well if there were a fair bit of traffic to the restaurant. Promotional offers would probably help increase the amount of customers too; companies like Pizza Hut do it with money off pizzas, and they seem to be doing well, but is that down to having more customers or the fact that they're essentially a megacorporation?
If you can't afford basic healthcare for your employees maybe you shouldn't be running a business with over 50 people.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38617087]so some people will be forced out of the business... too bad
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Economics_Perfect_competition.svg/560px-Economics_Perfect_competition.svg.png[/IMG]
:words:
it's how markets work[/QUOTE]
You got a key for that random chart?
[QUOTE=Glaber;38617314]You got a key for that random chart?[/QUOTE]
have you even taken basic economics glaber
because this is basic as shit
[sp]it's the Price/Quantity graph for a perfectly competitive market[/sp]
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38617325]have you even taken basic economics glaber
because this is basic as shit[/QUOTE]
Now that I think about it, I might have back in high school, but it was more personal finances than business finances.
either way that doesn't explain what MC, ATC, D, AR, or MR are.
and besides, most good charts include a way to read them.
In the restaurant business it can be easy to add up to 50 people. A busy place can have 8 waiters working the floor on 25 tables on a busy night, which doesn't include ~6 cooks, ~3 hosts, probably 2 dishwashers, a couple bartenders and the floor manager. That's already 19 people just to run a Friday night. If these same people worked the rest of the week and you factored in 6 replacements( 1 cook, 1 host, 1 dishwasher, and 3 waiters ) and a second floor manager(else the main one would have to work 14 hours a day), as soon as you open a second restaurant you technically just crossed the threshold. The only answer is to cut hours and hire more employees, so the people who already work there make less but the new people find a position.
The problem really begins when you realize there are only so many 'busy' and profitable hours for waiters a week, so when you hire on more AND cut their hours, you cripple their pay. I'm just basing this off personal experience but this is how I view it.
[QUOTE=Glaber;38617399]Now that I think about it, I might have back in high school, but it was more personal finances than business finances.
either way that doesn't explain what MC, ATC, D, AR, or MR are.
and besides, most good charts include a way to read them.[/QUOTE]
He's got a point, a key would be helpful.
[QUOTE=Glaber;38617399]Now that I think about it, I might have back in high school, but it was more personal finances than business finances.
either way that doesn't explain what MC, ATC, D, AR, or MR are.
and besides, most good charts include a way to read them.[/QUOTE]
Marginal Cost, Average Total Cost, Demand, Average Revenue, Marginal Revenue.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=il7Ek0uBYEE[/media]
Until I hear a statement from qualified, unbiased economists I'm not going to listen to the whining of large-chain businessmen looking to line their pockets.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38617436]Marginal Cost, Average Total Cost, Demand, Average Revenue, Marginal Revenue.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=il7Ek0uBYEE[/media][/QUOTE]
at first i thought it was "mcdonalds company", "a trucking company", "declining"="artsy revenue"="many revenue"
-snip-
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;38617489]-snip-[/QUOTE]
Demand, Quantity (stuff I already defined), Price
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38617325]have you even taken basic economics glaber
because this is basic as shit
[sp]it's the Price/Quantity graph for a perfectly competitive market[/sp][/QUOTE]
i've taken a handful of business management and personal finance courses and without your addition a few posts down, i wouldn't have been able to understand what the acronyms were regardless
just chill and explain it next time, there really isn't a point to going "lawl this is basic as shit, here's a point blank definition that still means nothing"
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38617325]have you even taken basic economics glaber
because this is basic as shit
[sp]it's the Price/Quantity graph for a perfectly competitive market[/sp][/QUOTE]
Obviously not or he wouldn't be a right-winger.
[sp]This is a joke[/sp]
[QUOTE=Foogooman;38617132]So increase every item on the menu by 10 cents. Problem solved and now people don't die for not having health care.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, the idiotic liberal point of view that never works. Hey, we're short on money, let's just raise prices/taxes and it will totally fix the problem, totally. This is why liberals don't run businesses, because they forget the primary purpose of a business; Which is to make money. It's not to be nice or to be a "livelihood" or other nonsense.
And since you clearly didn't read the article, I'll repeat "restaurants operate on razor thin margins". Increasing menu prices, or cheapening/reducing quantity of food is not an option and should only be considered as a last resort.
I have a friend who owned and operated a restaurant for over 30 years, and I've seen the inner workings more than enough to know what will cause a restaurant to thrive or fail.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;38617407]In the restaurant business it can be easy to add up to 50 people. A busy place can have 8 waiters working the floor on 25 tables on a busy night, which doesn't include ~6 cooks, ~3 hosts, probably 2 dishwashers, a couple bartenders and the floor manager. That's already 19 people just to run a Friday night. If these same people worked the rest of the week and you factored in 6 replacements( 1 cook, 1 host, 1 dishwasher, and 3 waiters ) and a second floor manager(else the main one would have to work 14 hours a day), as soon as you open a second restaurant you technically just crossed the threshold. The only answer is to cut hours and hire more employees, so the people who already work there make less but the new people find a position.
The problem really begins when you realize there are only so many 'busy' and profitable hours for waiters a week, so when you hire on more AND cut their hours, you cripple their pay. I'm just basing this off personal experience but this is how I view it.[/QUOTE]
This is basically what's going to start happening. Employers are just going to hire tons of employees and give them crap hours so they don't have to pay insurance premiums. So instead of employees getting health benefits, they're forced to work several jobs just to get by.
[QUOTE=bohb;38618037]This is why liberals don't run businesses[/QUOTE]
what
This guy runs a pizza place that has more than 50 [B]full-time [/B]employes and he can't pay healthcare costs? what the fuck kind of pizza place is this?!
[editline]27th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=bohb;38618037]Ah yes, the idiotic liberal point of view that never works. Hey, we're short on money, let's just raise prices/taxes and it will totally fix the problem, totally. This is why liberals don't run businesses, because they forget the primary purpose of a business; Which is to make money. It's not to be nice or to be a "livelihood" or other nonsense.
And since you clearly didn't read the article, I'll repeat "restaurants operate on razor thin margins". Increasing menu prices, or cheapening/reducing quantity of food is not an option and should only be considered as a last resort.
I have a friend who owned and operated a restaurant for over 30 years, and I've seen the inner workings more than enough to know what will cause a restaurant to thrive or fail.
This is basically what's going to start happening. Employers are just going to hire tons of employees and give them crap hours so they don't have to pay insurance premiums. So instead of employees getting health benefits, they're forced to work several jobs just to get by.[/QUOTE]
read the law. 50 full-time employees. 50 people who work more than 30hrs a week.
They should just put gambling machines in their restaurants.
don't be poor
~~redbadger for president 2016~~
[QUOTE=bohb;38618037]
This is basically what's going to start happening. Employers are just going to hire tons of employees and give them crap hours so they don't have to pay insurance premiums. So instead of employees getting health benefits, they're forced to work several jobs just to get by.[/QUOTE]
They knew companies would try to do this, and as a result the way which the law will function was set up to prevent this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.