+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Kyra Memorial Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: Food joint adds 3% surcharge to pay for Obamacare (/thread-677790.html)
Food joint adds 3% surcharge to pay for Obamacare - smn1256 - 02-18-2014 10:52 PM
Most businesses will probably just bury their Obamacare costs in the price of their product, this place at least tells you that you're paying yet again for someone else's Obamacare insurance.
To eat at this place it will typically cost between $100 and $150 per person if the drinks are kept to a minimum.
Quote:HANCOCK PARK (CBSLA.com) — A local restaurant has added a surcharge to every tab in order to pay for its employees’ healthcare.
République, located on La Brea, is emerging as one of LA’s more popular, newer restaurants. However, the three percent surcharge is bringing about mixed reactions from the restaurant’s customers.
One critic on the review site, Yelp, claimed: “It’s not MY responsibility to take care of YOUR employees’ healthcare… that’s YOUR job.”
Link
RE: Food joint adds 3% surcharge to pay for Obamacare - Tom in Lazybrook - 02-18-2014 10:55 PM
(02-18-2014 10:52 PM)smn1256 Wrote: Most businesses will probably just bury their Obamacare costs in the price of their product, this place at least tells you that you're paying yet again for someone else's Obamacare insurance.
To eat at this place it will typically cost between $100 and $150 per person if the drinks are kept to a minimum.
Quote:HANCOCK PARK (CBSLA.com) — A local restaurant has added a surcharge to every tab in order to pay for its employees’ healthcare.
République, located on La Brea, is emerging as one of LA’s more popular, newer restaurants. However, the three percent surcharge is bringing about mixed reactions from the restaurant’s customers.
One critic on the review site, Yelp, claimed: “It’s not MY responsibility to take care of YOUR employees’ healthcare… that’s YOUR job.”
Link
Fine. Let them see how price demand elasticity works for restaurants.
RE: Food joint adds 3% surcharge to pay for Obamacare - GoodOwl - 02-18-2014 11:06 PM
(02-18-2014 10:52 PM)smn1256 Wrote: Most businesses will probably just bury their Obamacare costs in the price of their product, this place at least tells you that you're paying yet again for someone else's Obamacare insurance.
To eat at this place it will typically cost between $100 and $150 per person if the drinks are kept to a minimum.
Quote:HANCOCK PARK (CBSLA.com) — A local restaurant has added a surcharge to every tab in order to pay for its employees’ healthcare.
République, located on La Brea, is emerging as one of LA’s more popular, newer restaurants. However, the three percent surcharge is bringing about mixed reactions from the restaurant’s customers.
One critic on the review site, Yelp, claimed: “It’s not MY responsibility to take care of YOUR employees’ healthcare… that’s YOUR job.”
Link
I think this is a great and honest response to the situation. If more businesses would follow suit and specifically separate the additional unnecessary costs of this monstrosity in their bills and invoices, it would quickly demonstrate what a lie and fabrication this law is, and perhaps create the additional groundswell to repeal and replace it with something rational.
RE: Food joint adds 3% surcharge to pay for Obamacare - pharaoh0 - 02-19-2014 12:13 AM
If my memory is correct, I believe restaurants in San Fran did this years ago when the city made them pay for employee health care. Then the city got mad b/c of the complaints and forced them to eliminate the line item. My guess is that the state will do the same at some point. Can't have too many complaints, ya know.
RE: Food joint adds 3% surcharge to pay for Obamacare - GoodOwl - 02-19-2014 12:29 AM
(02-19-2014 12:13 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote: If my memory is correct, I believe restaurants in San Fran did this years ago when the city made them pay for employee health care. Then the city got mad b/c of the complaints and forced them to eliminate the line item. My guess is that the state will do the same at some point. Can't have too many complaints, ya know.
Restaurants, Cafes in Pelosi's District Eat Up Health Care Law Waivers
The Daily Caller reports that a startling one in five of the new waivers to Obama's health care reform law went to businesses in Pelosi's district
Published May 17, 2011 FoxNews.com
![[Image: conservatives-accuse-nancy-pelosi-of-ben...20.jpg?199]](http://media.theweek.com/img/dir_0061/30556_article_main/conservatives-accuse-nancy-pelosi-of-benefiting-from-favoritism-after-her-district-received-20.jpg?199)
Conservatives accuse Nancy Pelosi of benefiting from favoritism, after her district received 20 percent of new "ObamaCare" waivers.
Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district was the hands-down winner in the latest set of health care law waivers announced by the Obama administration.
More than three dozen businesses with locations in Pelosi's district were granted temporary exemptions from the law in April, according to information released by the Department of Health and Human Services. The businesses -- mostly restaurants and cafes, with a few upscale hotels and clubs mixed in -- accounted for about 20 percent of all waivers granted last month.
Pelosi's office did not respond to a request for comment. It was unclear why so many of the affected businesses were in her district, though the Obama administration, in a statement on the White House blog, said the original waiver requests came from a "third-party administrator" called Flex Plan Services.
According to the administration, the company administers health plans in several states, including California, and made a total of 92 waiver requests in March. Many of them were apparently for businesses in San Francisco.
"HHS applied the same standard to the application from Flex Plan Services that it uses when reviewing any application for a temporary waiver," Richard Sorian, assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services, said on the blog, adding that waivers are granted for businesses that prove they need them to avoid "a large increase in premiums or a significant decrease in access to coverage."
Pelosi, though, was among the most vocal champions of the health care law as she and other Democrats helped shepherd it through Congress in 2009 and 2010.
Nevada, the state represented by Pelosi's then-counterpart on the other side of Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, also just received a partial exemption from a provision in the law requiring companies to spend at least 80 percent of premium money on medical care and related expenses. HHS will allow Nevada to keep that rate at 75 percent in 2011, out of concern that major insurers could otherwise withdraw.
The waivers in Pelosi's district pertained to a different requirement in the health care law dealing with annual benefit limits. The latest set brings the total number of such exemptions since the law's implementation to 1,372 nationwide. More than 3 million people are enrolled in plans affected by these waivers.
On the list of San Francisco businesses with a reprieve were The Stinking Rose, an Italian restaurant; TRU Spa, a day spa in the city; and the upscale Hotel Nikko. Daily Caller first reported on the exemptions in Pelosi's district.
Steve Larsen, director of the administration's Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, said in a statement that the waivers were deemed vital to workers in the service sector. "These temporary waivers are necessary to help ensure that the waiters, dishwashers, maids, home health aides, and other hardworking people can keep the health coverage they have, while we transition to 2014, when they will have access to affordable coverage in a competitive marketplace," he said.
But the latest list quickly raised questions among Republicans. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a statement that the waivers are a "tacit admission that the health care law is fundamentally flawed."
"Despite the president's promise, it appears that just because you like your health care plan does not mean that the administration will allow you to keep it," Upton said.
Newly seated Nevada Sen. Dean Heller also said the Nevada waiver exposes the law's flaws. "It is clear that the unique health care needs of individual states were not taken into consideration, and this is why Obamacare will not work for Nevada," he said in a statement.
The waivers are not intended to be permanent. The waivers granted to the San Francisco businesses last for one year at a time, and are meant to exempt certain companies from rules that restrict annual benefit limits. For 2011, the law prohibits most health plans from setting an annual benefit limit lower than $750,000 per individual policyholder. The law would eventually end annual limits, but in the meantime allows companies to apply for a waiver if they still have limits lower than the law allows.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stressed Tuesday that the waivers "will no longer exist" by 2014. "It's basically a bridging mechanism," Carney said. He also said that fewer than 100 waiver applications have been denied so far.
RE: Food joint adds 3% surcharge to pay for Obamacare - pharaoh0 - 02-19-2014 12:48 AM
(02-19-2014 12:13 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote: If my memory is correct, I believe restaurants in San Fran did this years ago when the city made them pay for employee health care. Then the city got mad b/c of the complaints and forced them to eliminate the line item. My guess is that the state will do the same at some point. Can't have too many complaints, ya know.
http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/509535
http://www.yelp.com/topic/san-francisco-health-tax
It's funny to see so many in progressive SF complain about paying the cost. Did they really expect the restaurant to just "eat" the costs? In the real world, those costs are passed on to the consumer...something Obama still doesn't understand.
RE: Food joint adds 3% surcharge to pay for Obamacare - Tom in Lazybrook - 02-19-2014 12:51 AM
(02-19-2014 12:48 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:(02-19-2014 12:13 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote: If my memory is correct, I believe restaurants in San Fran did this years ago when the city made them pay for employee health care. Then the city got mad b/c of the complaints and forced them to eliminate the line item. My guess is that the state will do the same at some point. Can't have too many complaints, ya know.
http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/509535
http://www.yelp.com/topic/san-francisco-health-tax
It's funny to see so many in progressive SF complain about paying the cost. Did they really expect the restaurant to just "eat" the costs? In the real world, those costs are passed on to the consumer...something Obama still doesn't understand.
Actually, we, the taxpayers, eat the costs for many low wage companies, by paying the health care costs that employers won't pay. So the impact is that the employers make extra profits and we end up paying for their employees health care. You pay that 3 percent now. You just do so on April 15.
RE: Food joint adds 3% surcharge to pay for Obamacare - pharaoh0 - 02-19-2014 01:09 AM
(02-19-2014 12:51 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:(02-19-2014 12:48 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:(02-19-2014 12:13 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote: If my memory is correct, I believe restaurants in San Fran did this years ago when the city made them pay for employee health care. Then the city got mad b/c of the complaints and forced them to eliminate the line item. My guess is that the state will do the same at some point. Can't have too many complaints, ya know.
http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/509535
http://www.yelp.com/topic/san-francisco-health-tax
It's funny to see so many in progressive SF complain about paying the cost. Did they really expect the restaurant to just "eat" the costs? In the real world, those costs are passed on to the consumer...something Obama still doesn't understand.
Actually, we, the taxpayers, eat the costs for many low wage companies, by paying the health care costs that employers won't pay. So the impact is that the employers make extra profits and we end up paying for their employees health care. You pay that 3 percent now. You just do so on April 15.
What insanity are you talking about? IT IS NOT THE EMPLOYERS' OR TAXPAYERS' RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF YOUR FAMILY....IT IS YOURS!!!! Let's start there. If you don't make enough money to do that, then you need to figure out a way to improve your situation. Some people go back to school to improve their education, other people try to improve their skills to get a better job, some people get an additional job.
The only reason why anyone around here really pays for anyone else's healthcare is because bleeding heart liberals believe that people have a right to it, no matter what the costs. Then when people don't pay their bills, they complain about the bills these people leave hospitals with (a problem liberals originally created by opening access to all people for anything regardless of their ability to pay). Then instead of working on a way to solve the issue of providing minimal care for those without insurance or a means to pay (something hospitals had been working on), they instead wreck the health care system for the entire country by driving costs up for everyone and forcing people out of insurance plans they like and can afford.
RE: Food joint adds 3% surcharge to pay for Obamacare - GoodOwl - 02-19-2014 01:09 AM
(02-19-2014 12:51 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: Actually, we, the taxpayers, eat the costs for many low wage companies, by paying the health care costs that employers won't pay. So the impact is that the employers make extra profits and we end up paying for their employees health care. You pay that 3 percent now. You just do so on April 15.
Tom, the truth of the matter is that health care costs money and it is a service, not a right. It is a consumer product and a consumer commodity and should be treated like any other consumer product or consumer commodity.
Pricing should be made easily available for the individual consumer to make comparisons and the individual consumer should make the decision on what and how much to buy when and where, NOT the government, and NOT any employer.
Insurance should be just insurance and allowed to be purchased as such separate from "health care" (read: prepayment of routine costs) plans, in order to keep costs lower. People should be allowed to pay routine costs without being forced to buy bloated plans that have little or nothing to do with their needs for their individual situation.
The same liberty and freedom that you have posted about wanting in other choices you make should be allowed in matters concerning heath care costs and insurance. One would think you could see the inconsistencies in your approaches to these matters.
RE: Food joint adds 3% surcharge to pay for Obamacare - VA49er - 02-19-2014 06:16 AM
(02-18-2014 10:52 PM)smn1256 Wrote: Most businesses will probably just bury their Obamacare costs in the price of their product, this place at least tells you that you're paying yet again for someone else's Obamacare insurance.
To eat at this place it will typically cost between $100 and $150 per person if the drinks are kept to a minimum.
Quote:HANCOCK PARK (CBSLA.com) — A local restaurant has added a surcharge to every tab in order to pay for its employees’ healthcare.
République, located on La Brea, is emerging as one of LA’s more popular, newer restaurants. However, the three percent surcharge is bringing about mixed reactions from the restaurant’s customers.
One critic on the review site, Yelp, claimed: “It’s not MY responsibility to take care of YOUR employees’ healthcare… that’s YOUR job.”
Link
That critic is an idiot. I guess it's not his responsibility to pay for the restaurant's marketing, servers, electricity, water, rent, etc either. What the hell does he thinks goes into the price of the food he eats and the wine he drinks? Funny thing is if the restaurant didn't come out and say it was charging a surcharge and just added it to the cost of the food then this dolt wouldn't even know the difference.
RE: Food joint adds 3% surcharge to pay for Obamacare - DrTorch - 02-19-2014 09:57 AM
(02-18-2014 10:52 PM)smn1256 Wrote: Most businesses will probably just bury their Obamacare costs in the price of their product, this place at least tells you that you're paying yet again for someone else's Obamacare insurance.
To eat at this place it will typically cost between $100 and $150 per person if the drinks are kept to a minimum.
Quote:HANCOCK PARK (CBSLA.com) — A local restaurant has added a surcharge to every tab in order to pay for its employees’ healthcare.
République, located on La Brea, is emerging as one of LA’s more popular, newer restaurants. However, the three percent surcharge is bringing about mixed reactions from the restaurant’s customers.
One critic on the review site, Yelp, claimed: “It’s not MY responsibility to take care of YOUR employees’ healthcare… that’s YOUR job.”
Link
That ignorance is a big part of the US' problems. It's pretty stunning to me though.
RE: Food joint adds 3% surcharge to pay for Obamacare - HeartOfDixie - 02-19-2014 09:58 AM
What's 3% on a $150 meal? Why should anybody care?
RE: Food joint adds 3% surcharge to pay for Obamacare - VA49er - 02-19-2014 10:01 AM
(02-19-2014 09:58 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: What's 3% on a $150 meal? Why should anybody care?
Doesn't seem like much but boy do people care. Recently the county just to the south of mine held a referendum to fund new schools to be paid for by a 2% meals tax. So, what happened? The voters voted FOR the schools and AGAINST the meals tax. NOW those same voters are upset there are no funds to pay for the schools. People just don't think sometimes.
RE: Food joint adds 3% surcharge to pay for Obamacare - HeartOfDixie - 02-19-2014 10:05 AM
(02-19-2014 10:01 AM)VA49er Wrote:(02-19-2014 09:58 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: What's 3% on a $150 meal? Why should anybody care?
Doesn't seem like much but boy do people care. Recently the county just to the south of mine held a referendum to fund new schools to be paid for by a 2% meals tax. So, what happened? The voters voted FOR the schools and AGAINST the meals tax. NOW those same voters are upset there are no funds to pay for the schools. People just don't think sometimes.
I'm surprised they bifurcated the issue for the vote.
That's a great example though of how we like to spend but hate to pay.
RE: Food joint adds 3% surcharge to pay for Obamacare - VA49er - 02-19-2014 10:06 AM
(02-19-2014 10:05 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:(02-19-2014 10:01 AM)VA49er Wrote:(02-19-2014 09:58 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: What's 3% on a $150 meal? Why should anybody care?
Doesn't seem like much but boy do people care. Recently the county just to the south of mine held a referendum to fund new schools to be paid for by a 2% meals tax. So, what happened? The voters voted FOR the schools and AGAINST the meals tax. NOW those same voters are upset there are no funds to pay for the schools. People just don't think sometimes.
I'm surprised they bifurcated the issue for the vote.
That's a great example though of how we like to spend but hate to pay.
I agree. My county had the same referendum and both the issues passed.
RE: Food joint adds 3% surcharge to pay for Obamacare - pharaoh0 - 02-19-2014 10:24 AM
(02-19-2014 09:58 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: What's 3% on a $150 meal? Why should anybody care?
Because it isn't 3% in a vacuum. When you the government actually keeps your taxes, it is one more place where they take your money. So let's say you are professional in CA (not rich, just making a high income). You pay 40% in the fed tax rate, another 10% state, another 2-4% for Obamacare hidden taxes for high wage earners. That's not even including the entitlements (eg SSI) or the state sales tax, which can be upwards of 9.75% or the any real estate taxes you are paying.
So, even accounting for deductions, in the end you are probably paying 2/3rds of your income to the government in some form or another simply because you worked hard in school, made sacrifices in life, and now make more by working long hours. To that person, another $1 is $1 TOO MUCH!!
However, if you qualify for every tax break under the sun and get to keep most of your money and leave work at a consistent hour every day... then to you, and extra buck really isn't that big a deal.
RE: Food joint adds 3% surcharge to pay for Obamacare - georgia_tech_swagger - 02-19-2014 10:26 AM
(02-18-2014 10:52 PM)smn1256 Wrote: One critic on the review site, Yelp, claimed: “It’s not MY responsibility to take care of YOUR employees’ healthcare… that’s YOUR job.”
(02-18-2014 10:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: Fine. Let them see how price demand elasticity works for restaurants.
Why the hell is it that liberals formulate their public policy in a bubble completely divorced from the laws of economics, yet cheer on those same laws of economics when it (very rarely) works to further their agenda some how. And the line item makes total sense. It's just like corporate taxes ... just who the hell do you think ends up paying that??
(02-19-2014 12:13 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote: If my memory is correct, I believe restaurants in San Fran did this years ago when the city made them pay for employee health care. Then the city got mad b/c of the complaints and forced them to eliminate the line item. My guess is that the state will do the same at some point. Can't have too many complaints, ya know.
And that is probably the "solution" we'll see.
RE: Food joint adds 3% surcharge to pay for Obamacare - HeartOfDixie - 02-19-2014 10:28 AM
(02-19-2014 10:24 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:(02-19-2014 09:58 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: What's 3% on a $150 meal? Why should anybody care?
Because it isn't 3% in a vacuum. When you the government actually keeps your taxes, it is one more place where they take your money. So let's say you are professional in CA (not rich, just making a high income). You pay 40% in the fed tax rate, another 10% state, another 2-4% for Obamacare hidden taxes for high wage earners. That's not even including the entitlements (eg SSI) or the state sales tax, which can be upwards of 9.75% or the any real estate taxes you are paying.
So, even accounting for deductions, in the end you are probably paying 2/3rds of your income to the government in some form or another simply because you worked hard in school, made sacrifices in life, and now make more by working long hours. To that person, another $1 is $1 TOO MUCH!!
However, if you qualify for every tax break under the sun and get to keep most of your money and leave work at a consistent hour every day... then to you, and extra buck really isn't that big a deal.
I'd agree if we were talking about a tax on groceries or such, but we aren't. 3% on a $150 meal is no great tax burden. 3% at any sit down eatery wouldn't concern me.
Besides, isn't this a case of a eatery surcharging to cover their new expenses and not a tax situation?
RE: Food joint adds 3% surcharge to pay for Obamacare - DrTorch - 02-19-2014 10:32 AM
(02-19-2014 10:26 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:(02-19-2014 12:13 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote: If my memory is correct, I believe restaurants in San Fran did this years ago when the city made them pay for employee health care. Then the city got mad b/c of the complaints and forced them to eliminate the line item. My guess is that the state will do the same at some point. Can't have too many complaints, ya know.
And that is probably the "solution" we'll see.
I'd rather see them have a law that required them to itemize these new fees.
People should be more aware of what they're paying in taxes, gov't fees, etc.
RE: Food joint adds 3% surcharge to pay for Obamacare - VA49er - 02-19-2014 10:35 AM
(02-19-2014 10:32 AM)DrTorch Wrote:(02-19-2014 10:26 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:(02-19-2014 12:13 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote: If my memory is correct, I believe restaurants in San Fran did this years ago when the city made them pay for employee health care. Then the city got mad b/c of the complaints and forced them to eliminate the line item. My guess is that the state will do the same at some point. Can't have too many complaints, ya know.
And that is probably the "solution" we'll see.
I'd rather see them have a law that required them to itemize these new fees.
People should be more aware of what they're paying in taxes, gov't fees, etc.
I've seen the same sort of things at banks. The FDIC charges banks a percentage based on deposits to go into the FDIC fund to help bailout customers in case a particular bank fails. Nothing wrong with that. However, banks are not allowed to pass on that cost to customers but listing a "FDIC" fee on their marketing literature. So, banks just pass it on by calling it something else.