Required Medical Coverage for restaurant employees

Here is another controversial topic I am sure. Obama health care policy states that restaurants that employee 20 or more people are required to provide some health coverage. Do you see this as equating into higher menu prices, a surcharge on bills or cutting back?

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010 ... alth-care/

From what I'm able to understand, it's 50 employees for all small-time businesses. An "employer mandate" had been the one in place in California; for 20 or more...it had been in operating for over a year.

Does this sound right?

For the record, I believe menu prices and a service charge would be added to the bill. However, I'd simply deduct the percentage taken away as a charge and apply it toward their tip.

The healthcare reform makes it mandatory for small businesses with 50 employees or more to offer health insurance or face a $750 per year per worker (full-time) penalty. I am not sure but that makes it 50 full-time employees. Not too many restaurants, even large chains, have 50 full-time employees. They usually have a core staff of 20-30 and everyone else is part-time or temporary.

The healthcare reform makes it mandatory for small businesses with 50 employees or more to offer health insurance or face a $750 per year per worker (full-time) penalty. I am not sure but that makes it 50 full-time employees. Not too many restaurants, even large chains, have 50 full-time employees. They usually have a core staff of 20-30 and everyone else is part-time or temporary.

I'm not 100% sure on this one, but I recently saw a place that defined two part time workers as equivalent to a full time worker. Can't remember if it was in this bill or elsewhere. But they'd probably have some form of "full-time equivalent" in effect one way or another. (so 20 full timers plus 60 part timers would be considered 20+30 =50 full time). A simplistic method, but it works....

EDIT: just found this at cnn.com "Part-time employees would be counted toward the 50-employee minimum on pro-rated basis based on hours worked, bringing more small businesses into the group required to provide coverage."

(which is really the fairest system, just add up the hours, and divide by 40 to get number of full-time equivalents)

It really seems like most small businesses will benefit through tax credits. Here is more of that CNN article:
"• Businesses with fewer than 25 employees that pay an average of no more than $40,000 will get a tax credit - up to 35 percent of the company's share of their total health care premium.

• Companies with 26-49 workers are unaffected.

• Businesses with 50 or more workers must offer coverage or pay $750 per worker. That penalty applies for every employee if even one signs up for government-subsidized insurance.

But there are potential problems. Case in point: It would be much cheaper for Dick Bus to drop the generous coverage he now offers and take the hit at $750 a head for his 120 workers. The penalty would be $90,000 a year. He's currently spending $480,000.

Bus would save $390,000, but canceling his plan would force his workers to the health plan exchange and could cost more than they're paying now. The Senate is considering an increase in the $750 penalty to prevent that scenario.

The law's benefits are clearer for Fank Hesch and the four employees at his auto shop. He provides insurance for two, and pays $4,800 a year. Under the new law, he would get a tax credit of $1,680 and he says he would roll the money into health insurance for new workers as his business grows.

At the Lehigh Valley Zoo, CEO Rick Molchany pays $189,000 to insure 21 workers.

"Our health care is in excess of 10 percent of our annual operating expense," he said.

As a non-profit, the zoo gets a smaller credit for insurance than other businesses. The savings - about $9,000.

When you add it all up, most small businesses could save up to 4 percent on what they pay for employee health insurance.

Nationally, that savings could exceed $10 billion."

I guess a business with 50+ people could fire enough to under the threshold too.

And, just maybe, we would not have to have more announcements for benefits to cover medical expenses for ITB'ers who work without healthcare benefits. Perhaps someday these truly tragic sort of announcements will be a thing of the past.
IMO, no one should ever go bankrupt due to the lack of affordable health care alternatives.
Off my soapbox for now.
Peace,
BP

We are one small forum discussing a very small portion of the new healthcare plan and it already sounds confusing. Does anyone here really think the government can handle this? This is a 1 trillion dollar program, from what I hear there are car dealers still waiting for their money from the cash for clunker program and that was just a 1 or 2 billion dollar program. I am a Republican and I do believe we need healthcare reform, not sure how to get the right fix in place.

I guess a business with 50+ people could fire enough to under the threshold too.

Possible, but probably unlikely. As they grow, would they just accept worse service? (profits would suffer due to customer loss) Would they work their employees to the bone? (employees would quit) Wouldn't employees quit and go work at the place that does offer insurance? (high turnover = expensive).

I think you'll see businesses accept their size and obey the laws. This system is a prototype, and I bet it gets tweaked before it is in effect long.

We are one small forum discussing a very small portion of the new healthcare plan and it already sounds confusing. Does anyone here really think the government can handle this? This is a 1 trillion dollar program, from what I hear there are car dealers still waiting for their money from the cash for clunker program and that was just a 1 or 2 billion dollar program. I am a Republican and I do believe we need healthcare reform, not sure how to get the right fix in place.

Single payer is the real solution. Simple. Efficient. Insurance companies lose, the rest of us win.

The gov't already pays right around half of medical bills in the US today (before the new law). So it isn't as radical a change as you may think. Insurance companies will still take care of the other fifty percent or so. Not much change at all in that regard. (unfortunately)

Amen, Nimbus.

Single payer is the real solution. Simple. Efficient. Insurance companies lose, the rest of us win.

The gov't already pays right around half of medical bills in the US today (before the new law). So it isn't as radical a change as you may think. Insurance companies will still take care of the other fifty percent or so. Not much change at all in that regard. (unfortunately)

Yeah, that 3%-5% profit that insurance companies make on health coverage is really sticking to folks. Any possible government single payer system would be less efficient, much less.

This new bill, and how it was passed has crystallized my thinking. Unbelievably, I'm now in the same boat as Ronald Reagan. I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has left me. I will be changing my registration to Republican forthwith and intend to vote from a libertarian perspective.

I will never vote for another Democrat. They are now dead to me.

I intend to vote for a party that's not full of hypocrites. Oh, wait. There is not one.

Thought this was a food forum. We've gotten way off topic here.

Single payer is the real solution. Simple. Efficient. Insurance companies lose, the rest of us win.

The gov't already pays right around half of medical bills in the US today (before the new law). So it isn't as radical a change as you may think. Insurance companies will still take care of the other fifty percent or so. Not much change at all in that regard. (unfortunately)

Yeah, that 3%-5% profit that insurance companies make on health coverage is really sticking to folks. Any possible government single payer system would be less efficient, much less.

This new bill, and how it was passed has crystallized my thinking. Unbelievably, I'm now in the same boat as Ronald Reagan. I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has left me. I will be changing my registration to Republican forthwith and intend to vote from a libertarian perspective.

I will never vote for another Democrat. They are now dead to me.

Steve, the 3-5% number you mention (profit) is a number that neglects the huge administrative costs in the private health care system. Have you noticed in a large doctor's office (or a hospital) a lot of people walking around with pieces of paper in their hands, or tapping away at computers? Administrative costs. Huge salaries for "executives" who plot on how to maximize profits? Administrative costs. Glossy photo-shopped advertisements of smiling models in the magazines hawking the latest blue or yellow or red drug? Administrative costs.

Subtract all of the huge admin costs private insurers pile up, and you're still left with 3-5% for them to stuff into their pockets.

These admin costs add up, big time. We're talking about twenty percent in some cases. (that number can vary greatly depending on what you include).

For comparison purposes, here are one set of numbers for private and gov't admin costs:

"This amounts to
7.2 percent of total U.S. health care spending, broken out as
14.1 percent for private insurers and 5.2 percent for public
programs (3.1 percent for Medicare and 7.0 percent for Medicaid)."

Who do you think pays for the big insurance company skyscrapers in every major city? The customers. Do we need paper pushers and skyscrapers? I say no.