San Francisco Restaurants Add Health Care Surcharge.

[Johnboy60]

Fox News: One of the provisions in the new health care law requires small businesses to provide coverage for workers. Such an "employer mandate" has been in place in San Francisco, Calif., for over a year. The mandate has earned mixed reviews at best. Under the law, businesses with 20 or more employees are required to provide medical coverage, either on their own or by paying into a city-run program. That's what most restaurants are doing -- albeit grudgingly.

Breitbart.tv » San Francisco Restaurants Add Health Care Surcharge

 

[DesertSky]

Well there ya go.....not only will our taxes go up to pay for this disaster bill, but we now get taxed directly from businesses affected by it. Wonderful.

 

[Voegelin]

In San Francisco they should itemize the health care surcharge by disease.

 

[rambot]

Crap! I can't believe someone is trying to protect workers and that the cost of goods and services being provided to us would more accurately reflect the impact of the work it took to get from farm to belly!

When you buy stuff cheap, you do it at the expense of other people's livelihood, comfort, and economic sustainability. But, I guess if it's all about you (ie... the consumer) then why would you care?

 

[Fantine]

Crap! I can't believe someone is trying to protect workers and that the cost of goods and services being provided to us would more accurately reflect the impact of the work it took to get from farm to belly!

When you buy stuff cheap, you do it at the expense of other people's livelihood, comfort, and economic sustainability. But, I guess if it's all about you (ie... the consumer) then why would you care?

Perhaps San Franciscans' restaurant meals will be safer when they don't have sick cooks stirring the pots and sick waiters coughing over the trays...

Uninsured, working class employees usually don't have the luxury of taking off from work when they're sick, especially since servers would only get their subminimum wage ($3 or $4 an hour) and forfeit all the tips they might have otherwise earned.

 

[lux et lex]

In San Francisco they should itemize the health care surcharge by disease.

What are you implying?

 

[ACougar]

Exactly, what's wrong with those liberals trying to treat everyone like they would want to be treated?

Crap! I can't believe someone is trying to protect workers and that the cost of goods and services being provided to us would more accurately reflect the impact of the work it took to get from farm to belly!

When you buy stuff cheap, you do it at the expense of other people's livelihood, comfort, and economic sustainability. But, I guess if it's all about you (ie... the consumer) then why would you care?

 

[flicka]

I can't understand why this story keeps popping up. People can charge whatever they want to charge, this place just wants to make a point of letting people know that they are paying for healthcare to make a point. I'm not exactly sure what point they are trying to make, it could go both ways.

 

[Voegelin]

They should also itemize on the bill the 15.3% of income those kids washing dishes in the back are paying in FICA taxes so the people on Billionaires Row in San Francisco get their Social Security checks and Medicare benefits.

 

[one11]

Well there ya go.....not only will our taxes go up to pay for this disaster bill, but we now get taxed directly from businesses affected by it. Wonderful.

In the OP, it reads:

Under the law, businesses with 20 or more employees are required to provide medical coverage, either on their own or by paying into a city-run program.

I think small business owners should provide health care for their workers. Why do you think not?

 

[grasping the after wind]

In the OP, it reads:

Under the law, businesses with 20 or more employees are required to provide medical coverage, either on their own or by paying into a city-run program.

I think small business owners should provide health care for their workers. Why do you think not?

Unless those small business owners are MDs I wouldn't want them providing health care for me. Why do you think small business owners should be responsible for their employees health care? Who should be responsible for the small business owners health care? Should the employees ever have any grown up responsibilities of their own? Should they be tucked in at night by the small business owners as well?

 

[wpiman2]

Unless those small business owners are MDs I wouldn't want them providing health care for me. Why do you think small business owners should be responsible for their employees health care? Who should be responsible for the small business owners health care? Should the employees ever have any grown up responsibilities of their own? Should they be tucked in at night by the small business owners as well?

This is part of the progressive dream to destroy all business in America.

 

[Dracil]

Talk about misleading title. As the quoted summary even says, it's been in place for over a year in SF. It has nothing to do with the HCR.

But that's par for course for Fox.

 

[katautumn]

Talk about misleading title. As the quoted summary even says, it's been in place for over a year in SF. It has nothing to do with the HCR.

Only it does have everything to do with HCR, because this is what we're going to begin seeing on a national scale. If consumers are feeling the pinch of cost increases in San Francisco, imagine how it will feel when we can't escape it, not even for a brief moment.

I remember when we had a gas shortage here in Georgia a couple of years ago. It was very costly to ship goods because fuel prices went through the roof, despite laws in place that prohibit price gouging. Anyway, the entire fiasco touched nearly every aspect of living here. Small businesses having to shut down temporarily because they couldn't find couriers (courier services closed down because of no gas) or because their employees didn't have the gas to commute. Schools having a shorter week of instruction because they couldn't fuel up their buses. And then there was the cost of groceries. During the gas shortage, when food suppliers were charging more due to increased shipping charges because the trucks couldn't refuel for under $8 a gallon, I recall Mayfield Milk going up to $10.98 a gallon. A loaf of Publix brand bread was $3.99. Of course, once the gas crisis was over prices went back to normal, but those were tough and uncertain times.

What is the point to my little personal anecdote? The point is that businesses - large and small - are not going to eat the extra cost at the expense of their bottom line. The federal government says, "you're going to have to offer your employees medical insurance, even your part-time employees". The business owner, whether he owns a yacht or drives a 1985 Buick, is going to look at the budget and realize that this is going to cost money and cut into profits. Are they supposed to shrug and take a profit cut or are they "evil and greedy" by passing that additional expense onto the consumer?

 

[rambot]

Talk about misleading title. As the quoted summary even says, it's been in place for over a year in SF. It has nothing to do with the HCR.

But that's par for course for Fox.

Only it does have everything to do with HCR, because this is what we're going to begin seeing on a national scale. If consumers are feeling the pinch of cost increases in San Francisco, imagine how it will feel when we can't escape it, not even for a brief moment.

I remember when we had a gas shortage here in Georgia a couple of years ago. It was very costly to ship goods because fuel prices went through the roof, despite laws in place that prohibit price gouging. Anyway, the entire fiasco touched nearly every aspect of living here. Small businesses having to shut down temporarily because they couldn't find couriers (courier services closed down because of no gas) or because their employees didn't have the gas to commute. Schools having a shorter week of instruction because they couldn't fuel up their buses. And then there was the cost of groceries. During the gas shortage, when food suppliers were charging more due to increased shipping charges because the trucks couldn't refuel for under $8 a gallon, I recall Mayfield Milk going up to $10.98 a gallon. A loaf of Publix brand bread was $3.99. Of course, once the gas crisis was over prices went back to normal, but those were tough and uncertain times.

What is the point to my little personal anecdote? The point is that businesses - large and small - are not going to eat the extra cost at the expense of their bottom line. The federal government says, "you're going to have to offer your employees medical insurance, even your part-time employees". The business owner, whether he owns a yacht or drives a 1985 Buick, is going to look at the budget and realize that this is going to cost money and cut into profits. Are they supposed to shrug and take a profit cut or are they "evil and greedy" by passing that additional expense onto the consumer?

Dracil... you fell for the old "Implied but not stated" Fox News trick!

Sucker!!!!

 

[Dracil]

Only it does have everything to do with HCR, because this is what we're going to begin seeing on a national scale. If consumers are feeling the pinch of cost increases in San Francisco, imagine how it will feel when we can't escape it, not even for a brief moment.

I remember when we had a gas shortage here in Georgia a couple of years ago. It was very costly to ship goods because fuel prices went through the roof, despite laws in place that prohibit price gouging. Anyway, the entire fiasco touched nearly every aspect of living here. Small businesses having to shut down temporarily because they couldn't find couriers (courier services closed down because of no gas) or because their employees didn't have the gas to commute. Schools having a shorter week of instruction because they couldn't fuel up their buses. And then there was the cost of groceries. During the gas shortage, when food suppliers were charging more due to increased shipping charges because the trucks couldn't refuel for under $8 a gallon, I recall Mayfield Milk going up to $10.98 a gallon. A loaf of Publix brand bread was $3.99. Of course, once the gas crisis was over prices went back to normal, but those were tough and uncertain times.

What is the point to my little personal anecdote? The point is that businesses - large and small - are not going to eat the extra cost at the expense of their bottom line. The federal government says, "you're going to have to offer your employees medical insurance, even your part-time employees". The business owner, whether he owns a yacht or drives a 1985 Buick, is going to look at the budget and realize that this is going to cost money and cut into profits. Are they supposed to shrug and take a profit cut or are they "evil and greedy" by passing that additional expense onto the consumer?

Nice anecdote. Let me share with you another anecdote. Despite all the hullabaloo about it before it passed, the health surcharge in SF hasn't made the sky fall here. So I'll take option C, we don't actually see the charge that often nor do we actually care that much about paying a little extra if we're eating out.

 

[katautumn]

Nice anecdote. Let me share with you my anecdote. This health surcharge in SF hasn't made the sky fall here.

I don't think anyone is claiming it has made "the sky fall", but in hard economic times can businesses afford yet another financial burden and can the consumer withstand the weight of higher taxation and increase in the cost of goods and services? Here is how the cycle works:

Companies have a financial burden placed on them > company has two choices - raise the cost of goods or lay off employees. Some choose both > increase in cost is passed on to the consumer > standing or prospetive consumer worked for a company that had to downsize, thus taking away their buying power > company cannot offset financial burden by increasing costs because not enough people are buying > company shuts down and everyone loses their job > one company is left in a town to provide a specific good or service and they cannot afford to hire enough employees to accommodate the needs of the increase in workload > what's left of the consumer base is dissatisfied and seeks an alternative > no competitive market leads to either a disastrous monopoly or the failure of an industry altogether.

 

[one11]

Only it does have everything to do with HCR, because this is what we're going to begin seeing on a national scale. If consumers are feeling the pinch of cost increases in San Francisco, imagine how it will feel when we can't escape it, not even for a brief moment.


What is the point to my little personal anecdote? The point is that businesses - large and small - are not going to eat the extra cost at the expense of their bottom line. The federal government says, "you're going to have to offer your employees medical insurance, even your part-time employees". The business owner, whether he owns a yacht or drives a 1985 Buick, is going to look at the budget and realize that this is going to cost money and cut into profits. Are they supposed to shrug and take a profit cut or are they "evil and greedy" by passing that additional expense onto the consumer?

The small business owner's are going to be receiving tax benefits for providing the health care to their employees. We'll just have to wait and see how this all works out in regards to payment of health care plans and tax breaks for providing health care programs to the employees.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

As someone who is not in the US - how is this any different from businesses paying for privatised employee health care as part of a wage package (at huge prices) and then passing that cost to consumers?