Monday, Regal Entertainment Group, the largest movie theatre chain in the country, announced that thousands of employees will have their work hours cut -- as a direct result of the added cost of the new ObamaCare mandates that become effective later this year.
In a memo to employees, management was blunt: “To comply with the Affordable Care Act, Regal had to increase our health care budget to cover those newly deemed eligible based on the law's definition of a full-time employee.”
Fox News reports that, as a result of cutting employees' work hours (which is, of course, the same as a pay cut), full-time Regal managers have resigned in "a wave" after their hours and pay checks were slashed by as much as twenty-five percent.
The manager told FoxNews.com ObamaCare has had the unintended consequence of taking food off his table.
“Mandating businesses to offer health care under threat of debilitating fines does not fix a problem, it creates one," he said. "It fosters a new business culture where 30 hours is now considered the maximum in order to avoid paying the high costs associated with this law.
“In a time where 40 hours is just getting us by, putting these kind of financial pressures on employers is a big step in a direction far beyond the reach of feasibility for not only the businesses, but for the employees who rely on their success," he said.
In order to avoid the added cost of providing health insurance for employees working 30 hours a week (as ObamaCare mandates), it only makes sense for companies to schedule employees for 29 hours. So anyone who was working full-time is now being hit with a 25% pay cut.
Moreover, in a jobless "recovery" like the one we've been suffering under for four long years now, employers hold all the cards. And even if someone is able to find another job, what are the chances that employer won't be making the same decision to avoid the expense of ObamaCare?
The most under-covered story in the media this year is and will continue to be the effect ObamaCare is having on America's working class -- those who are losing their health insurance and the crucial work hours that can make all the difference when you live on the margins.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC
The USCCB has repeatedly called for "accessible and affordable health care for all (Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, USCCB, 2007)." Universal health care for all is the only way to ensure this Catholic goal. The US should move quickly toward universal health care, as in France.
ReplyDeleteFor which Democratic Party organization or liberal PAC do you work?
DeleteDo you know of the French writer Chantal Delsol? She is a ssuper strong Catholic and a conservative intellectual in France and she is a very strong supporter of the French health care system.
DeleteThere is a difference between opposing something by principle and by practice-
DeleteGenerally, we agree in the -principle- of Obamacare, that is, the moral goal to allow affordable access to healthcare for all.
That doesn't mean we can't oppose the -practice-, or the specific methods in which it's being brought about.
For an extreme example, if everyone who couldn't currently afford health care were to be put to death, everyone remaining (100% of the population) could afford it, which in principle is good. the practice, however, is about as evil as possible.
I'm not saying Obamacare is anywhere near that, but my point is we can, in good conscience, disagree on the best manner in which to provide these services
The point of the story is that working people are losing their health coverage under Obamacare. But how many will gain health care? I'd like that figure. I suspect it's much larger than the number losing it. Any facts on this?
ReplyDeleteI read somewhere that we could cover with insurance all the people who have no healthcare for 100 million dollars a year. So why are we spending trillions on it?
ReplyDeleteThere's 330 million Americans, and at least 40 million without health care. So I don't see how 100 million would cover it. My question for Al is, if we could "fix" the religious liberty issues in Obamacare, would he support universal health care? Just cut out insurance companies altogether. Catholics must find a way of giving every person, rich or poor, health care. Right?
DeleteCatholics must find a way of giving every person, rich or poor, health care. Right?
DeleteNO. False.
That is not a dogma or a doctrine - that is a political statement exprssing the opinion of bishops that a particular approach to healh care and insurance can actually be held as moral as opposed to a competing opinion seen as immoral.
The bishops expressing this view - like yourself - are working well beyond their competency.
Whoa! it's not safe to follow the Bishops? I'm a bit shocked, honestly. If the Bishops can be wrong about health care, maybe they're wrong about a bunch of other stuff (marriage, etc). Where does it end?
DeleteWhat do you mean the Bishops are "working beyond their competency"? Morals and politics go together. They are saying that the moral teaching has a political implications. It's their job to say so. Part of their competency includes making "political statements" on all manner of things.
DeleteI find all this interesting in the basic question is poses. "Protecting the least of these" seems to require providing basic health care to everyone--it follows from the commitment of caring and compassion. But are there statements from the Bishops that are political or merely "prudential" that don't require that Catholics support them? Are the health care statements in that category or do they require assent? I'd really like to hear Al on this, or perhaps he can find a quest who is an authority on the matter.
DeleteI saw this on Edward Peters blog:
Delete"The Catholic Church has the right and duty 'always and everywhere to announce moral principles, even about the social order, and to render judgment concerning any human affairs insofar as the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls requires it.' 1983 CIC 747 § 2; CCC 2246.
Does this not cover it? (Actually, I'm not sure, got to admit, just thought it might be useful.)
I listen to Al's show consistently and you're barking up the wrong tree: he supports Republican policies on health care and the economy, but he will agree with the Senate's Gang of Eight compromise on immigration. After you listen a while you know where he stands. Al is not right down the line with the American bishops (especially on economic questions, he would prefer Ryan's budget, which the Bishops criticized for its cuts to programs for the poor). I'm more liberal, but I still listen because I really enjoy the level of the convesation, just discount the bias (I guess we all have it, I know I do!).
Delete