Red Lobster, Olive Garden cutting workers hours due to 'Obamacare'

[dbroncos78087]

And you could not have given it any less.

I outlined why I think that a progressive tax structure is better and I have also outlined why I believe that the mandate is an effective way to fix a big problem in our health insurance system.

But I will summarize my views again, briefly in this post.

Progressive tax structure: It creates a system where as you begin to spend less of your income as a percentage you pay a higher tax rate. Whereas those at the bottom of the income brackets pay less in taxes and are able to keep more of their income. People at the top of the brackets, who tend to save more of their income as a percentage pay a higher tax rate and do not suffer as much of a setback on their earning and spending potential.

Mandate: I believe it fixes a big problem that our emergency room mandates create. We previously had a system where people knew they were guaranteed emergency room treatment and were putting off getting treatment (ie paying for insurance or a doctor bill) until it became much more expensive and dangerous. The mandate brings those people into the fold and helps create a situation where more people get treatment that is cheaper and less dangerous. The alternative is to get rid of the emergency room system, which will not happen because no one thinks that those in desperate straights should die or suffer without some form of treatment. That would be inhumane and un-American.

[Randy West]

There will still be a need for emergency rooms. Not everyone will have healthcare even with the mandate.

Costs equaling out will remain to be seen.

[dbroncos78087]

There will still be a need for emergency rooms. Not everyone will have healthcare even with the mandate.

Costs equaling out will remain to be seen.

I agree with you on the continued need for emergency rooms. But my point is that they will not be seen as people's only choice now. The longer people wait to get treated they get exponentially sicker and more expensive to treat. If they are getting treatment before the emergency room is their only option then their treatment will get cheaper and safer.

The cost will absolutely be cheaper, this I will guarantee. You will have more people getting treatment when diseases first present themselves and not waiting until their condition has become more severe and requires the expensive and dangerous treatment that most ERs are known for. Think of it like automobile maintenance. If you get checked out every year, they are much more likely to find something sooner and not have your transmission give out and cost thousands upon thousands of dollars. Its the same basic concept.

[jayjay33]

There will still be a need for emergency rooms. Not everyone will have healthcare even with the mandate.

Costs equaling out will remain to be seen.

I agree with you on the continued need for emergency rooms. But my point is that they will not be seen as people's only choice now. The longer people wait to get treated they get exponentially sicker and more expensive to treat. If they are getting treatment before the emergency room is their only option then their treatment will get cheaper and safer.

The cost will absolutely be cheaper, this I will guarantee. You will have more people getting treatment when diseases first present themselves and not waiting until their condition has become more severe and requires the expensive and dangerous treatment that most ERs are known for. Think of it like automobile maintenance. If you get checked out every year, they are much more likely to find something sooner and not have your transmission give out and cost thousands upon thousands of dollars. Its the same basic concept.

An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Basic rule of medicine.

[flips333]

A lot of us would attribute Dream On to Led Zeppelin.

But you walk your way and I'll walk this way.

Yeah what led zepplin album would that be on?

[jomota]

Yeah what led zepplin album would that be on?

No idea. Those albums are long gone.

[behindmydesk]

Hmmmm just thought of something reading the back and forth about if this is a good place to eat.

I wonder if we will see a spike in sales for these places from people who oppose Obamacare. Could this be A) a cost cutting measure but also B) A huge free marketing campaign. hmmmmm



Completely OT, how the heck did metsbulls pay 87 bucks at Red Lobster. I've been there for some reason I had some gift cards to darden and said I haven't had Red Lobster in 15 years I'll go there. I took my wife and a friend and his girlfriend. We ordered everything it seemed like, and about 4 walker blacks and I think I didn't use the whole 100 bucks worth of gift cards. I remember fondly going lobster nacho's how could those be bad and ordered them as an app (newsflash they were very very very bad)

Anybody disagree or agree?

[flips333]

Anybody disagree or agree?

B doesn't make much sense. There are going to piss off as many people as they will win with this. Let's face it the Olive Garden and Red Lobster live off the fact that these are "fancy" restaurants in smaller towns. And people feel "safe" going there in the suburbs. A place Like the Olive Garden isn't gonna do alot of buisness in a town that has real Italian restaurants in them. I think it's like the chik-fil-a thing... I don't think that was marketing either... I think people are making an ideological statement... Just like Papa johns thing.

[The Schmooze]

Anybody disagree or agree?

That was the basis for my comment while the whole Chick-Fil-A nonsense was going on. I wondered if other companies would take some political stance in order to boost sales. It sure wouldn't surprise me.

[dbroncos78087]

Anybody disagree or agree?

Considering that support for repeal of Obamacare dipped to its lowest mark since passage, I don't forsee anything like that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...is-plummeting/

[Randy West]

I agree with you on the continued need for emergency rooms. But my point is that they will not be seen as people's only choice now. The longer people wait to get treated they get exponentially sicker and more expensive to treat. If they are getting treatment before the emergency room is their only option then their treatment will get cheaper and safer.

The cost will absolutely be cheaper, this I will guarantee. You will have more people getting treatment when diseases first present themselves and not waiting until their condition has become more severe and requires the expensive and dangerous treatment that most ERs are known for. Think of it like automobile maintenance. If you get checked out every year, they are much more likely to find something sooner and not have your transmission give out and cost thousands upon thousands of dollars. Its the same basic concept.

I understand the point but how about this. You pay for getting checked out and then pay if there is a problem. Instead my family pays monthly for something we may or may not need. We pay almost 15k a year for medical insurance. We use hardly any of that, the rest of our payments are either profit for someone or go to help treat someone else already.

Hospitals even after treating the uninsured make money. Insurance companies make money, both of those entities make a lot of money as a matter of fact. Now we are mandated to make sure they make even more money. Pay pay pay if you don't use it you still end up paying for somebody's care even if it isn't you're own. That is already happening without the mandate.

Now you say costs should go down, now how can you see into the future and predict that? They will always have the excuse of saying "this person was uninsured" so it costs us a bunch of money to treat them. Who is going to be there to monitor that? I don't expect the price on aspirin at a hospital to go down because we are all magically insured now.

Hospitals and insurance companies should love this new law. Millions and probably billions of dollars pumped into a system that is already making billions of dollars a year.

These are the same people who would love to control corporations costs and always complain about evil rich people making more and more money. Yet they jump up and down when they funnel billions to hospitals and insurance companies that are already doing so.

[dbroncos78087]

I understand the point but how about this. You pay for getting checked out and then pay if there is a problem. Instead my family pays monthly for something we may or may not need. We pay almost 15k a year for medical insurance. We use hardly any of that, the rest of our payments are either profit for someone or go to help treat someone else already.

Hospitals even after treating the uninsured make money. Insurance companies make money, both of those entities make a lot of money as a matter of fact. Now we are mandated to make sure they make even more money. Pay pay pay if you don't use it you still end up paying for somebody's care even if it isn't you're own. That is already happening without the mandate.

Now you say costs should go down, now how can you see into the future and predict that? They will always have the excuse of saying "this person was uninsured" so it costs us a bunch of money to treat them. Who is going to be there to monitor that? I don't expect the price on aspirin at a hospital to go down because we are all magically insured now.

Hospitals and insurance companies should love this new law. Millions and probably billions of dollars pumped into a system that is already making billions of dollars a year.

These are the same people who would love to control corporations costs and always complain about evil rich people making more and more money. Yet they jump up and down when they funnel billions to hospitals and insurance companies that are already doing so.

The way that I see the prices being forced down is because everyone has (a phrase I often hear from conservatives) skin in the game. Who will monitor how much your insurance charges you better than you?

We are already seeing people get rebates from their insurance because they had been overcharged based on what services are actually rendered. People will shift away from insurance companies that charge too much and towards those that don't. As well as the cost of emergency rooms, which are a major financial drag on the cost of care as a whole, will come down because less people will be relying on the emergency medicine and people will be shifted to preventative treatment which will always be cheaper.

My gut feeling is that if you put people in charge of paying for their care and ensuring that they have insurance they will fight the good fight and ensure that they get more bang for their buck. I think though that everyone needs it because there isn't a single person that doesn't use it in some fashion and considering that 70% of bankruptcies are caused by a lack of ability to pay for care (not directly by not having insurance) that it is a proven problem that not being able to cover the catastrophic injuries is a problem.

[Randy West]

The way that I see the prices being forced down is because everyone has (a phrase I often hear from conservatives) skin in the game. Who will monitor how much your insurance charges you better than you?

We are already seeing people get rebates from their insurance because they had been overcharged based on what services are actually rendered. People will shift away from insurance companies that charge too much and towards those that don't. As well as the cost of emergency rooms, which are a major financial drag on the cost of care as a whole, will come down because less people will be relying on the emergency medicine and people will be shifted to preventative treatment which will always be cheaper.

My gut feeling is that if you put people in charge of paying for their care and ensuring that they have insurance they will fight the good fight and ensure that they get more bang for their buck. I think though that everyone needs it because there isn't a single person that doesn't use it in some fashion and considering that 70% of bankruptcies are caused by a lack of ability to pay for care (not directly by not having insurance) that it is a proven problem that not being able to cover the catastrophic injuries is a problem.

Cool

We will get a check for 517 dollars. That should almost offset the 15k we are paying. Yet estimates are over a trillion dollars for insurers over the next eight years.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...il-you-a-check

Record profits and costs continue to go up

http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...till-going-up/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...e-speeding-up/

Local hospitals combined to earn $698 million in 2011, up from $563 million in 2010, according to the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration. It was their third consecutive year of double-digit earnings growth.

http://www.bizjournals.com/southflor....html?page=all

All I have been able to find on the subject is profits going up premiums going up.

I guess someday the savings you talk about will roll around.

[homestarunner93]

No its not. There are things that government pays for that not everyone takes advantage of because it is a net benefit of society. Government spending on things that not every single person uses is not a violation of individual rights. Is it a violation of your rights that some of your tax dollars go to paying for the education of children even if you don't have children?

Yes. Federal government has no business in education.

[dbroncos78087]

Yes. Federal government has no business in education.

Why not? I see half the states dropping the ball big time on education. The entire south east, MAYBE excluding Florida is graduating far too few of its children from even the most basic education. If the state refuses to improve its education system, then I see no reason why the federal government shouldn't play a bigger role in that system. This isn't an instance where the experiment is working, it is failing miserably and needs to be stopped before it ruins even more of those children's lives.