Here Come the Layoffs

17 Responses to Here Come the Layoffs

1. Princess says:

   Sunday, September 22, 2013 at 1:13 pm

   Any employer that stops offering benefits is doing their employees a favor. If your employer offers coverage to you even though it might be expensive and offer terrible benefits you can’t buy on the exchange in California.

   When did we ever start making it the responsibility of EMPLOYERS to offer health care to their employees? It is a lot of work for a business to shop around and find affordable plans to offer. Forcing businesses to do this on top of everything else they do to fund the economy is ridiculous.
2. Tina says:

   Sunday, September 22, 2013 at 7:43 pm

   One of the most insidious and deceptive things about this bill is it’s benign cover: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

   Even the name was meant to fool the people.

   The way the legislation was promoted and sold should act as a wake up call for any American about the deceptive nature of the radical extremists in control of the Democrat Party. Barack Obama, Pelosi, and Reid made fantastic promises about lowering costs and making health care affordable for all Americans. They didn’t mention the loss of jobs or the extreme increase in insurance costs. They didn’t talk about how the bill would be so long and complex that people wouldn’t be able to understand it much less comply with it. They didn’t talk about the people that would lose their insurance because it would be cheaper for employers to pay a fine. they didn’t mention the various changes that would later be made to accommodate special groups.

   They didn’t bother to talk about the many and terrible negative affects of the bill because that kind of honesty would not get the legislation passed…and because they never think beyond the immediate need to control through big government solutions. They also didn’t offer the people a true picture of what to expect if the bill became law because they wanted the legislation to act as a stepping stone to single payer government run healthcare! They do not care that they have created chaos and destruction in the private sector.

   Beware! Rosy scenarios and utopian schemes hocked by money grubbing, control freak, communitarians in sheep’s clothing never include the unintended consequences.

   Loss of freedom and autonomy, actual long-term cost, diminishing opportunity, and the blunting of creativity and choice for individual Americans mean NOTHING to these radicals.

   The Congressional Budget Office projections have changed several times since the bill’s passage. Reports like this don’t offer much comfort:

   CBO estimated that by 2023, about 25 million U.S. residents will gain coverage under the ACA—two million fewer than the agency estimated in February—and 31 million will be uninsured, one million more than the earlier estimate.

   The agency attributed the revised insured and uninsured figures to regulations—proposed by HHS and the Department of Treasury in December 2012—that expanded the number of individuals who would be exempt from penalties for failing to obtain insurance under the ACA. According to the new CBO report, the proposed regulations will exempt an additional 500,000 to one million individuals from the penalties, resulting in mandate revenues dropping by $7 billion, to $45 billion.

   In addition, CBO estimated that by 2023, 24 million U.S. residents will enroll in the ACA’s health insurance exchanges, down from 25 million in the February estimate. As a result, CBO reduced its cost estimate for exchange subsidies and related spending by $137 billion from 2014 through 2023.

   Meanwhile, the estimated number of individuals expected to enroll in Medicaid and CHIP in 2023 was raised from 12 million to 13 million…

   And articles like this certainly give one pause:

   The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced this week that repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) “would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period.” In reality, it’s leaving the law as it currently stands that would explode the federal budget gap. ACA will increase the deficit by roughly $2 trillion in its first two decades. The law’s repeal would reduce it correspondingly.

   Does this mean the CBO is lying? No, it is simply doing its job.

   The CBO provided a very important caveat at the tail end of its letter to Speaker Boehner about the impact of H.R. 6079 (the bill to repeal ACA):

   Those calculations incorporate an assumption that the provisions of current law would otherwise remain unchanged throughout the next two decades. However, current law includes a number of policies that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time. [Emphasis added] For example, the ACA reduced payments to many Medicare providers relative to what the government would have paid under prior law. On the basis of those cuts in payment rates and the existing “sustainable growth rate” mechanism that governs Medicare’s payments to physicians, CBO projects that Medicare spending (per beneficiary, adjusted for overall inflation) will increase significantly more slowly during the next two decades than it has increased during the past two decades. If those provisions would subsequently be modified or implemented incompletely even in the absence of H.R. 6079, then the budgetary effects of H.R. 6079 could be quite different—but CBO cannot forecast future changes in law or assume such changes in its estimates.

   In short, CBO is legally required to base its estimates on “current law” even if no one believes current law will be implemented to the letter.

   There’s good reason to suspect government will not implemented the law as written. Congress boasts an extensive track record of side-stepping laws that are too painful to adopt. For example, in every year since 2002 the “sustainable growth rate” formula in current Medicare law technically requires cuts in payments to physicians. Yet every year, Congress has overridden these cuts, most recently last February, when it postponed required cuts until December 31, 2012.

   The answer that would help Americans is repeal of big government!

   Freedom from the oppressive nature of complex, controlling government oversight and bureaucracy increases the opportunity for choice. It would increase competition among those providing healthcare which would not only lower the cost to all citizens but would encourage innovation and creative solutions to problems. With control given back to patients, doctors, hospitals and insurance providers the people would gravitate toward those things and providers that provide them good care and coverage.

   Please consider calling, emailing, writing, tweeting Congress to let them know this law must go.
3. Chris says:

   Sunday, September 22, 2013 at 8:35 pm

   Tina: “They didn’t mention the loss of jobs or the extreme increase in insurance costs.”

   That’s because there’s little non-anecdotal evidence that either of those things are happening as a result of the law. In fact, the average hourly work week has actually gone up since the ACA passed:

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/30/white-house-obamacare-not-a-job-killer-we-have-a-graph-to-prove-it/

   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/21/obamacare-workers-hours_n_2924098.html

   http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/gops-job-killing-whopper-again-2/

   Furthermore, healthcare costs are rising at the slowest rate in 50 years.

   http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/free/20130729white-house-health-care-costs.html
4. Tina says:

   Sunday, September 22, 2013 at 10:26 pm

   Chris: “That’s because there’s little non-anecdotal evidence that either of those things are happening as a result of the law.”

   Spin spin spin spin spin! Aren’t you dizzy yet!

   Jack did a stellar job of reporting on job losses…here’s more:

   FreedomWorks has compiled a list of known job losses, hours lost, business closings, lost coverage:

   Welch Allyn, a company that manufactures medical diagnostic equipment in central New York, laid off 275 employees this year, and planned on dropping roughly 10% of their workforce over the next three years.

   “Health care reform mandates” are to blame for up to 400 jobs being dropped at Orlando Health.

   One of the biggest medical device manufacturers in the world, Stryker confirmed 1,000 jobs were lost due to Obamacare.

   Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center cited “the challenges of health care reform” while announcing the elimination of 950 jobs.

   The medical device tax also claimed positions at Boston Scientific. The company first announced in 2011 that they would be cutting between 1,200 and 1,400 positions. Then in January of this year, they announced further layoffs for up to 1,000 employees.
   Smith & Nephew, a global medical technology firm, dropped 100 employees.

   A Blue Cross/Blue Shield health insurance office was closed, resulting in another 100 or so employees hitting the unemployment lines. The reason? Complexities in federal regulations and mandates implemented by Obamacare.

   In March of 2010, medical device maker Medtronic warned that Obamacare taxes could result in a reduction of precisely 1,000 jobs. That plan became reality when the company cut 500 positions, and scheduled another 500 by the end of the fourth quarter in 2013.

   Reading Hospital announced layoffs for 210 workers, and the elimination of another 181 jobs through attrition, citing federal health care reform requirements.

   Abbott Laboratories announced a series of layoffs that would result in approximately 1,900 people being out of work. The company cited “U.S. health-care reform and the challenging regulatory environment” as a reason for the job cuts, then proceeded to donate money to politicians wanting to change Obamacare.

   Lost Hours

   Public employees in Virginia fell victim to Obamacare’s rules for part-time workers. A minimum of 7,380 jobs were converted to less than 30 hours per week.

   The nation’s largest movie theater chain, Regal Entertainment, reduced the workweek for thousands of their employees.

   Kroger, a grocery store chain, reduced the hours of their staff.

   Taco Bell slashed employee hours.

   As did Wendy’s, and also Denny’s.

   An executive from White Castle pondered only hiring part-time workers in the future.

   Subway chains, and Carl’s Jr. stores reduced positions to part-time.

   Clothing retail chain, Forever 21, conducted staffing audits which resulted in non-management positions being reduced to 29.5 hours weekly. Forever 21 has over 27,000 employees.

   400 employees at the Community College of Allegheny County saw their hours reduced.

   The Wall Street Journal reported that numerous universities were scaling back the number of hours worked per week by their adjunct professors, in an attempt to avoid the new Obamacare requirements.

   Hours for over 100 people in the Fort Wayne Community School District in Indiana have been reduced, including substitutes and support staff.

   Phone operators in Affordable Care Act call centers noted the irony in “working for a call center and trying to help people get health care” but only at a part-time rate … in order to avoid having to provide health insurance.

   Lost coverage

   Repeatedly blaming Obamacare in a staff memo, UPS announced that 15,000 employee spouses are being dropped from their health insurance coverage.

   Erick Erikson reported via Twitter that he had obtained an internal memo from Delta Airlines. The memo stated that the company would have to totally revamp their health care plans, and had to eliminate a plan developed specifically for pilots due to it violating the Cadillac tax.

   The University of Virginia is dropping coverage for spouses due to federal health reform costs and penalties.

   The owner of Professional Finance Company indicated that he may have to drop coverage for his employee’s families. The company employs 170 people.

   Health insurance coverage is being reduced for school districts in Pennsylvania.

   The United Methodist Church recently announced that “clergy and lay employees” would be losing their coverage.

   Wegman’s, who had previously provided coverage for employees that worked 20 or more hours, announced they were no longer offering health insurance to part-time workers thanks to ObamaCare.

   This link filled article supplies a list of six big companies that claim job losses as a result of the cost of regulation and Obamacare (Medtronic was listed above):

   1. Sallie Mae—When Obama signed the healthcare reform back in March, Sallie Mae, the nation’s largest student lender, announced they would have to cut 2,500 jobs. They told 1,200 staffers in their various service centers they will lose their jobs by year end, and the rest of the job cuts will follow in 2011. That’s nearly one-third of the company’s total work force.

   The reason for the job cuts is that the new healthcare law has a part that removes banks from the student loan business. According to Sallie Mae’s CEO, the new law “is not good for the company and it’s certainly not good for the employees.”

   2. Medtronic—Healthcare reform legislation imposes a 2.3 percent excise tax on sales of most medical devices. This excise tax applies to all types of medical products, ranging from surgical instruments to bed pans, and it’s expected to bring in $20 billion in taxes to help pay for healthcare reform.
   Obviously, many medical device manufacturers are less than pleased with the new tax, and several are predicting layoffs. The biggest of the bunch is Medtronic. Bill Hawkins, chief executive of the company, said his company will likely cut at least 1,000 jobs to absorb the new tax.

   3. Caterpillar—After laying off 19,000 workers and losing hundreds of millions in revenue, it didn’t appear things could get any worse for construction equipment manufacturer Caterpillar. All seemed to look a bit more optimistic when Obama specifically promised that his economic plan would help Caterpillar rehire many of its laid off employees. But now due to healthcare reform, Caterpillar predicted a new cost of $100 million, nipping any plans they had to hire more employees in the bud. In the words of their spokesman Jim Dugan, “Having an additional cost like this is not great timing.”

   4. John Deere—Heavy equipment manufacturer John Deere was one of the first victims of Obama’s new healthcare legislation. The company said it will face an additional $150 million in increased costs for the year in order to comply with the new laws. This eliminates about 11 percent of the company’s profits for 2010.

   For a company that already moved some manufacturing plants out of the country and cut hundreds of jobs, it’s hard to imagine how these new costs could spell new jobs. If anything, expect John Deere to cut more employees in the future to help soften the blow of this new legislation.

   5. Prudential—Insurance company Prudential Financial said it has taken a $100 million charge because of Obamacare. A few months later, Prudential was laying off employees at certain offices, and there was talk of some of their jobs being outsourced. For now, the job cuts aren’t huge numbers (about 60 positions have been eliminated), but there is talk that more jobs may be outsourced in the future.

   6. AT&T—Telecommunications giant AT&T announced it will take a $1 billion loss in the first quarter of 2010 because of healthcare changes from the Obama administration. This charge is the biggest announced to date, and it comes from a company that began 2010 by cutting jobs. Just recently, AT&T eliminated another 136 jobs in San Francisco. While this is credited to the dying landline business, it’s hard to imagine how AT&T could add any jobs in the face of the extra charges from Obamacare.

   As this list illustrates we will never know the numbers of jobs that will never be created…those are difficult to count.

   As to costs for insurance reports have varied from state to state. PBS:

   Most policy analysts concur that average premiums will go up for younger, healthier people – and that they will get better benefits than they do now – but that rates may fall for older or sicker Americans, as new rules go into effect Jan. 1. Increases may be offset for many of those buying coverage through tax credits available to people with low and moderate incomes. …

   …In general, the rates for individual policies look an awful lot like what employers pay now for workers’ coverage, said William Custer, who studies health insurance at Georgia State University.

   “The goal was to let people buy comparable coverage to what employers get with comparable prices. It seems like that’s the premiums we are seeing,” he said.

   Sorry, the goal was not to offer “comparable coverage at comparable cost”…it was to bring the cost of healthcare, including premiums, down to make healthcare more affordable. That was one of the biggest selling points!

   Avik Roy of Forbes sees things differently:

   Will the “Affordable Care Act” live up to its name and make health insurance less expensive? To help the public understand the impact of Obamacare on individual-market premiums, my Manhattan Institute colleagues and I have crunched the numbers and created an interactive, state-by-state map, where you can find out how Obamacare affects insurance rates where you live. The results may surprise you.

   Most states are seeing rate hikes; some will see reductions

   While these mostly-blue states will see an average premium increase of 24 percent, the impact of Obamacare is highly variable. Nine of the states will see increases on average, and five will see decreases on average. New Mexico, Vermont, South Dakota, and Connecticut will see the steepest rate hikes: on average, 130, 97, 83, and 59 percent, respectively. Three states will see meaningful declines in rates: Colorado (34 percent), Ohio (30 percent), and New York (27 percent). (see interactive map)

   Dismissively calling examples I’ve given “anecdotal” doesn’t change the facts that are being reported by actual companies, actual doctors, and actual people who are faced with attempting to deal with the realities presented them because of this law…higher business expenses, job losses, loss of hours, loss of doctor, loss of insurance coverage, loss of business.

   Its a mess Chris and your attempts to minimize it are insulting.
5. J. soden says:

   Monday, September 23, 2013 at 8:24 am

   Those who warned about Obumblecare are being proved right.

   Want to improve our economy? Boot Obumblecare!
6. Southern Comfort says:

   Monday, September 23, 2013 at 9:29 am

   Folks’ when it come to helpn’ little o’ Chris reckon things out It’s kind a like puttin’ gas in a car that you’ve already wrecked.
   Sometimes I think that boy is as dubm as a cat tryin’ to look pretty in the middle of a dog festival.
7. dewey says:

   Monday, September 23, 2013 at 9:58 pm

   On the internet I find it alarming when on one hand a person writes about corrupt media then posts some.

   No matter what the issue is these days just look at who the advertisers were and the opinion will match that of the advertiser! Nothing new there!

   Bottom Line Big Pharma is not happy having to actually cover people.

   The Heritage Foundation drafted the original versions of the ACA.

   Mitt Romney drafted a test case in Massachusetts. It was a success so the democrats wanted to try it nationally through the Clinton admin. They failed.

   When Obama was elected he carried the torch and the bill was written by both parties. That is why it is so big to please them all.

   I heard several unions on the record actually speak and they found a part they would like to amend. there will be stuff to iron out as congress can never pass a simple bill and please all the donors.

   The blogs quoted are not credible media. If it’s on the internet it must be true! LOL

   Actually let us get rid of employer paid healthcare. they dangle it like a carrot, pay lower wages then eventually you end up paying most the premium for any decent coverage.

   May I suggest it is the law of the land. Supreme court upheld it as constitutional. When people are asked about sections they agree. let us iron it out.

   Fact is the public knows very little about the actual bill. Fear mongering over rides any attempt to actually explain the bill.

   In fact the insurance companies are on the exchanges. California has a decent selection. It is not government healthcare unless you are on medicaid.

   A person with health Insurance may keep their insurance or shop.

   Children under 26 may stay on their parents ins.

   No longer can they kick you off the insurance when you actually need to use it.

   80% of the premiums must be used for healthcare and 20% may be profit…

   OOH OK! There is the problem ….too much healthcare not enough profit..Ok I get it

   Facts should be the basis of discussion not donor paid propaganda.
8. Tina says:

   Monday, September 23, 2013 at 10:50 pm

   Dewey like many people you refuse to see the end game, single payer, that will be the result and was cooked into the cake from the beginning behind closed doors.

   ANY healthcare nationalized plan would resemble the plan created by Heritage (Progressives borrow ideas and then turn them into centrally planned control mechanisms). I repeat any plan would resemble the heritage plan; that doesn’t make the final bill created behind closed doors and passed without a single Republican vote…the Heritage or the Romney plan. The differences make all the difference!

   Romneycare was a state plan. If you didn’t like it you could move! There are other differences but that’s the one that is the most obvious.

   Your argument about big pharma or any other big corporation is meaningless since Obamacare will only eliminate competition and make your supposed concerns worse..much worse in time!

   Anyone that favors nationalizing anything is deluded to think that it will eliminate the powerful…it will eliminate the opportunities to become part of the powerful and elite…those who don’t fit will be eliminated.

   And if you think you will have more healthcare wait a few years…long wait times and treatments being disallowed are in store for Americans.

   haven’t you heard? the plan is to move America to third world status…shared misery is the goal.
9. dewey says:

   Monday, September 23, 2013 at 10:56 pm

   May I add I am not a complete fan of the ACA but see it as a path to a conversation. By ironing out the ACA maybe we can explore single payer and remove employer paid healthcare.

   After seeing the Blunt/Rubio bill that fortunately failed the congress that would be a good step.

   Employer paid healthcare is not the answer.
10. dewey says:

    Monday, September 23, 2013 at 11:05 pm

    Sorry did not see your comment. I do not see a problem.

    You do not have to change your healthcare. You are entitled to remain with your current plan under the ACA so I see no problem.

    I do see the end game. I see it in the international spectrum. The same problems are everywhere. I am keeping informed.

    There seems to be a misunderstanding. The ACA is not government healthcare. It is healthcare reform. The insurance companies are competing under the same rules.

    Maybe it would be helpful to point out the section of the bill you are discussing and your issues with it. ya see i have not read the whole bill, have some issues with it, but have been studying the actual bill relying on no media propaganda.

    I will say I am in favor of single payer. personal responsibility. Employer plans are rigged for you to pay anyway
11. Tina says:

    Monday, September 23, 2013 at 11:10 pm

    I agree employer paid healthcare is not the answer but at least it was not mandated by government..unless you count public unions as government.

    Single payer would be worse! Talk about creating a huge monopoly! What the heck would act as the trigger to keep costs down? Hint: NOTHING!

    I believe that is the exact condition that leads to absolute tyranny!
12. dewey says:

    Monday, September 23, 2013 at 11:19 pm

    maybe, maybe not. But healthcare solely for profit is not either. Tina I had the best Blue cross PPO money could buy. When I needed surgery the doctors milked every penny out of it for a year before they put me on the table for original complaint.

    One year of every test on the books. The doctors plain out ripped off the insurance company and I was too sick to know. neglect for my well being for money.

    The ACA is the law. That is all I am saying. This is good we can iron it out to something better than this shareholder rip off we call healthcare.

    Discussion is good!

    Peace!

    P.S.there is no enforceable penalty to those who want to opt out. that is a hidden secret in the bill.
13. Chris says:

    Tuesday, September 24, 2013 at 6:32 am

    “I believe that is the exact condition that leads to absolute tyranny!”

    Single payer healthcare has existed in the UK since the 1940s, by that commie bastard Winston Churchhill. They are still waiting for “absolute tyranny.” I guess we should give it another 70 years, just in case Tina’s paranoid fears turn out to be right.
14. Tina says:

    Tuesday, September 24, 2013 at 10:49 am

    The tyranny of long waiting lists, denied care, filthy conditions and high death rates may not be the gulog but it is tyranny.

    America has been the ONLY country that isn’t derived from feudalism/socialism. Wake up you fool! If we join the entire world in that direction…and we are well on the way…the likes of Mr Putin will in fact eventually become the “ruler” in your life.

    Freedom. It’s important!
15. Tina says:

    Tuesday, September 24, 2013 at 10:59 am

    dewey sorry to hear about your troubles.

    The problems began when government got in the healthcare business via Medicare and unions negotiated for healthcare benefits from their employers. That changed the nature of insurance which was originally something people purchased to protect themselves against unusual high cost healthcare events. It was NEVER meant to cover all of our medical needs.

    Further government regulation and intervention has eliminated competition among insurers and created monopolies within individual states. The insurance companies lobbied for these advantages in exchange for regulations that would prevent harmful regulations and protect their business.

    Government regulations should be neutral, specific and simple to understand, and designed to protect citizens against abuses and harm. This would foster competition and keep costs down.

    The ACA is crap and there is all kinds of corporate and organizational collusion involved in its implementation.

    If you are who you say you are you cannot be in favor of this law. it will lead to more of what you say happened to you, not less.
16. Libby says:

    Tuesday, September 24, 2013 at 2:45 pm

    “Your argument about big pharma or any other big corporation is meaningless since Obamacare will only eliminate competition.”

    Again, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. If you want to supply Kaiser (or any large provider of actual healthcare, as opposed to insurance) with aspirin, you gotta give them the best price.

    Where did you get the idea that would change?
17. Tina says:

    Wednesday, September 25, 2013 at 12:31 pm

    Kaiser was already getting the best price for aspirin because they can buy in bulk. The government regulation to give every patient aspirin from an individual single container drove the cost of aspirin up. Before that they could buy in gallon containers and dispense in a paper cup…much cheaper!

    In reality your “lesson” about aspirin has NOTHING to do with the original point or my response.

Comments are closed.