3 ms·

What is this referring to in the article? > The benefit situation is no better. Workers get to see free movies when theaters aren’t busy, and get half off of m

What is this referring to in the article? > The benefit situation is no better. Workers get to see free movies when theaters aren’t busy, and get half off of meals purchased while at work. But that doesn’t help when you need to see a doctor or get a prescription (Thank you Obama for your Care). Wasn't the cornerstone of the Obama plan a mandated health insurance by employers, but it was gutted by the next opposition congress?

dataflow 3y ago
Yeah I came to ask a similar question, I'm confused what this had to do with Obamacare.
bink 3y ago
I assumed he was referring to the ability now for people to buy individual healthcare plans that are subsidized by the government, whereas they couldn't before. But I admit it isn't very clear.
djur 3y ago
The ACA employer mandate is still in place (it's the individual mandate that has been zeroed out). Maybe this guy isn't a full-time worker?
- ellisv 3y ago
  That's the trick – keep the employees below avg 30 hr/wk and 130 hr/mo to keep them classified as part-time instead of full-time.
- TheCleric 3y ago
  Most service industry people I know aren’t full time for this very reason.
gurchik 3y ago
If I recall correctly, the ACA only ever required employers with 50 or more full time employees to offer coverage to their full time employees. As I understand it, this mandate was delayed a couple times but it eventually stuck. But that is moot considering a huge portion of workers in the food service industry don't meet that criteria (either not full time or the employer has fewer than 50 employees) so they don't get any employer coverage. I'm not sure what the author meant by the "Thank you Obama" comment - is he criticizing the ACA for not going further with the mandatory coverage, or is this just a reference to the "thanks Obama" meme?

3 ms·

What is this referring to in the article? > The benefit situation is no better. Workers get to see free movies when theaters aren’t busy, and get half off of m

by icameron 3y ago

dataflow 3y ago
Yeah I came to ask a similar question, I'm confused what this had to do with Obamacare.
bink 3y ago
I assumed he was referring to the ability now for people to buy individual healthcare plans that are subsidized by the government, whereas they couldn't before. But I admit it isn't very clear.
djur 3y ago
The ACA employer mandate is still in place (it's the individual mandate that has been zeroed out). Maybe this guy isn't a full-time worker?
- ellisv 3y ago
  That's the trick – keep the employees below avg 30 hr/wk and 130 hr/mo to keep them classified as part-time instead of full-time.
- TheCleric 3y ago
  Most service industry people I know aren’t full time for this very reason.
gurchik 3y ago
If I recall correctly, the ACA only ever required employers with 50 or more full time employees to offer coverage to their full time employees. As I understand it, this mandate was delayed a couple times but it eventually stuck. But that is moot considering a huge portion of workers in the food service industry don't meet that criteria (either not full time or the employer has fewer than 50 employees) so they don't get any employer coverage. I'm not sure what the author meant by the "Thank you Obama" comment - is he criticizing the ACA for not going further with the mandatory coverage, or is this just a reference to the "thanks Obama" meme?