Darden tests limiting worker hours as health-care changes loom

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   


greedy CEO's and franchise owners would rather crap on their employees than offer decent benefits
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


On that, I agree 100%. The greed in this country is what has destroyed it, and that includes not only CEO's or corporate boards, but just about every damned politician of BOTH parties in Washington.




posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Well job creators getting a little out from what they put in is not so bad. The streamlining of medical services and elimination of the middleman payments enabled Obama care to cut medical costs and save the difference reinvesting it in other areas.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   


The streamlining of medical services and elimination of the middleman payments enabled Obama care to cut medical costs and save the difference reinvesting it in other areas.
reply to post by newcovenant
 


Unfortunately, the "streamlining of services" you reference includes cutting down on the number of critical procedures and preventive care, especially for women. In addition, his cuts are now forcing many doctors to refuse to cover medicare. I know that for a fact, since my wife's doctor will now refuse to accept Medicare, because of the cuts to his reimbursement. If people knew how little some of the reimbursements are to doctors on surgery and procedures, they would understand. I know there is no "death panels", but these cuts WILL cause senior deaths, that otherwise would have been prevented.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus



The streamlining of medical services and elimination of the middleman payments enabled Obama care to cut medical costs and save the difference reinvesting it in other areas.
reply to post by newcovenant
 


Unfortunately, the "streamlining of services" you reference includes cutting down on the number of critical procedures and preventive care, especially for women. In addition, his cuts are now forcing many doctors to refuse to cover medicare. I know that for a fact, since my wife's doctor will now refuse to accept Medicare, because of the cuts to his reimbursement. If people knew how little some of the reimbursements are to doctors on surgery and procedures, they would understand. I know there is no "death panels", but these cuts WILL cause senior deaths, that otherwise would have been prevented.



Your wife's doctor who took Medicare in the past is refusing to accept it now?
Very sorry about your wife's condition and agree I do not know the details or cost of such an operation or whether or not it is a viable option to improve her medical/health situation. By the same token I personally know 2 men raising children alone because their wives didn't get her basic mammogram testing. Not only could it have been prevented - it could have been prevented for pennies on the dollar.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   


Your wife's doctor who took Medicare in the past is refusing to accept it now?
reply to post by newcovenant
 

Yes, that is correct.
Your comment about mammograms concerns me because of the new government recommendations:




AMA faults guidelines for mammograms and prostate cancer test

Recent recommendations on breast cancer and prostate cancer screening made by a government-appointed panel did not include enough input from experts in treating these cancers, doctors said Tuesday.

The American Medical Association voted today to officially express concern over the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force recommendations on mammography and prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing.
the task force recommended women receive regular mammograms starting at age 50, going against the common practice of screening women beginning at age 40. And recently, the task force recommended against PSA testing for men altogether.

Hughes said that doctors' reactions to these recommendations have been "outrage, disappointment, frustration [and] sadness."




My father would have been alive if he had a PSA test. This is all part of the attempt to cut health costs. DOCTORS should be making these recommendations, not politicians.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


The sad thing is, some people don't have "a doctor" and so as a last resort government should be taking accepted medical guidelines and saying, yes this routine test is paid for so why don't you go have it done, since for your age it is recommended. Congratulations on choosing the wonderful land of America where, unlike other places on earth, you might just have a shot at survival no matter what your income.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   


The sad thing is, some people don't have "a doctor" and so as a last resort government should be taking accepted medical guidelines and saying, yes this routine test is paid for so why don't you go have it done, since for your age it is recommended.
reply to post by newcovenant
 

I agree. However, all of the news shows this morning are reporting on this new study:

www.b985.com...


Oct. 16, 2012 — Regular physical exams are annual rituals for many Americans. Now a new research review finds that these kinds of checkups don’t help people live longer, and they don’t cut the risk of dying of cancer or heart disease. “We did not find any signs of benefit,” on death risk, says researcher Lasse T. Krogsboll, a PhD student at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen, Denmark.


I am afraid that some people will look at this study, and justify to themselves that there is no need to have annual exams.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Ok. Do studies regarding potentials of death warrant themselves? Maybe no and maybe on most occasions no, but on the few occasions they prove themselves useful, ....they are invaluable.

Someone lives.


If it is you - it is something!!!!!



Do you get it?
edit on 19-10-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   


Do you get it?
reply to post by newcovenant
 


Of course, I "get it". However, understand that there are people that are barely able to live, and if the government dictates that a test is not covered under, say, Medicare, they might not be able to afford a life saving measure. THIS is EXACTLY the equivalent of the consequences 0f the mythical "death panel" .



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus



Do you get it?
reply to post by newcovenant
 


Of course, I "get it". However, understand that there are people that are barely able to live, and if the government dictates that a test is not covered under, say, Medicare, they might not be able to afford a life saving measure. THIS is EXACTLY the equivalent of the consequences 0f the mythical "death panel" .


Why wouldn't or couldn't and what is stopping something like this be recognized as an oversight if and when it presents itself and then added to the Act?



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I work in healthcare, and one thing I have noticed (at least around the hospital I work for and many in the region) is that they have stopped hiring full-time workers in favor of hiring PRN or casual workers. My best guess is that a PRN or casual worker does not have to be offered health insurance benefits, and every year around open enrollment time it seems like our premiums and deductables are rising while coverages are shrinking. Just my two cents on the subject.



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by CANOPENERBOB
 

Very true. This is not limited to health care, of course, as my OP states, but it sure does bode a very bleak outlook for jobs in America. We are very quickly becoming a third world country, where the vast majority work 2 or 3 jobs, and the few reap the profits. As I've said before, both parties are equally guilty. Just look at the contributions that all candidates take from companies that employ these practices. Both parties supported NAFTA, and other "free trade" agreements that should have been called "Slave Trade Agreements" because workers everywhere suffer, while the few live high on the hog. Obama talked a good talk in 2008, promising to "renegotiate" NAFTA to protect the American worker. He never touched it. Bush likewise was a huge "free trade" practitioner, as was Clinton, and all the way back to Bush Sr. and Regan. A pox on both parties.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Looks like the test phase is now over. Everyone at Darden is now getting their hours cut. Welcome to the cascading affects of Obamacare. It is only going to get worse. Our economy will be severley cripled.

Someone else pointed out that companies with more than 50 employees may cut back to 49. They used France as an example. They have 3500 companies with 49 employees. But only 500 with 50-51. This is a good point and I imagine a lot of companies will be laying off folks to get down to 49. Plus those left will be over worked.
edit on 19-11-2012 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Will "Obamacare" affect corporate bottom lines? Yes. To the extent that these mega-rich CEO's will go broke? Hell no. These people who are crying wolf saying "Oh we MUST cut workers hours to stay afloat" are full of crap.

They need to cut workers hours so their profit margins don't take a slight dip. I've already made it a point to keep track of these companies and never purchase a thing from them ever again.

It just shows more and more how Corporations don't care at all about the people who make them money... who keep their companies running. They care about shareholders and profit margins. America has gone from such a great industrious nation, to a joke. If we keep going like this we will be referred to as "3rd world".



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by DerekJR321
 


Rant all you like... You know it, we all know it... There will always be greedy rich CEO's that need to preserve their multi million dollar salaries. But don't forget all the companies that have been struggling to keep out of bankruptcy during our rough economic times. Unfortunately they outnumber the rich companies these days.

This was the totally wrong time to enact Obamacare. And in the end of all of this, it will be the poor that suffer the most. Obamacare is the type of program that should only be started on a stabile economy. And it should have been done differently. There were a few things that were fine with this. Like insuring children to age 26, the pre-existing clause etc...

But I would really like Obama to step up to the plate and say, hey I was wrong, this is not good to do to our economy right now. But pushing this through with all its flaws, was all that he cared about. As long as it got pushed through. You don't rush the planning on something that affects an entire country. My feelings? This is a major game changer for the economy of the US. The poor will now realize just how bad it can get.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


It would suck to have American waiters and restaurant workers live like their counterparts in England. Working a few hours here and there. Imagine having 3-4 jobs of 2-4 hours each. That would just be a pain in the ass.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   
How many companies can do it, until the unemployed pool dries up? Then what, bring all of Mexico in?





top topics
 
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join