Which came first, the legislation or the layoffs? Ah, sweet mysteries of life.
Actually, there's no mystery here. Opponents of Obama's health care reform always claimed that the bill would cost jobs; with the effective date drawing closer, you can start to count the job losses effective immediately. But I hope you've got one of those big calculators that gives you lots of digits:
The White Castle hamburger chain fears that a health insurance reform law adopted earlier this year will put its profits on a downward slide.
The Columbus-based family owned restaurant chain - known for serving small square hamburgers called "sliders" – says a single provision in the bill will eat up roughly 55 percent of its yearly net income after 2014.
Starting that year, the bill levies a $3,000-per-employee penalty on companies whose workers pay more than 9.5 percent of household income in premiums for company-provided insurance.
White Castle, which currently provides insurance to all of its full-time workers and picks up 70 to 89 percent of their premium costs, believes it will likely end up paying those penalties.
The financial hit will make it hard for the company to maintain its 421 restaurants, let alone create new jobs, says company spokesman Jamie Richardson. White Castle employs more than 10,000 people nationwide, and more than 1,200 in Ohio.
George Ebinger of New Jersey, who owns several International House of Pancakes restaurants, says the penalties for not insuring his 140 workers will cost roughly half as much as insuring them. He figures he will have to raise prices and possibly lay off workers to come up with the $220,000 he anticipates the penalties will cost.
So that's a couple of thousand unnecessary job losses - or, if your intent is to socialize America, a small sacrifice to pay for universal(ly poor) medical care. At least, that's the way that White House Office of Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle sees it:
"I understand that they don't like it and believe it will cut into their profits, but it is a relatively small contribution to defray costs to taxpayers."
Ah, those evil corporations. This is a win-win for Nancy-Ann and her ilk - really, isn't putting the likes of White Castle and IHOP out of business part of their goal for forcing you to partake in a diet that is "government-approved"? More power for her and her cadre of bureaucrats is certainly worth the ruined lives of a few thousand fast-food employees...after all, it's not as if they are unionized or anything...
But look at the wreckage that surrounds Nancy-Ann and Barack as they take control of the private sector - jobs lost, followed by home foreclosures, followed by decreasing tax revenue in the areas where these residents/restaurants once resided, followed by further layoffs and debt, followed by the unemployed draining more treasury dollars, followed by tax increases to cover the "unexpected" losses in the transition to socialism...
Confused about why any so-called leaders would endorse such a plan?
It's about power, and the ability to dictate to others. Nancy-Ann, Barack, and Nancy P. would rather rule over a nation of paupers and peasants than be politically powerless (and thus unable to exert their whims upon the populace) in a prosperous nation.
Besides, a weakened and hungry nation is easier to control....
Nice folks we have running the show these days.