Posted Tuesday, April 13, 2010 12:37 PM | Contributed by Jeff
With the new health care reform law in place, companies that hire seasonal workers, including amusement parks and ski resorts, are uncertain about how the law will be applied to them. These companies await clarification from the US Department of Health and Human Services on whether or not they will be required to offer health insurance.
Read more from The Plain Dealer.
A public option and / or extended medicare would have taken care of that 1-2-3!
Yes, but then we'd all be Hitler or something.
Interesting that the article mentions CP, since CP began offering health insurance to seasonal employees last summer. Sadly, from what I heard, the benefits were actually better than what my Fortune 500 employer offers.
That is one thing that came out of the Paramount buy. Our benefits group had learned how to negotiate with the insurance companies, so even though CF had more employees, we had better insurance at a lower rate. They kept some of the benefits people, and must have learned from them.
It would have been nice to have health insurance when I worked at CP. I had the worst ingrown toenail problem my Dr back home had ever seen. I would have loved to have not walked around all those months in agonizing pain.
It's a good move on CF part to finally provide insurance.
I wanted to start a thread about this topic myself, but I guess I was too scared of being flamed for it.
Big companies like Cedar Fair are probably going to be ok, especially since they have started offering health coverage on their own, long before this law was even passed. My concern is for smaller operations like Waldameer, or large family owned parks like Holiday World. How will they be able to compete when they will be forced to provide benefits or be faced with large fines?
Personally, regardless of if this law is going to be upheld in the courts, I think the ideas behind it are just plain wrong. While I haven't taken the time to read the 2000+ pages, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that the government is going to force people to purchase a service that they may not want!
My parents are refugees from the USSR, and a lot of the rhetoric from the American left is eerily similar to what I have been told about the USSR. This is truly a scary time for the United States, as thanks to Bush, Obama, and Congress, we appear to be losing rights on a daily basis, while our Federal Government inches closer to bankruptcy.
Well, not "provide" as much as "offer."
Avalanche Sam said:
My parents are refugees from the USSR, and a lot of the rhetoric from the American left is eerily similar to what I have been told about the USSR.
I work with someone from the Ukraine, and he has made similar comments. Of course, he also still refuses to accept that Social Security is one of many examples of socialism in the US, so...
Soviet rhetoric was largely in place to cover for corruption of a system being exploited by people in power. Now honestly, do you think that "American lefties" like Dennis Kucinich are really out to take over?
LOL, I don't think that was rhetoric FROM the American left, more likely rhetoric ABOUT the American left...
Signed, a lefty... ;)
Health care reform law causes confusion for amusement park operators
..and by Amusement Park Operators, they mean most of the country.. :)
Personally, I just hope my current insurance plan survives. I think it is below the minimum standard for a health insurance plan, but the way it is structured, for the first time in my life it actually covers the oddball medical care that I actually use!
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
Referring to the country as "the Ukraine" is improper. And while the government there does provide health care, patients are expected to bring their own bed linens with them.
And the co-worker is probably talking about the rhetoric FROM the left, not ABOUT the left. The state will provide... the glorious state will provide... trust us, we will take care of you and fulfill all your needs. First housing, now health care.
Personally I'd much rather let the government hold the reigns than some company that stands to profit by giving me as little benefit as possible. If a public option were offered, I'd ditch my employer "provided" (there's ample evidence that they pay little to nothing toward our plans) health care in a heartbeat. But that's just me...
To each his own, but this is the same government that started a war on poverty in the 1960s, a war on drugs in the 1980s, and is now promising us that nobody will ever get sick and die before the age of 100, while at the same time all these extra people are going to consume fewer resources during their extra 20-30 years on this earth.
My personal belief is that government thrives and grows only because of all these "unsolvable" problems. For example, if poverty or drug use ever went away, there's a couple dozen agencies, thousands of government employees, and billions upon billions in revenue that aren't needed. It's in the government's best interest to keep these problems around to show that it's needed.
That awful government also keeps harmful chemicals out of your drinking water, limits the amount of toxic pollution companies can spew into the atmosphere, ensures you don't die from eating rancid meat, provides 1/3 of our citizens with a public means for internet access, maintains a massive transportation infrastructure, ensures you have access to electricity, provides you with up-to-the-minute weather information, makes sure that Tylenol doesn't kill you, certifies that your vehicle meets certain safety requirements, facilitates communication on a massive scale, makes sure your employer gives a damn about your safety, and has provided this very internet on which you can complain about them.
It's very easy to cherry-pick the things the government doesn't do well, and point at those things as "evidence" of their complete incompetence. But it doesn't mean you have a point.
It's in the government's best interest to keep these problems around to show that it's needed.
The workers don't decide these things, Congress and the president do. They're not going to hang on to departments indefinitely just because. We've seen them close countless military bases, for example, and that was under Bush, the biggest military spender of the last 30 years (I assume).
You must be logged in to post