You are wrong. In fact these claims (in reality they are lousy excuses for mismanagement and the claims probably done for ideology or payoffs), smaller (under 50) businesses get a competitive ADVANTAGE from Obamacare, because the larger companies have to insure their employees and the smaller ones do NOT!
So they in fact have more than 50 employees which makes them fall under the ACA according to your article you posted. I fail to see how a parent company investing $500,000.00 into the plant, again according to your source, can be characterized as "a big holding company who bought them out and ran them into the ground". And here is yet another quote from your source which would refute your characterization of the situation: "it will be required to pay for health insurance for qualifying employees. And Bonnie Doon, Filer said, was simply not profitable enough to cover those costs." Do we see a pattern of behavior on your part to distort the facts?
I clearly stated your SOURCE is lying. Does the fact that the loser manager blames everyone else for HIS OWN failures make it true, when even the article had to back off the claim? And the FACT that a stupid and absurd story like this one proliferates across the internet so it is ubiquitous does NOT happen by accident - it is a paid and organized campaign.
Not pay for, but help suppliment part of it and it is already Law that those with over 50 employees do so, has been for a long time now, ACA has nothing to do with it, some are just trying to make it out to be such.
No it is Not, provide proof of your statement. By the way the law stating that companies with more than 50 people have to offer some sort of health insurance has been law for many years now, long before Obama was even elected. Lets see your evidence, if you have any.
You are clearly flamebaiting and calling me a liar. If you have evidence that contradicts my facts, please present it or please be quiet. If this is a paid and organized campaign, where's my check?
Didn't read the whole thing did you? The Bonnie Doon was recently purchased by a larger holding company last December. Prior to being bought out they were below the 50 employee count. Had the company remained under the prior owners, then it will still have classified as a small business, and been exempt from the ACA. This is not a case of a small business run out by the ACA, it's a case of a bigger business absorbing a smaller one, then deciding to close it down. The $500,000 doesn't mean jack and squat as far as the company's status under the ACA. I get from it that the Bonnie Doon company was doomed for a while, regardless of the ACA, the prior owners knew that and got out while they could.
I do see that you are making a lot of assumptions without knowing the facts. You should stick to what is stated in the article instead of putting your own spin on events as if you have personal knowledge of the situation.
Let's see, right from the article I linked: Had Bonnie Doon not been bought out, they'd never have had a problem with the ACA. While I do assume a bit on why the company was sold, the fact still remains that it wasn't just the ACA that put it out of business as some like to think.
Does the ACA dictate the % of employer contribution in cases where they have more that 50 employees? Also does the ACA dictate that an employer of over 50 must provide or must offer healthcare coverage?
You are only confirming the disincentive Obamacare has for business growth. Seems your own argument is only proving my point. And if the company was still open with less than 50 employees, would that not mean the company would not be required to provide health care insurance, but the employees would in fact be on the hook and legally required to join the exchanges or pay a fine for not joining? Obamacare is a Catch-22, and you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. - - - Updated - - - I believe the answer to both questions is yes.
And the only time Democrats give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about people out of work is when it affects a company that is heavily infested with unions. Like Hostess. - - - Updated - - - No. The irony is Michelle Obama pushing healthy eating habits and then photographed eating yet another fatty ice cream cone.
The ice cream company employees who lost their jobs might consider it a tragedy. Unless they are Obama voters that is. Because Obama voters don't need jobs as long as the nanny state can borrow money from china and give it to them.
Just adapt people on the Right keep harping on and praising American Business being so good so adapt to the new law, its funny other countries manage to have national health care AND have strong businesses - Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland come to mind. I suspect they just didn't want to stay open or they would have found a way or there were other issues. For example move employees to under 30 hours and hire 25% more to make up the labor hours, there you go stay open and no ACA impact and more people get needed work there you go. See I solved this issue for businesses.
Did you buy your lib crystal ball from the same place that other Obama apologists got theirs? You are just ignoring bad news.
I'm a socialist its only bad news that it proves Capitalists don't care about their workers and can't be expected to take their needs into consideration I point out how to fix this have all workers work under 30 hours and hire more - duh - its an ice cream company just bring in and train more people on the job to meet the requirements for labor hours.
Reduce all the workers to 30 hours? But then you would complain that the workers cannot make enough money to support themselves and demand that the " greedy" employers pay higher wages too.
Wait, when did I give you the idea that Clinton was my hero...hell when did I give you the idea that Clinton is *A* hero at all?