• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Papa John's CEO: Obamacare likely to raise costs, employee's hours being cut [W:387]

Gipper said:
Wait a minute, wait a minute...are you guys talking about changing hospitals from for-profit to non-profit? Socializing that too?

Son of a bitch...
Click to expand...

No. We're talking about the Reagan-era legislation that made it impossible for ANY hospital ER to turn away patients because they don't have insurance.
 
Paschendale said:
The trouble with that, of course, is that the world and American views on healthcare are evolving. More and more, it's being considered a civil right. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness kinda has to include health, otherwise you die, your liberties are reduced to just being on paper, and you can't pursue much happiness. Civil rights are really not an issue to be different between states. But, in general, Americans favor universal healthcare. If it were put to a straight popular vote, it would win easily. So, I think the mandate is there. Splitting it up by state just seems impractical.



As a country, we have decided that no one should be excluded "based on cost". That's a very euphemistic term for insurance companies refusing to pay out when their services are actually called upon, by the way. Every person should be covered. Your assertion about blanket policies is also weird. Your point is to impugn a "one size fits all" approach, I assume. But covering everything... that really does fit all. And it can rein in the excesses of the medical industry. So yes, costs go down. Even if we stop refusing to treat people because they're actually sick.
Click to expand...
The trouble with doing it on a federal scale is that there is zero responsibility and accountability for funding those programs. Greater debt will incur and be dumped on future generations. States CAN be responsible. they SHOULD be responsible. No need for multiple layers of bureaucracy that WILL be abused.
 
VanceMack said:
The trouble with doing it on a federal scale is that there is zero responsibility and accountability for funding those programs. Greater debt will incur and be dumped on future generations. States CAN be responsible. they SHOULD be responsible. No need for multiple layers of bureaucracy that WILL be abused.
Click to expand...

I don't think that the abuse is necessarily a part of federal government and not of state government. States have plenty of abuse. The corrupting factors with federal government is based more on how much money they're dealing with, and so are the target of all the big corporate interests. I doubt that the states would be any different if they were handing issues on that scale. But that's on us to get the corporate influence out of government. Companies should not be able to write the legislation that governs their activities, nor make elected officials beholden to them by financing their election bids.
 
Paschendale said:
I don't think that the abuse is necessarily a part of federal government and not of state government. States have plenty of abuse. The corrupting factors with federal government is based more on how much money they're dealing with, and so are the target of all the big corporate interests. I doubt that the states would be any different if they were handing issues on that scale. But that's on us to get the corporate influence out of government. Companies should not be able to write the legislation that governs their activities, nor make elected officials beholden to them by financing their election bids.
Click to expand...
Added layers of bureaucracy automatically adds to the cost of a program. It is insane that we as a country insist that the states cant manage to take care of their citizens and we MUST by damn create more and greater dependence on the federal government. Pure lunacy.
 
j-mac said:
No, this is a publicly held company. Legally they have a responsibility to their shareholders.
Click to expand...
Im sorry that is greed plain and simple there is no way around it.

Just one of the many problems with capitalism also.


there are many forms of expression that use the word you, but don't implicitly mean you.
Click to expand...
shwat?
 
VanceMack said:
Its not silliness...its pathetic. Mommy wont take care of you as an adult, so stick that burden on a business owner. But not every business owner...just the very successful ones. No business should have to 'game the system' because the system should not be forcing the care of grown ass men and women on others.

So...is that a 'no' re forcing the small business employer to provide for THEIR employees? That seems rather arbitrary and unfair, doesnt it? Why would you force someone to actually pay for their own healthcare just because they have the misfortune of working for...say...a roofing contractor with 12 employees?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is silliness. This is just the way our system has evolved. The employer isn't the "mommy". The employer has just become the main hub for health insurance. It could be done individually without employers if we had health care exchanges and if the cost of insurance was fully deductible to the individual. You'd also have to have a mandate with more teeth than the one we currently have.
 
AdamT said:
Yes, it is silliness. This is just the way our system has evolved. The employer isn't the "mommy". The employer has just become the main hub for health insurance. It could be done individually without employers if we had health care exchanges and if the cost of insurance was fully deductible to the individual. You'd also have to have a mandate with more teeth than the one we currently have.
Click to expand...
Not so...just the very successful employers with 50 or more employees have been tasked to be mommies. This may come as a shock to you, but MANY INDIVIDUALS have ALWAYS taken care of their families healthcare needs. They did it with the paychecks they earned. The simple fact is you and people like you want to dump the health care needs of the individual on the employer. But just the very successful ones. Thats not the employers role. That you want to make it so simply speaks volumes about you.
 
VanceMack said:
Added layers of bureaucracy automatically adds to the cost of a program. It is insane that we as a country insist that the states cant manage to take care of their citizens and we MUST by damn create more and greater dependence on the federal government. Pure lunacy.
Click to expand...

And yet the history of this country is rife with situations where we counted on the states to take care of their citizens, and they failed to.
 
Paschendale said:
And yet the history of this country is rife with situations where we counted on the states to take care of their citizens, and they failed to.
Click to expand...
Perhaps because the fed has so readily seized those roles. Mox/nix...it matters not. Some states have clearly shown they can and all states SHOULD be responsible for their health care choices.
 
I decided to give Papa John's my business tonight because of the boycott. Normally not a huge fan of chain pizza, but someone said that Papa John's is good if you order the crust well done, so we shall see. Guy should be here in five minutes. In honor of Zimmer, I put "No parasites, please" in the driver instructions box on the online order form. Just kidding. I am not that bad. But I did order the pizza.
 
VanceMack said:
Not so...just the very successful employers with 50 or more employees have been tasked to be mommies. This may come as a shock to you, but MANY INDIVIDUALS have ALWAYS taken care of their families healthcare needs. They did it with the paychecks they earned. The simple fact is you and people like you want to dump the health care needs of the individual on the employer. But just the very successful ones. Thats not the employers role. That you want to make it so simply speaks volumes about you.
Click to expand...

Well, it IS so, whether you like it or not. About 70% of Americans are covered either through private employer or government plans, about 11% have other coverage, and 17% are uninsured.

Again, this isn't much of a cost to the employer. The employer passes the cost through to employees and customers.
 
Papa John's CEO: Obamacare likely to raise costs, employee's hours being cut

AdamT said:
Well, it IS so, whether you like it or not. About 70% of Americans are covered either through private employer or government plans, about 11% have other coverage, and 17% are uninsured.

Again, this isn't much of a cost to the employer. The employer passes the cost through to employees and customers.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true dependent. Obviously you AREN'T concerned about being the guy stuck with the bill. And...we aren't talking about those small business employers are we?
 
VanceMack said:
Spoken like a true dependent. Obviously you AREN'T concerned about being the guy stuck with the bill. And...we aren't talking about those small business employers are we?
Click to expand...

Can you not have a normal conversation without all of the idiotic ad hominem? How about addressing the actual topic?
 
Papa John's CEO: Obamacare likely to raise costs, employee's hours being cut

AdamT said:
Can you not have a normal conversation without all of the idiotic ad hominem? How about addressing the actual topic?
Click to expand...

You must miss the differing of opinion but commentary that say...Pasch and I are having. Hell...go back as far as you want and you will find me stating i believe there should be changes and those changes should be at the state level and as a pay as you go program. Perhaps an assessment of your contribution might be in order.
 
VanceMack said:
I think every state ought to consider Universal Healthcare and if their citizens want it, they should pass it and fund it accordingly. I absolutely agree.
Click to expand...

It's better to do it federally, not state by state.
 
Texmex said:
It's better to do it federally, not state by state.
Click to expand...
No...its better to pretend its someone elses responsibility and allow congress to dump the bill on future generations than for states and citizens to actually have to be responsible for the bill.
 
My apologies to Mr. Schnatter. He has come forward and said that his comments were misconstrued. He was responding to a question about what some of his franchisees might do. He was not saying what HE would do as CEO of Papa John's with respect to the employees under his control. In his words:

Reading what has been written about statements I made on the effect of the Affordable Care Act on our franchisees reminds me of a quote from Lewis H. Lapham, former editor of Harper's magazine: "People may expect too much of journalism. Not only do they expect it to be entertaining, they expect it to be true."

Many in the media reported that I said Papa John's is going to close stores and cut jobs because of Obamacare. I never said that. The fact is we are going to open over hundreds of stores this year and next and increase employment by over 5,000 jobs worldwide. And, we have no plans to cut team hours as a result of the Affordable Care Act.
Click to expand...

... and ...

During that same interview, talking about Obamacare I said, though it wasn't widely reported:
•"The good news is 100% of the population (full-time workers) is going to get health insurance. I'm cool with that."
•"We're all going to pay for it. There's nothing for free."
•"And this way I get to provide health insurance and I'm not at a competitive disadvantage ... our competitors are going to have to do the same thing."

Papa John's, like most businesses, is still researching what the Affordable Care Act means to our operations. Regardless of the conclusion of our analysis, we will honor this law, as we do all laws, and continue to offer 100% of Papa John's corporate employees and workers in company-owned stores health insurance as we have since the company was founded in 1984.
Click to expand...

John Schnatter: The Real Scoop on Papa John's and Obamacare
 
AdamT said:
My apologies to Mr. Schnatter. He has come forward and said that his comments were misconstrued. He was responding to a question about what some of his franchisees might do. He was not saying what HE would do as CEO of Papa John's with respect to the employees under his control. In his words:
... and ...John Schnatter: The Real Scoop on Papa John's and Obamacare
Click to expand...

Mr. Schnatter did not do his homework. In fact many companies have received exemption from Obamacare, thereby skewing competition among companies. There'll be more of that to come for those who have the proper government connections.

List of Obamacare Exempt Companies
 
Grant said:
Mr. Schnatter did not do his homework. In fact many companies have received exemption from Obamacare, thereby skewing competition among companies. There'll be more of that to come for those who have the proper government connections.

List of Obamacare Exempt Companies
Click to expand...

I don't see any pizza joints on the list, and the waivers are temporary.
 
AdamT said:
I don't see any pizza joints on the list, and the waivers are temporary.
Click to expand...

Why waivers at all then?

And of course there will be less competition between those who have to pay for Obamacare and those who don't. This goes well beyond "pizza joints".
 
Texmex said:
It's better to do it federally, not state by state.
Click to expand...

No it isn't

Obamacare is a 2700 page bill. You have absolutely no idea what's even in it, or the true impact it's going to have on the Economy. It already is having that effect and it's horribly negative. It's stifling economic growth, productivity, and GDP.

Throws out your rationality that it's done better Federally when economically it's already having a huge negative impact on the Economy because Obama did it "Federally", but then again HC to you is an emotional issue. Not a rational one.

Obamacare is a massive tax on the poor, middle class, and young who by a majority usually opt out of Medical Insurance because they are young and healthy and usually don't need it. You're ignorant of why the Founders wished to used Individual States as environments just for these types of Social Experiments. It creates competition which leads to lower costs, high efficiency. and higher overall quality. States can try different ideas, see what works and what doesn't, and continue to create a more robust and affordable system that everyone can enjoy. If other states want to copy the systems that work, then they can vote to do that. It's un-American to remove the Individual States to run HC as they see fit. A Centrally Planned Collectivist HC System is inefficient, expensive, and the overall quality of care sucks. Patients in the UK are dying of hunger and thirst in the hospitals waiting to be treated.

Patients starve and die of thirst on hospital wards - Telegraph

If Obamacare fails, and it's failing while it robs Medicare and puts us deeper in a bankrupt abyss, you're stuck with it. You have no alternative. Obamacare is already causing higher insurance premium costs and higher costs of HC while we continue to shed doctors. The incentives are quickly evaporating.

When it's done Federally as a sweeping "mandate" there is no competition, therefore you get what you get and you like it. Hello Death Panels ... ERRR IPAB. The Socialist Utopians greatest myth is that are these altruistic angels who really do care about everyone and the evil (insert cartoon figure they create through mob propaganda) wants to take these wonderful treats they want to give you for free. The Promise is never the Reality.
 
Grant said:
Why waivers at all then?
Click to expand...

The waivers were created in recognition of the fact that some companies and organizations had longer term arrangements that were harder to change than other organizations' arrangements. The waivers phase out in 2014.
 
AdamT said:
The waivers were created in recognition of the fact that some companies and organizations had longer term arrangements that were harder to change than other organizations' arrangements. The waivers phase out in 2014.
Click to expand...

We'll see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom