- Joined
- Jul 4, 2011
- Messages
- 33,015
- Reaction score
- 14,663
- Location
- Near Seattle
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Wow, Ignore list with you.
I'm honored. Any other right wing nut takers?
Wow, Ignore list with you.
Why should Govt. foot the bill and vulture capitalists make all the profit? Isn't that corporate welfare?
I thought so but its kinda hard to pick that up on the internet, especially with such users on this site.:lamo.....Ok, ok....look I am just having a little fun with you....Lighten up.
This is a clear case of greed. A $250 million dollar company, vast wealth in this companies hands, giving away 2 million free products of theres, costs very little to make their product, and he is cutting hours for his workers because "he cant afford it". That is a clear case of greed.I think you know where I stand as far as ideology goes, and it is antithetically opposed to your ideology. See, I don't think that Socialism is a successful path for anyone, let alone do I want to see it take hold in totality here in America. When such silly rhetoric like terminology like labeling a business owner as "greedy" because he wants to protect the business he has built and not allow government dictate to him what he offers his employees as benefits without passing that cost along as ALL business does is just simply foolish.
I did not recognize that. When someone says that "me and my kind" or whatever the wording was wants to "change freedom" or whatever, usually i think authoritarianism I didnt imply socialism or even bring up socialism into this discussion.As for what you were wrong in your assumption was, it is that I never classified you as "authoritarian", but I do find it interesting that you recognize that in order for a socialist class system to remain in power it often needs an authoritarian type administration to maintain power.
This is a clear case of greed. A $250 million dollar company, vast wealth in this companies hands, giving away 2 million free products of theres, costs very little to make their product, and he is cutting hours for his workers because "he cant afford it". That is a clear case of greed.
I did not recognize that. When someone says that "me and my kind" or whatever the wording was wants to "change freedom" or whatever, usually i think authoritarianism I didnt imply socialism or even bring up socialism into this discussion.
Funny. We talk about Papa Johns, Denny's, WalMart, and all these other very successful people that have demonstrated the knowledge, skill and ability to create successful corporations...and on the flip side we have all these people that couldnt manage a lemonade stand funded by their mommy thinking THEY actually understand business, finance, and how to become successful.
Oh how I long for the day when all the whiners, yappers, and talkers become DOERS and actually show how their marvelous ideas can create jobs for thousands of people. Talk...well...talk is bull****. Put your money in the game. Live that dream.
Look at you...silly girl. I mention businessmen that demonstrate and model hard work and success, you retire to your same tired saw about evil bankers. Forget both of them and how about YOU doing something more than being an empty headed shill for democrats and unions? Go actually create a business to hire thousands of people and show us the way instead of continually whining over the success of others.Give'em hell, Mack! Your Lehman Brothers, your Bear Stearns, your AIGs!! These are the "makers" we should be listening too!!
Look at you...silly girl. I mention businessmen that demonstrate and model hard work and success, you retire to your same tired saw about evil bankers. Forget both of them and how about YOU doing something more than being an empty headed shill for democrats and unions? Go actually create a business to hire thousands of people and show us the way instead of continually whining over the success of others.
Recycling recently used comments is the weakest form of retort. I would say I expect better of you...but...I dont. Its so...you... :lamoListen to you, with your shrill, girly whine, bashing the titans of finance who provide our fine business men and women the wherewithal to go forth and conquer! Now why don't you stop pissing and moaning about poor poor Papa John having to raise the price of a pizza by a nickel so the hard working employees who are paying for his 50,000 sq. ft. mansion might actually have access to health care?
Recycling recently used comments is the weakest form of retort. I would say I expect better of you...but...I dont. Its so...you... :lamo
That you think your are mocking anyone but your own self is laughable. Now...Au contraire -- mocking your silly posts never gets old.
"Under the Affordable Care Act, full-time employees — those working 30 hours or more per week — would have to be provided with insurance at companies with more than 50 workers."Maybe I missed this somewhere, but what provisions in Obamacare are actually going to increase the cost for Papa John's to do business? I thought the main provisions of the law were that insurance companies can't drop people when they need care, no discrimination over pre-existing conditions, and that everyone is mandated to purchase health insurance. Are businesses required to provide health benefits when they weren't previously? Why weren't they doing that previously, since work benefits are the only way most people can afford health insurance? The whole point of business provided health insurance was to get a discount for bulk purchases. If businesses aren't up to the task of being providers of health insurance, we really should just decouple them from it.
That you think your are mocking anyone but your own self is laughable. Now...
Do YOU believe every employer is responsible for the health care needs of their employees? And their families? And does that include mom and pop small businesses? By what logic do you come to your conclusion that an employer is responsible for anything more than providing a paycheck for service rendered?
Im sorry...the 'system we have chosen"? Who is 'we'? Certainly not the businessmen that have created those successful businesses. So I ask again...by what right...what constitutional statute...what principle do you or anyone else believe you can throw the responsibility for Americas healthcare on business owners? And why only on the 'very' successful? Do you also expect that burden to be applied to say...franchise owners that employ 49 people? Small business owners that only employ...say...15? If not WHY not?The system we have chosen is one of employer-provided health insurance. That's not debatable. The system we *should* have, IMO, is single payer, universal coverage.
Given the system we DO have, I find Schnatter's actions (or suggested actions) despicable. His employees are the backbone of his company and they have made him very very rich. He can easily afford to provide them full time jobs and health care, but he has elected to shaft them instead. This is the same guy who gave away a free pizza to every Camaro owner in the country, because he sold a Camaro to start his business. He since bought back that Camaro for $250,000 and enshrined it in his headquarters. So basically, it's perfectly okay to throw away money to stroke his own ego, but he won't bump the cost of a pie by a nickel to provide his employees with health insurance. Pig.
AdamT said:The system we have chosen is one of employer-provided health insurance. That's not debatable. The system we *should* have, IMO, is single payer, universal coverage.
Given the system we DO have, I find Schnatter's actions (or suggested actions) despicable. His employees are the backbone of his company and they have made him very very rich.
He can easily afford to provide them full time jobs and health care, but he has elected to shaft them instead.
This is the same guy who gave away a free pizza to every Camaro owner in the country, because he sold a Camaro to start his business. He since bought back that Camaro for $250,000 and enshrined it in his headquarters.
Im sorry...the 'system we have chosen"? Who is 'we'? Certainly not the businessmen that have created those successful businesses.
So I ask again...by what right...what constitutional statute...what principle do you or anyone else believe you can throw the responsibility for Americas healthcare on business owners? And why only on the 'very' successful? Do you also expect that burden to be applied to say...franchise owners that employ 49 people? Small business owners that only employ...say...15? If not WHY not?
Perhaps they should have passed a universal healthcare program. I have always been in support of a states right to pass healthcare reform ala the Massachusetts Health Care act. But they didnt. They voted for legislation many admit they didnt bother to read, that most still dont know what is contained and without regard to whether or not it was the 'right' thing to do.
An employer is not your mommy. How ****ing pathetic is it that so many are looking for one...even as adults. An employer offers a job. They provide salary. IF they choose they can offer a benefit package with some form of healthcare...but only IF they choose. Their primary responsibility is to provide you a paycheck based on the conditions of your employment. Nothing less...but nothing more.
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."We" is the American people, when they elected Obama on the promise of health care reform, and then reelected him, in part in rejection of calls to repeal ACA. Certainly many many businesses have for years been more than happy to accept what is the single largest deduction in our tax code: the employer health insurance deduction. That deduction has been a massive transfer of wealth to businesses who, in effect, receive a government subsidy for their payrolls.
Again, it is not the system that I would advocate. But if you're trying to argue that it burdens businesses, you are mistaken. For years it has been a huge boon to businesses because they can deduct what is in effect a element of their payroll. The larger the business the bigger the benefit, because larger businesses can negotiate better prices, which gives them a competitive advantage over smaller businesses and especially over independent contractors who cannot deduct insurance costs in most cases and who pay higher individual rates. In this sense ACA will help smaller businesses compete on a more even playing field because they can take advantage of lower prices through insurance exchanges. Large businesses like Popa Johns won't suffer because the law applies equally to their large competitors. That is unless, of course, someone like Schnatter tries to game the system by doing away with full time employment. Whether such a gambit will work remains to be seen.
Universal single payer is a better system, but it was not a politically viable option. We have, and had had for decades, an employer based system. The only practical way to expand coverage was to work within the existing framework.
This is just silliness.
"Under the Affordable Care Act, full-time employees — those working 30 hours or more per week — would have to be provided with insurance at companies with more than 50 workers."
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.All the more reason why we should decouple employment from insurance. We already knew that widespread coverage brings down costs. It's time for universal healthcare.
All the more reason why we should decouple employment from insurance. We already knew that widespread coverage brings down costs. It's time for universal healthcare.
Paschendale said:All the more reason why we should decouple employment from insurance. We already knew that widespread coverage brings down costs. It's time for universal healthcare.
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.
Widespread coverage that includes blanket policies for those who would be excluded based on cost...brings that cost down?
Widespread coverage that includes blanket policies for those who would be excluded based on cost...brings that cost down?
AdamT said:Yes, it does, because those who can't get coverage can still get emergency treatment, which is the most expensive kind. Hospitals jack up their rates to cover those costs, which results in increased premiums.