• 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]

Most Americans receive healthcare insurance thru their employer and you are right most people like what they have.

don't get me wrong, I wish my health insurance covered more with less deductible, and out of pocket expense, but I think that can be achieved through opening up insurance being allowed to market across state lines, and opening up competition rather than top down dictates.

The AHC act builds on that and requires that companies over 50 employees offer health insurance so more people may get their insurance thru their employer.

And in the early going we are already hearing of companies doing what they can to avoid that by dropping their current employees below full time, or pairing back to under the 50 employees number, or simply dropping insurance coverage being offered now, and accepting the penalty. In all three cases it is screwing the working individual. Great Job Obamacare!

There are tax sudsidies and other incentives to reduce the costs to the employee and employer so they may comply with the law.

Some obscure write off I get to take at the end of the year, that may move my taxable income and net me back $100 more does little for me week to week. Have you noticed the price of gas, and groceries?

Over a billion dollars has already been returned to customers because of overpayment of premiums, jus tone of th ecost savings built into the plan.


Really? I haven't noticed jack ****! I think that is a rouse as well.
 
Speaking out against people being fired because of greed is not "whining"

Sure it is...It isn't up to you what someone should make.

Uhm do you not remember what you said in your last post? "For the moment we still live in a free society, even though you and yours are trying hard to change that."

Yep, I said that....I didn't say this...

DemSocialist said:
Yup, me and mine are trying to make an authoritarian society where there is no freedom. Cool logic man.
 
Is that right?



Hmmm....Senate budget committee says now costs is 2.6T....Doesn't sound like savings to me....



Subsidies = code for deductions that every other business gets legally through the tax code. Forcing Private insurers to lower payments to docs, and increase premiums to consumers. IOW Cloward and Piven method of overloading the system until you break it so that you can rebuild it in what you wanted in the first place, and in this case Single payer, even though the majority of American's DON'T want that.

It never ceases to amaze me just how cynically dishonest liberal progressives are.

The Blaze is right but they but they cherry picked(left out data).For instance, this was evidently what their graph was referring to.

< Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013,CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period (see Table 1).That net increase in deficits from enacting H.R. 6079 has three major components:>

this is what the blaze left out of their opinion piece.

<Deficits would be increased under H.R. 6079 because the net savings from eliminating the insurance coverage provisions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending increases and revenue reductions. In total, CBO and JCT estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion over the 2013–2022 period, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period>

theirs 22 pages of reading enjoyment at the link.but its not a winger blog so i guess you will be skipping most of it.Oh,by the way, the missing $100 bill is,buried go find it. :2wave:

It never ceases to amaze me just how cynically dishonest conservatives are.


http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43471-hr6079.pdf
 
Sure it is...It isn't up to you what someone should make.
Where did i ever say its up to me or say i want it to be up to me?
Im simply exercising my first amendment right to free speech to speak out against this ****.



Yep, I said that....I didn't say this...
When someone wants to "change a free society" like you say i am usually that implies that im trying to make it a non-free society...
 
Where did i ever say its up to me or say i want it to be up to me?
Im simply exercising my first amendment right to free speech to speak out against this ****.


Of course. Socialists never think they are wrong, just that it hasn't been implemented enough....

When someone wants to "change a free society" like you say i am usually that implies that im trying to make it a non-free society...

Well, hopefully you've learned your lesson on assumption then....HA! silly me....Look who I am posting that to.....:mrgreen:
 
Of course. Socialists never think they are wrong, just that it hasn't been implemented enough....
Uhhh whats "wrong" with my statement?


Well, hopefully you've learned your lesson on assumption then....HA! silly me....Look who I am posting that to.....:mrgreen:
Then say what you meant when you said this: "For the moment we still live in a free society, even though you and yours are trying hard to change that."
 
The Blaze is right but they but they cherry picked(left out data).For instance, this was evidently what their graph was referring to.

< Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013,CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period (see Table 1).That net increase in deficits from enacting H.R. 6079 has three major components:>

this is what the blaze left out of their opinion piece.

<Deficits would be increased under H.R. 6079 because the net savings from eliminating the insurance coverage provisions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending increases and revenue reductions. In total, CBO and JCT estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion over the 2013–2022 period, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period>

theirs 22 pages of reading enjoyment at the link.but its not a winger blog so i guess you will be skipping most of it.Oh,by the way, the missing $100 bill is,buried go find it. :2wave:

It never ceases to amaze me just how cynically dishonest conservatives are.


http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43471-hr6079.pdf


The CBO doesn't have the best of records in forecasting costs now do they? And do you know why that is?
 
Grammatically or what?
You stated: "Socialists never think they are wrong"
What are you implying that im wrong about?




My post was clear.
No it was not since you said i was wrong in my implications, so can you simply point out what your implying by that post or is that too much to ask for?
 
You stated: "Socialists never think they are wrong"
What are you implying that im wrong about?

Much

No it was not since you said i was wrong in my implications, so can you simply point out what your implying by that post or is that too much to ask for?

That one should be easy for an intellectual heavyweight such as yourself.
 
Do you know how to have a debate or a conversation?
"Much"? What?




Jesus christ :roll:


:lamo.....Ok, ok....look I am just having a little fun with you....Lighten up.

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.

Jesus christ

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.
 
Well, if Americans of today don't want their liberty upheld, then progressive liberals pushing quasi Euro socialist policy is what they'll get, and deserve.

The fear is strong and alive with keepers of the flame like you, isn't it?
 
The CBO doesn't have the best of records in forecasting costs now do they? And do you know why that is?


Yet speaker bohner ask the CBO to vet the cost of repealing BOcare. Amazing isn't it?
 
maybe you need to re read the law...First your number has to be listed on the DCL (Do not call list) then, you have to file the complaint, nothing can be done while it is investigated, then, you'd better make sure that number never called even to order a pizza, because that nullifies the DCL for that number concerning that business...How is it you didn't know that? After all you think you know all about everything else.

Maybe you need to rely on a court decision, than meekly follow the partial opinion of a barrack-room lawyer.
 
The fear is strong and alive with keepers of the flame like you, isn't it?


What are you talking about? I am not one that just melted, or felt 'tingles up my leg' when Obama spoke of "fundamentally transforming" this nation. I believe in the power of our Constitution.

Maybe you need to rely on a court decision, than meekly follow the partial opinion of a barrack-room lawyer.

Oh, do you have a decision where PaPa John's was enjoined from advertising texting to their customers?
 
Yet speaker bohner ask the CBO to vet the cost of repealing BOcare. Amazing isn't it?

No, not really. See when you realize that BOTH sides use the CBO as leverage because the CBO is restricted to using the parameters that the requesting member, or members lay out in their scoring requests, then you will realize that the conclusions are not in anyway indicative of anything other than what the requesting members want them to say.
 
No, not really. See when you realize that BOTH sides use the CBO as leverage because the CBO is restricted to using the parameters that the requesting member, or members lay out in their scoring requests, then you will realize that the conclusions are not in anyway indicative of anything other than what the requesting members want them to say.

in post#261 you linked to a site that used CBO estimates for their graphs, for their self-rightus bitchfest, of BOcare. Not only did they use use CBO numbers but if you look closely at the font in their post,the lame asses didn't even bother to change the font.Pure C%P.:(

But i digress; let me see if i have this correct.Your saying that the source that you used,that used CBO data(The Blaze)was reputable when you used it for your post and snark in reply to my post, but now all of a sudden CBO is no longer a credible entity. Don,t you find that a bit odd?:roll:
 
in post#261 you linked to a site that used CBO estimates for their graphs, for their self-rightus bitchfest, of BOcare. Not only did they use use CBO numbers but if you look closely at the font in their post,the lame asses didn't even bother to change the font.Pure C%P.:(

But i digress; let me see if i have this correct.Your saying that the source that you used,that used CBO data(The Blaze)was reputable when you used it for your post and snark in reply to my post, but now all of a sudden CBO is no longer a credible entity. Don,t you find that a bit odd?:roll:

No, I am saying that the CBO is good only as far as it goes....If you think it is difinitive in projecting costs, their track record is dismal in that arena....Do you deny that?
 
No, I am saying that the CBO is good only as far as it goes....If you think it is difinitive in projecting costs, their track record is dismal in that arena....Do you deny that?

I SEE...but in post#261 your thoughts were???:confused:
 
What are you talking about? I am not one that just melted, or felt 'tingles up my leg' when Obama spoke of "fundamentally transforming" this nation. I believe in the power of our Constitution.



Oh, do you have a decision where PaPa John's was enjoined from advertising texting to their customers?



The decision will come when the class action is resolved. Keep on keeping the fear alive.
 
Sure it is...It isn't up to you what someone should make.



Yep, I said that....I didn't say this...

I'll tell you why it IS our business when 16,000 workers go on unemployment becuase our laws have made it more lucrative to sell a company off in pieces than keep it operating..
There are costs involved that the "holding corporation" simply skips out on. No "profits" should be taken from a company before the employees situation is resolved.
That includes pension plans and unemployment benefits they are due.
Treating human beings like pawns is not acceptabel behavior especially when they are pawned off to the Govt. which must absorb the costs from this "profitable" transaction.
 
I'll tell you why it IS our business when 16,000 workers go on unemployment becuase our laws have made it more lucrative to sell a company off in pieces than keep it operating..

No, you have no claim to another persons business. When you are hired by a business you don't "own" the job, it is not "yours" in the sense that you get to dictate the terms.

There are costs involved that the "holding corporation" simply skips out on. No "profits" should be taken from a company before the employees situation is resolved.

Why is it a company's fault for following the law? I mean sure, in medium or larger sized company goes out of business it can be a shock to others, the community, or the country at large. Usually a bankruptcy is overseen by a court, and the court designees are placed in charge of companies in receivership to ensure that the assets of the company are split up equitably so that everyone with a stake gets a piece.

Who the heck are you to think that if you get hired to do a job for a company, that you somehow 'own' that job? You don't own crap! When you are hired at a job, you agree to do a task, for compensation. And that agreement is entered into freely by both you and the employer, and at the pleasure, or will of that employer. If that business goes out of business, then what is the person supposed to do?

Your premise seems to work on the model that if I start a business, and hire people that I have some obligation to either not make money, or if that business should fail, that I go out flat broke. That is silly. Who would even go into business assuming that?

No "profits" should be taken from a company before the employees situation is resolved.
That includes pension plans and unemployment benefits they are due.
Treating human beings like pawns is not acceptabel behavior especially when they are pawned off to the Govt. which must absorb the costs from this "profitable" transaction.

"Pensions"? Nobody I know, unless they work for some giant union run business gets a pension anymore. 401K is the standard. No one is treating anyone like 'pawns'. Are you forced to work for someone? No you are not. You have the ability at any time during your employment at a company to say, 'I quit'.... Should your little vision of entitlement also include that in that case that YOU owe the company money for what they invest in you for training, education, materiel etc? I think you'd say that was unreasonable. Well, your sense of entitlement is equally unreasonable as well.
 
No, you have no claim to another persons business. When you are hired by a business you don't "own" the job, it is not "yours" in the sense that you get to dictate the terms.



Why is it a company's fault for following the law? I mean sure, in medium or larger sized company goes out of business it can be a shock to others, the community, or the country at large. Usually a bankruptcy is overseen by a court, and the court designees are placed in charge of companies in receivership to ensure that the assets of the company are split up equitably so that everyone with a stake gets a piece.

Who the heck are you to think that if you get hired to do a job for a company, that you somehow 'own' that job? You don't own crap! When you are hired at a job, you agree to do a task, for compensation. And that agreement is entered into freely by both you and the employer, and at the pleasure, or will of that employer. If that business goes out of business, then what is the person supposed to do?

Your premise seems to work on the model that if I start a business, and hire people that I have some obligation to either not make money, or if that business should fail, that I go out flat broke. That is silly. Who would even go into business assuming that?



"Pensions"? Nobody I know, unless they work for some giant union run business gets a pension anymore. 401K is the standard. No one is treating anyone like 'pawns'. Are you forced to work for someone? No you are not. You have the ability at any time during your employment at a company to say, 'I quit'.... Should your little vision of entitlement also include that in that case that YOU owe the company money for what they invest in you for training, education, materiel etc? I think you'd say that was unreasonable. Well, your sense of entitlement is equally unreasonable as well.

Why should Govt. foot the bill and vulture capitalists make all the profit? Isn't that corporate welfare?
 
Back
Top Bottom