• 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]

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


Depends on what you term "vulture" capitalists....Venture capital serves a vital need in our society. But I agree, keep government out of it....That would include government acting as the venture capitalist right?
 
:lamo.....Ok, ok....look I am just having a little fun with you....Lighten up.
I thought so but its kinda hard to pick that up on the internet, especially with such users on this site.


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.
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.



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.
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.
 
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.


No, this is a publicly held company. Legally they have a responsibility to their shareholders.

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.

there are many forms of expression that use the word you, but don't implicitly mean you.
 
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.

Give'em hell, Mack! Your Lehman Brothers, your Bear Stearns, your AIGs!! These are the "makers" we should be listening too!!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Listen 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?
 
Listen 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

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?
 
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

Au contraire -- mocking your silly posts never gets old.
 
Au contraire -- mocking your silly posts never gets old.
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?
 
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.
"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."
 
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?

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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.

Personal opinion.

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.

Ah, the socialist argument. Are workers investing startup capital? Do they have the concept for a product in demand? Are they paying for marketing/advertisement, business structure, overhead, etc.? Or are they just bringing nothing to the table other than unskilled labor? I love it when people don't understand the most fundamental concepts of supply and demand.

He can easily afford to provide them full time jobs and health care, but he has elected to shaft them instead.

Yeah, yeah, the profit model is busted. As a lawyer, you could probably afford to perform 80% of your work pro bono. Do you?

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.

Why does what he does with his own assets matter to you one inch? Welcome to America - the land where nobody minds their own business.
 
Im sorry...the 'system we have chosen"? Who is 'we'? Certainly not the businessmen that have created those successful businesses.

"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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is just silliness.
 
Last edited:
"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.
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?
 
"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."

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.
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.

I wish more could see that.
 
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.

Widespread coverage that includes blanket policies for those who would be excluded based on cost...brings that cost down?

th
 
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.

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.

Widespread coverage that includes blanket policies for those who would be excluded based on cost...brings that cost down?

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.
 
Widespread coverage that includes blanket policies for those who would be excluded based on cost...brings that cost down?

th

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.
 
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.

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...
 
Back
Top Bottom