Mass layoffs starting b/c of ObamaCare

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1352760155' post='1180332']
This I agree with.
[/quote]

Is this why you have been avoiding answering my question about what is good about this, other than the obvious stuff? I knew the answer but it would be nice if you were honest about it. You like this bill because it leads to more government control of health care in the future. Basically this is so bad and things are going to get so bad (in the health care sector) that we are going to be praying for government to save us? Do the ends justify the means in your opinion?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1352766171' post='1180345']
Is this why you have been avoiding answering my question about what is good about this, other than the obvious stuff? I knew the answer but it would be nice if you were honest about it. You like this bill because it leads to more government control of health care in the future. Basically this is so bad and things are going to get so bad (in the health care sector) that we are going to be praying for government to save us? Do the ends justify the means in your opinion?
[/quote]

I've never pretended to not be in favor of a public option, so I'm not sure what your talking about here.

But no, I think the jackass is just being greedy.

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1352766253' post='1180346']
I've never pretended to not be in favor of a public option, so I'm not sure what your talking about here.

But no, I think the jackass is just being greedy.
[/quote]

I've asked you I think 3 times in this thread to defend the plan. That is what I am talking about. I know you are in favor of a pure public option. This plan isn't that. Why do you support this plan?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1352766531' post='1180347']
I've asked you I think 3 times in this thread to defend the plan. That is what I am talking about. I know you are in favor of a pure public option. This plan isn't that. Why do you support this plan?
[/quote]

I support it as a first step to getting a public option, as well as for the fact that it gets coverage for almost everyone, and eliminates pre-existing conditions (you know like being a woman) but its not the overall bill I want, we had this discussion a while back when it was passed, I'm not sure why your asking. Nor do I know what you mean by "pure public option"

I also continue to hi-light that this jackass could afford the 14 more cents per pizza to cover his employees, but apparently the people who helped make him the success he is arent worth that.

[sois]

What does it really matter if anyone supports it? PJ analysts can only work on the likely future, which is implementation of ObamaCare.

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1352766531' post='1180347']
I've asked you I think 3 times in this thread to [b]defend the plan[/b]. That is what I am talking about. I know you are in favor of a pure public option. This plan isn't that. Why do you support this plan?
[/quote]

Just so [i]we're[/i] clear Rick, aside from the prohibition of pre-existing conditions and dropping patients when they become sick, as well as increasing the age for covering children, I think the entire bill is an unmitigated abortion, foisted upon the American public by insurance company lobbyists against whom Obama and his crew were too spineless to stand against. Jamie and I hold a lot of similar opinions on some of these matters and we've not discussed this in a while, so just wanted to make sure that things didn't get muddied.

Now, that said there is going to be a whole lot of "wait and see" with this bill, as so much of it hasn't even gone into affect, and we'll not know the true cost or savings until the entire bill has been allowed to come into being and "bake" for a while. The ACA is fucking HUGE. My wife is a Benefits Analyst for one of the largest insurance brokers in the country, and her company has an entire team of doctors, nurses, lawyers, and underwriters that do nothing all day but read the act, interpret it, then go back and read it again to see how that interpretation might have changed in the last 3 weeks.

Many of the costs that folks keep talking about are caused by the insurance companies pushing down the price of their own built-in complexity to the companies and then the individuals. Speaking of costs, there is absolutely no cap or prohibitive measure in the act that controls how much comes out of the pocket of the individual, even if they supposedly "were supplied insurance" by their company.

I mentioned this in another thread, but I'll repeat it here. What my wife is seeing in the industry, is companies coming to her company needing plans that cost them as little as possible. Sounds reasonable, right? Gotta keep those costs down for the holy business, right? (OK, that's the only snark I'll allow in this post, promise). So what they are doing, is supplying their employees with healthcare, or a minimum plan as by dictated by the ACA. However, for a "Family Plan" which would include anything more than a spousal couple, there is a [b]$14,000 per year deductible[/b].

That's right, $14,000 per year before their "Insurance" even kicks in. We're talking about employees who clean hotel rooms and toilets, or do rudimentary assembly line work making max $40,000 per year. Now how in the fuck are they supposed to afford $14,000 for their "healthcare" before their insurance kicks in? Do you know what that means? [b]They have no fucking insurance.[/b]

And there's nothing in that act to stop them from doing it.

Now, the one thing that is good about the ACA is that it finally touched the Sacred Cow of Healthcare in the USA, allowing us to one day put into place a healthcare infrastructure worthy of a country suffering from an excessive case of exceptionalism. Unfortunately, we're going to have to slog our way through this steaming pile of a bill and fix the problems later...

[|Elflocko|]

And as an addendum, that is probably my biggest beef in that they completely left the "affordable" out of the ACA....

[Squirrlnutz]

I think the ACA is a good example of why compromise should be valued over obstructionism. Half of our government decided to sit out the discussion, checks and balances were forfeited and the insurance companies ended up with a free-for-all save a few mandates that I think are positive.

Something as important and complex as re-writing the entire healthcare system shouldn't be complete in one try. I hope we get some refinement and bipartisan solutions over the coming years.

[Jamie_B]

This is what I am talking about re: CEO greed. They just arent sharing in their success anymore and keeping a larger slice for themselves much more than they did 30 years ago.



http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/full_testimony_to_the_senate_budget_committee_on_inequality_mobility_and_opportunity


[b] Full Testimony to the Senate Budget Committee on Inequality, Mobility, and Opportunity[/b]
[color=#000000][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
February 8, 2012 · By [url="http://www.ips-dc.org/staff/sarah"]Sarah Anderson[/url][/size][/font][/color]
[b] "[W]e have transformed a highly divided nation into a more stable and equitable society before. We can certainly do it again," states Sarah Anderson, IPS Global Economy Project Director.[/b]
[list]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*][size=1][color=#04558B !important][font=Arial, sans-serif !important][size=4][b]1[/b][/size][/font][/color][/size]
[size=1][url=""%20id="li_ui_li_gen_1352773426271_0-link"]in[background=rgb(236, 236, 236) !important][font=Arial, sans-serif !important][size=2][b][background=transparent !important]Share[/background][/b][/size][/font][/background][/url][/size]
[/list][color=#000000][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]

[url="http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/index.cfm/committeehearings?ContentRecord_id=b1fdd1a8-e28e-4d1e-a6e2-8797f75d97e1&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=d68d31c2-2e75-49fb-a03a-be915cb4550b"]Click to access LIVESTREAM / WEBCAST of hearing.[/url]
I would like to thank Chairman Conrad, Ranking Member Sessions, and the other members of the Committee for inviting me to contribute to this discussion. I believe inequality is the pressing issue of our time, and I applaud the committee for giving our nation’s grand divide this level of attention.
Let me begin with the good news. Our nation has tackled this problem before — and successfully so. A century ago, during the original “Gilded Age,” we experienced extremely high levels of inequality, levels comparable to those we are seeing today. Over the span of several decades, policymakers, backed by strong labor unions and other social movements, turned that inequality around. Through fair taxation and effective social programs and standards, we had achieved much lower levels of inequality by the middle of the twentieth century. We had laid the foundation for a strong and stable economy and put in place a middle class that was broader than any the world had ever seen. There is much to learn from that experience.

[b][img]http://www.ips-dc.org/files/4293/CEOtoWorkerPay.JPG[/img]Executive compensation as a key driver of inequality[/b]

The Institute for Policy Studies has particular expertise in one aspect of our nation’s drift into deep and extreme inequality: executive compensation.

For nearly 20 years, we at IPS have been publishing an annual analysis of the upward spiral in CEO pay. Our Executive Excess series has helped track and explain this trend, which has contributed significantly to the rising share of national income that flows to our nation’s top 1 percent. Increases in executive compensation do not tell the whole story behind our growing economic divide, but they do offer an important lens into the broader problem.

Some select indicators of just how disproportionately large rewards for executives have become: The ratio between CEO and worker pay has risen from 42-to-1 in 1980 to 107-to-1 in 1990 to 325-to-1 in 2010.[sup]1[/sup]
Average compensation for S&P 500 CEOs reached $10.8 million in 2010, more than six times the level for large company CEOs in 1980, after taking inflation into account, and triple the level in 1990.[sup]2[/sup]
Executives and financial professionals account for 70 percent of the increase in the share of national income going to the top 0.1 percent between 1979 and 2005.[sup]3[/sup] Combined compensation for the top five executives by corporate enterprise increased as an average percentage of corporate profits from 5 percent in the period 1993-1995 to nearly 10 percent in the period 2001-2003.[sup]4[/sup]
[b]Why should policymakers be concerned about excessive executive compensation?[/b]
[b]1. Excessive compensation encourages executive behavior that harms the broader economy[/b]
Over nearly two decades, my colleagues and I at the Institute for Policy Studies have examined how extremely high levels of compensation affect executive behavior. Such massive jackpots, we’ve found, give executives incentives to behave in ways that may boost short-term profits and expand their own paychecks at the expense of our nation’s long-term economic health.
Among our research findings:[list]
[*]In last year’s annual Executive Excess report, we looked at the intersection between executive compensation and tax dodging. We found that among the top 100 highest-paid CEOs in 2010, 25 had made more in personal compensation than their companies had paid in federal income taxes.[sup]5[/sup]
[*]In 2010, we found that CEOs of the 50 firms that had laid off the most workers since the onset of the economic crisis had made nearly $12 million on average, 42 percent more than the CEO pay average at S&P 500 firms as a whole.[sup]6[/sup]
[*]In 2009, we found that the top five executives at the 20 banks that had accepted the most federal bailout dollars had averaged $32 million each in personal compensation during the three years leading up to the 2008 meltdown.[sup]7[/sup]
[*]In 2004, we found that CEOs at companies which had outsourced the most U.S. jobs to other countries were rewarded with bigger paychecks than their peers. Average CEO compensation at the 50 firms that had outsourced the most service jobs increased by 46 percent in 2003, compared to a 9 percent average increase for all large company CEOs. Top outsourcers earned an average of $10.4 million, 28 percent more than the average CEO compensation of $8.1 million.[sup]8[/sup]
[*]In 2002, we found that top executives at 23 companies under government investigation for their accounting practices had earned far more during the preceding three years than average CEOs. CEOs at the firms under investigation had earned an average of $60.1 million during 1999-2001, 65 percent more than the average of $36.5 million for all leading executives for that period.[sup]9[/sup]
[/list]
Tax dodging, mass layoffs, reckless financial deals, offshoring jobs, “creative accounting”—all of these appear to boost CEO pay. But they have dealt one body blow after another to the American middle class, leaving a deeply skewed distribution of income and wealth.

[b]2. Extreme CEO-worker pay gaps undermine business enterprise effectiveness[/b]
Our nation’s long-term economic health depends to a great extent on the effectiveness of our U.S. enterprises. A growing body of research indicates that extreme inequality within firms leaves enterprises less productive and effective. A Stanford University review of several studies found that organizations with highly differentiated pay between top and bottom earners tended to experience a decline in employee morale and job satisfaction.[sup]10[/sup] Another study showed that in corporations with relatively narrow pay gaps, employees tended to produce higher quality products.[sup]11[/sup]Additional research indicates that wide pay gaps lead to higher employee turnover rates.[sup]12[/sup]
John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, limits his cash compensation to no more than 19 times the average for workers at his firm. In the Harvard Business Review, he wrote “Because of the yawning gap between the leaders and the led, employee morale is suffering, talented performers' loyalty is evaporating, and strategy and execution is suffering at American companies.”[sup]13[/sup]
Peter Drucker, the father of modern management theory, pointed out in the early 1980s that in any hierarchy, every level of bureaucracy must be compensated at a higher rate than the level below. The more levels, the higher the pay at the top. This gives CEOs a personal interest in maintaining rigid hierarchies that are disempowering for workers. Drucker’s solution was to limit executive pay to no more than 20 times the compensation of their employees.[sup]14[/sup] A landmark Brookings Institution report by David Levine supported this general view, stating “large differences in status can inhibit participation.”[sup]15[/sup]
Jim Collins, the author of several best-selling books on management science, spent five years trying to determine “what it takes” to turn an average company into a “great” one. He eventually identified 11 firms that had successfully generated off-the-charts stock returns over 15 years. Not a single one had a high-paid CEO. A celebrity CEO, Collins wrote, turns a company into “one genius with 1,000 helpers.”[sup]16[/sup]
[b]Recent reforms to address excessive executive compensation[/b]
Executive pay is not just an issue for shareholders. As the Wall Street meltdown made vividly clear, excessive pay packages contribute to a reckless corporate culture that endangers the well-being of the broader public. Responsible action is needed to encourage more rational pay practices.
[b]Dodd-Frank Pay Reforms:[/b] In the wake of the 2008 crash, Congress did include a number of modest executive compensation provisions in the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. One of the most innovative of these provisions, Section 953b, requires all U.S. corporations to compute and report the ratio between CEO and median employee pay. This disclosure requirement will improve information available for shareholders and the public on a metric fundamental to enterprise success. Hopefully, it will also encourage corporate boards to narrow this gap by raising median worker pay and/or reducing pay at the top.[sup]17[/sup]
However, in the face of an intense backlash from corporate lobby groups, the SEC has delayed implementation of this new law. Regulators are facing strong pressure to water down several additional Dodd-Frank pay provisions, including Section 956, which would give regulators the power to prohibit pay packages for financial executives that encourage inappropriate risks.

[b]Limits on the Tax Deductibility of Executive Pay:[/b] Congress also set an important precedent in the Troubled Asset Relief Program by establishing a $500,000 cap on the tax deductibility of executive compensation at bailout firms. A similar provision was included in the 2010 health care reform legislation with regard to health insurance companies. These provisions took an important step towards filling a loophole in the tax code that encourages excessive pay.
Currently, there are no meaningful limits on how much corporations can deduct from their taxes for the expense of executive compensation. The more they pay their CEO, the more they can deduct from their taxes. Other taxpayers bear the brunt of this loophole, either through the increased taxes needed to fill the revenue gaps or through cutbacks in public spending. A tax deductibility cap on executive compensation should be established for all corporations. Ideally, it would deny all firms tax deductions on any executive pay that runs over 25 times the pay of a firm’s lowest-paid employee or $500,000, whichever is higher.
[b]A broader agenda to reverse extreme inequality[/b]
While Congress has made some small steps forward in recent years, much more needs to be done to rein in executive pay, as part of a broader effort to reverse extreme inequality. This broad agenda will need to include initiatives to lift up the bottom through living wages and more accessible high-quality health care and education, as well as efforts to address corporate concentration, campaign finance laws, and other obstacles to shared prosperity. But a look back at the previous era’s efforts to tackle inequality reveals that one of those reformers most important tools was progressive taxation.
In the middle of the last century, the U.S. tax system did a great deal to offset maldistributions of income and wealth. A major reason corporate boards did not compensate executives at such exorbitant levels during that period was that the bulk of that excessive pay would have simply been taxed away.
During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top marginal tax rate on income over $400,000 a year (the equivalent of less than $3 million today) faced a tax rate just over 90 percent. During that time, the share of the nation’s total pre-tax income going to the top 1% hovered around 10 percent, according to one academic study.[sup]18[/sup] As taxes on the wealthy have declined over the past 50 years, we’ve seen a steady increase in wealth and income concentration at the top. Today, with a top marginal rate of only 35 percent, the top 1% enjoy more than 20 percent of the nation’s income.[sup]19[/sup] Not only did the “high-tax” decades coincide with lower inequality rates, they were also marked by relatively high GDP growth rates.

A recent report by the Congressional Budget Office found similar trends towards rising inequality in after-tax income during the period 1979-2007. According to their calculations, the top 1 percent of the population with the highest income saw an increase in their average real after-tax household income of 275 percent during this period, compared to only 65 percent for the rest of the highest quintile (the 81st through 99th percentiles); 37 percent for the population in the middle of the income scale (the 21st through 80th percentiles); and 18 percent for the lowest quintile.[sup]20[/sup]
Preferential treatment and loopholes have allowed the richest Americans to pay far less than the statutory tax rates. The richest 400 U.S. taxpayers have seen their effective tax rate decline from over 40 percent of their income in 1961 to just 18.1 percent in 2010.21 In 2009, the most recent data available, 1,500 millionaires paid no income taxes, largely because they made use of off-shore tax schemes, according to the Internal Revenue Service.[sup]22[/sup]
[img]http://www.ips-dc.org/files/4294/Top1NationalIncome.JPG[/img][img]http://www.ips-dc.org/files/4295/TopMarginalTaxRate.JPG[/img][img]http://www.ips-dc.org/files/4296/AvgGDPgrowthRates.JPG[/img][b]Key elements of tax reform to reverse extreme inequality[/b]
This section draws heavily from the forthcoming book by my Institute for Policy Studies colleague Chuck Collins, [i]99 to 1: How Wealth Inequality is Wrecking the World and What We Can Do About It [/i](Berrett-Koehler, March 2012).
[b]New income tax brackets for the 1 percent. [/b]Under our current tax rate structure, households with incomes over $350,000 pay the same top income tax rate as households with incomes over $10 million. In the 1950s, there were 16 additional tax rates over the highest rate (35 percent) that we have today.
[b]A tax on financial speculation. [/b]The richest 1 percent of Americans contributed to the 2008 economic meltdown by moving vast amounts of wealth into the speculative shadow banking system. Our society is still paying the mammoth social costs of this meltdown — through home foreclosures, unemployment, and the destruction of personal savings. A modest federal tax on every transaction that involves the buying and selling of stocks and other financial products would both generate substantial revenue and dampen short-term speculation. For ordinary investors, the cost would be negligible. A financial speculation tax would amount to a tiny insurance fee to protect against financial instability.
[b]A higher tax rate on income from wealth. [/b]Giving tax advantages to income from wealth also encourages short-term speculation. With carefully structured rate reform, we can end this preferential treatment for capital gains and dividends and, as Warren Buffett and other analysts have noted, encourage long-term investing.
[b]A progressive estate tax on the fortunes of the 1 percent. [/b]The wealthiest Americans have all benefited from generations of investments in pubic goods that have left the United States with an infrastructure — in everything from education and roads to dispute resolution — that enables wealth creation. Our wealthy have a responsibility to give back to the society that has given them so much. The current estate tax on inherited wealth stands at 35 percent and only applies to estates over $5 million ($10 million for a couple). Congress could raise additional revenue from those with the greatest capacity to pay by establishing a progressive estate tax with graduated rates and a 10 percent surtax on the value of an estate above $500 million, or $1 billion for a couple.
[b]An end to tax haven abuse. [/b]By one estimate, the use of tax havens by corporations and wealthy individuals costs the federal treasury $100 billion a year.[sup]23[/sup] These havens are transferring wealth out of local communities into the foreign bank accounts of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful.[sup]24[/sup] Tax havens, or more accurately “secrecy jurisdictions,” can also facilitate criminal activity, from drug money laundering to the financing of terrorist networks.
[b]A wealth tax on the top 1 percent.[/b] A “net worth tax” could be levied on household assets, including real estate, cash, investment funds, savings in insurance and pension plans, and personal trusts. Such a tax could be calibrated to tax wealth only above a certain threshold. For example, France’s solidarity tax on wealth only kicks in on asset value in excess of $1.1 million.
[b]The elimination on the cap on social security withholding taxes. [/b]Extending the payroll tax to cover all wages, not just wage income up to $110,100, would be an important step. Some of our richest Americans are done paying withholding taxes in January, while ordinary working people pay all year.
[b]Conclusion[/b]
Our current levels of extreme inequality did not suddenly appear. They have grown steadily over the past 30 years. Reversing this inequality trend will be a long-term challenge. But we have transformed a highly divided nation into a more stable and equitable society before. We can certainly do it again.[/size][/font][/color]

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1352767825' post='1180360']
Just so [i]we're[/i] clear Rick, aside from the prohibition of pre-existing conditions and dropping patients when they become sick, as well as increasing the age for covering children, I think the entire bill is an unmitigated abortion, foisted upon the American public by insurance company lobbyists against whom Obama and his crew were too spineless to stand against. Jamie and I hold a lot of similar opinions on some of these matters and we've not discussed this in a while, so just wanted to make sure that things didn't get muddied.

Now, that said there is going to be a whole lot of "wait and see" with this bill, as so much of it hasn't even gone into affect, and we'll not know the true cost or savings until the entire bill has been allowed to come into being and "bake" for a while. The ACA is fucking HUGE. My wife is a Benefits Analyst for one of the largest insurance brokers in the country, and her company has an entire team of doctors, nurses, lawyers, and underwriters that do nothing all day but read the act, interpret it, then go back and read it again to see how that interpretation might have changed in the last 3 weeks.

Many of the costs that folks keep talking about are caused by the insurance companies pushing down the price of their own built-in complexity to the companies and then the individuals. Speaking of costs, there is absolutely no cap or prohibitive measure in the act that controls how much comes out of the pocket of the individual, even if they supposedly "were supplied insurance" by their company.

I mentioned this in another thread, but I'll repeat it here. What my wife is seeing in the industry, is companies coming to her company needing plans that cost them as little as possible. Sounds reasonable, right? Gotta keep those costs down for the holy business, right? (OK, that's the only snark I'll allow in this post, promise). So what they are doing, is supplying their employees with healthcare, or a minimum plan as by dictated by the ACA. However, for a "Family Plan" which would include anything more than a spousal couple, there is a [b]$14,000 per year deductible[/b].

That's right, $14,000 per year before their "Insurance" even kicks in. We're talking about employees who clean hotel rooms and toilets, or do rudimentary assembly line work making max $40,000 per year. Now how in the fuck are they supposed to afford $14,000 for their "healthcare" before their insurance kicks in? Do you know what that means? [b]They have no fucking insurance.[/b]

And there's nothing in that act to stop them from doing it.

Now, the one thing that is good about the ACA is that it finally touched the Sacred Cow of Healthcare in the USA, allowing us to one day put into place a healthcare infrastructure worthy of a country suffering from an excessive case of exceptionalism. Unfortunately, we're going to have to slog our way through this steaming pile of a bill and fix the problems later...
[/quote]

Thanks for the better explanation. I am clearly someone that doesn't want gov't to interfere with my life (if you haven't noticed ) and for me this is a massive intrusion. I personally have a hard time believing that gov't is going to run things better. I know that isn't what this plan is doing but that is the end goal and I just don't have faith it will help.

I completely agree that that isn't insurance. Personally I had an HSA account for the last 5 years. Last year I left my employer and went to another company and took their HSA plan there. I have to say that I didn't know how good I had it. The deductible was 4,000 and out of pocket max was 8,000. Before it was 3,000 and 4,000 so you can only imagine how painful it was for that year. I then took a temporary job back at my old employer and took their regular insurance. It was a steaming pile of crap. If I didn't have kids, I would have just passed but I have to be safe with kids so I sucked it up and wow was it bad. Anyway, luckily I got hired back in back in May and have my old HSA plan back. I can't tell you how much I love it.

With all that being said, what are your (and your wifes) opinions of HSA and high deductible plans. I am assuming that is the 12,000 deductible plans you were talking about. Obviously that is worthless but how about a reasonable deductible plan, where you can roll your money over every year? I pay a thousand times more attention to my health care costs because of that, and am constantly looking for cheaper prescriptions, doctors, etc. And all preventive care is paid for 100%. I don't see why this is never an option. I have been very happy with it, and we have had 2 pregnancies through HSA so its not like I haven't had large expenses.

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1352774766' post='1180377']
Thanks for the better explanation. I am clearly someone that doesn't want gov't to interfere with my life (if you haven't noticed ) and for me this is a [b]massive intrusion[/b].
[/quote]

I will address your post regarding health care as you have a lot going on, but I find this phrase telling.

If you consider the ACA a "massive intrusion" into your life, what do you consider the Patriot Act?

Sorry, but I have run into an unsettling number of individuals on your "side" of the aisle for lack of a better term who rail against the ACA yet don't even know or don't recall what the Patriot Act is; in terms of intrusion, I find one substantially more egregious than the other...

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1352777745' post='1180388']
I will address your post regarding health care as you have a lot going on, but I find this phrase telling.

If you consider the ACA a "massive intrusion" into your life, what do you consider the Patriot Act?

Sorry, but I have run into an unsettling number of individuals on your "side" of the aisle for lack of a better term who rail against the ACA yet don't even know or don't recall what the Patriot Act is; in terms of intrusion, I find one substantially more egregious than the other...
[/quote]

I know exactly what it is. I remember supporting it back when it was implemented. Long story short, on Sep 10, 2001 I was a-political. That changed very fast and I was extremely defensive minded in those days and for a long time after. I have grown since then. You can think of 'my side' as how you want but I am not on a side. I am however a conservative/libertarian who believes that almost everything the gov't touches, they tend to screw it up. I don't think they are useless and I am over exaggerating (as I do too often) but I am serious, I don't have much faith in the gov't to run businesses or large scale operations in almost in thing. That includes the military.

I was asking a serious question though. I realize you got thrown off b/c I mentioned my political idealogy... I do the same when reading peoples posts too so no worries, but I am interested (when you have time) to give me your opinion of HSA's from an insurance side of things. As i said, I love it from a consumer part of things b/c I am more engaged in my health care decisions. As I think I've made clear, that is important to me

Its funny b/c I am literally right now getting on my prescription site to get paperwork together for the doctors tomorrow. I had been paying $40 a month for a prescription and recently signed into medco (mail order prescriptions) and found out that I can pay $20 for 90 days... Its not like one was generic and the other not. The exact same medicine. I mean wow, what a difference. If this type of shopping couldn't at least help health care costs, I'd love to know why.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1352772803' post='1180367']
I think the ACA is a good example of why compromise should be valued over obstructionism. Half of our government decided to sit out the discussion, checks and balances were forfeited and the insurance companies ended up with a free-for-all save a few mandates that I think are positive.

Something as important and complex as re-writing the entire healthcare system shouldn't be complete in one try. I hope we get some refinement and bipartisan solutions over the coming years.
[/quote]

Agree for the most part. Except, I do think that in order to make any real progress, eventually the stranglehold of the FIRE sector of the economy will have to be broken. Single payer was never on the table, even though it will likely prove to be the most cost efficient and humane solution in the long term.

Someone suggested that the Obama admin was reluctant to take on the FIRE sector. I think this is a misread. It is precisely because the Obama admin is on-board with these jackasses that single payer never got traction. Likewise his position on Glass-Steagall; likewise his refusal to really fight for Warren as head of CFPB and so forth.

People should really pay attention to what is happening here; the real danger to a recovery, jobs and other prosperity, is threatened by crap like this: [size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][color=#000000][url="http://www.inc.com/magazine/201211/burt-helm/hard-lessons-in-modern-lending.html"]" 'How do I know you're not going to screw me again?' Gucwa asked Charter One's rep."[/url] We should pay attention to what Vol says about the disconnect between big banks and local institutions. Back in the early 90s I authored a few pieces which took on the push to allow interstate banking. We are feeling the impact of banking mergers which began in that period during this stalled recovery much moreso than the impact the ACA will have on businesses, imo.[/color][/font][/size]

[|Bunghole|]

Fuck both ACA and the Patriot Act.

If that makes me unAmerican, I don't give a shit.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1352783286' post='1180424']
Agree for the most part. Except, I do think that in order to make any real progress, eventually the stranglehold of the FIRE sector of the economy will have to be broken. Single payer was never on the table, even though it will likely prove to be the most cost efficient and humane solution in the long term.

Someone suggested that the Obama admin was reluctant to take on the FIRE sector. [color=#ff0000]I think this is a misread. It is precisely because the Obama admin is on-board with these jackasses that single payer never got traction. Likewise his position on Glass-Steagall; likewise his refusal to really fight for Warren as head of CFPB and so forth.[/color]

People should really pay attention to what is happening here; the real danger to a recovery, jobs and other prosperity, is threatened by crap like this: [font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][color=#000000][url="http://www.inc.com/magazine/201211/burt-helm/hard-lessons-in-modern-lending.html"]" 'How do I know you're not going to screw me again?' Gucwa asked Charter One's rep."[/url] We should pay attention to what Vol says about the disconnect between big banks and local institutions. Back in the early 90s I authored a few pieces which took on the push to allow interstate banking. We are feeling the impact of banking mergers which began in that period during this stalled recovery much moreso than the impact the ACA will have on businesses, imo.[/color][/font]
[/quote]

This.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RXOv0hAYFE&feature=related

[oldschooler]

[b] [size=6]Breaking Down Centi-Millionaire 'Papa' John Schnatter's Obamacare Math[/size][/b]



Papa John Schnatter is no fan of Obamacare. The CEO of Papa John’s International has occasionally railed against the reform for months. Leading up to the election, he was a Mitt Romney supporter and fundraiser. Now that the election is over, he’s doubling down on his claim that the health care reform will force his company to increase pizza prices by 10-14 cents a pie. He estimates that Obamacare will end up costing his company $5-8 million annually.

The issue: the Affordable Care Act dictates that full-time employees (30 hours or more per week) at companies with more than 50 workers need to be provided health insurance. Schnatter has further claimed that some employers will cut employee hours to avoid providing them with healthcare.
Move down

His remarks have sparked anger on the internet, one thread on social news site Reddit, titled “[url="http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/12zwi7/there_are_plenty_of_places_to_get_cheap_shitty/"]There are plenty of places to get cheap s***** pizza in the world- Anyone else on reddit ready to boycott Papa John’s?[/url]” has captured more than 21,000 up-votes and 4,500 comments. A host of [url="http://www.forbes.com/companies/facebook/"]Facebook[/url] groups with the same idea have cropped up in the past 48 hours.

Meanwhile, shares in Papa John’s International have been tumbling since last Thursday, falling from $51.70 at market close Wednesday to $49.22 on Monday, a 4.2% drop.

[b]Checking Papa Schnatter’s Math[/b]

Last year, Papa John’s International captured $1.218 billion in revenue. [url="http://www.forbes.com/companies/total/"]Total[/url] operating expenses were $1.131 billion. So if Schnatter’s math is accurate (Obamacare will cost his company $5-8 million more annually), then new regulation translates into a .4% to .7% (yes, fractions of a percent) expense increase. It’s difficult to set that ratio against the proposed pie increase, given size and topping differentials, but many of their large specialty pizzas run for $16. Remarkably, a 10-14 cent increase on a $16 pizza falls in a comparable range: .6% to.9%. But the cost transference becomes less equitable if you’re looking at medium pizzas, which run closer to $12, meaning a .8% to 1.15% price increase.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that Papa John’s sells exactly half medium/half large specialty pizzas. Averaging the ranges for both sizes, then averaging that product yields a .86% price increase — well outside the range of what Schnatter says Obamacare will cost him.

So how much would prices go up, under these 50/50 conditions, if they were to fairly reflect the increased cost of doing business onset by Obamacare? Roughly 3.4 to 4.6 cents a pie.
In September, the company announced that it would be giving away 2 million free pizzas. That was, of course, a promotion designed to increase brand awareness and to invite consumers to try the brand — with the ultimate goal of selling more pizzas. Those giveaways can’t really be cataloged alongside sales that would have been made otherwise. But just in case you’re curious, that would be the equivalent of $24 million to $32 million in pizza revenue.

[b]Necks In This Game[/b]

Standing to lose (or gain) as his company determines how best to operate under new regulations is Papa Schnatter himself, who owns 6,094,409 shares, or nearly one fourth, of Papa John’s, according to the company’s most recent annual report. 1,268,052 of those shares are held in a family limited partnership and 84,000 shares held in a 501©(3). The rest are directly owned. At the $49.44 share price, subtracting those held in a charitable trust, the remaining 6,010,409 shares are worth roughly $297 million. Schnatter’s compensation packages for years 2009-11 were $2,319,643, $2,614,516, and $2,745,219 respectively, also according to the annual report. Papa John’s International has not paid a dividend since 2005.

Also hanging in the balance are the shares of institutional investors FMR (11.6%), [url="http://www.forbes.com/companies/blackrock/"]BlackRock[/url] (6.7%) and JP Morgan Chase (5%). But if these notions of protest materialize, Papa John’s front line will be populated by the franchise owners who operate many of its 4,000-plus international locations.

Emails sent to Papa John’s [url="http://www.forbes.com/companies/investor/"]Investor[/url] Relations and calls placed to Papa John’s Public Relations were not immediately returned for comment.




[url="http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2012/11/12/breaking-down-centi-millionaire-papa-john-schnatters-obamacare-math/"]http://www.forbes.co...obamacare-math/[/url]

[Jamie_B]

Rick government isn't the enemy, fascism is.

[oldschooler]

[quote name='RayDoggBengal' timestamp='1352684389' post='1180088']
Don't know if what the owner is saying is true or not but if is he should fire all his advisors that sold him on cutting jobs because if .14 per pizza. Here is an idea that would have made him money. Just state that it's going to cost .14 per pizza to provide heath care to his employees and to ensure that they have it the price of pizza is going up .14 but all the employees will be able to have health care. I'll rather pay .14 more for them to have health care then pay the current price and see them fired.
[/quote]






[quote name='kennethmw' timestamp='1352723794' post='1180148']
Actually, what he's doing is throwing a temper tantrum because his favored candidate didn't win. He's got two years before all of this goes fully into effect, he could take the time to do an evaluation of all aspects of his business to determine whether he needs to do something, but instead, like a spoiled child, he and all the rest of these vocal republican supporters are just saying " you guys voted for the black guy, so I'm going to cut some of your jobs to get even.". Like Jamie said, he'll never see another dollar from me, not even a passive dollar, because even if someone else buys his pizza, I'll never eat another slice.
[/quote]



Thanks for typing my thoughts for me.


Only difference is, if someone else bought the pizza, I would still eat it. lol

[Homer_Rice]

The sad thing is that places like Papa John's, Dominos, Pizza Hut are just facsimiles of [url="http://www.manchesterpizzaandgrill.com/index.htm"]real pizza.[/url]

[Orange 'n Black]

I'm still not following the self-righteous hate for this dude.

[b][color=#000000][font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=1]Schnatter said it was likely that some franchise owners would reduce employees' hours in order to avoid having to cover them. "That's probably what's going to happen," he said. "It's common sense. That's what I call lose-lose."[/size][/font][/color][/b]

[size=3][color=#000000][font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Over 80% of Papa John's stores are independently owned (i.e. small businesses). If a franchisee with 20 stores increases his prices by .14 a pie, it's not going to cover the ~$2000+/yr per employee that didn't previously have insurance. Maybe it makes you feel better to blow off about how much of a dick he is, but he's pointing out what he thinks is going to happen. He's not driving on down to the local joint to fire Delivery Jimmy because he doesn't want to pay for his health insurance.[/font][/color][/size]

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1352817428' post='1180459']
Rick government isn't the enemy, fascism is.
[/quote]

I don't think govt is the enemy at all. I think they are inefficent running businesses. Their job is to legislate, defend the country, and serve justice fairly and they should stick to that.

The american govt is the worst govt besides every other govt ever created in history imo

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1352820970' post='1180487']
I'm still not following the self-righteous hate for this dude.

[b][color=#000000][font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=1]Schnatter said it was likely that some franchise owners would reduce employees' hours in order to avoid having to cover them. "That's probably what's going to happen," he said. "It's common sense. That's what I call lose-lose."[/size][/font][/color][/b]

[size=3][color=#000000][font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Over 80% of Papa John's stores are independently owned (i.e. small businesses). If a franchisee with 20 stores increases his prices by .14 a pie, it's not going to cover the ~$2000+/yr per employee that didn't previously have insurance. Maybe it makes you feel better to blow off about how much of a dick he is, but he's pointing out what he thinks is going to happen. He's not driving on down to the local joint to fire Delivery Jimmy because he doesn't want to pay for his health insurance.[/font][/color][/size]
[/quote]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papa_John's_Pizza"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papa_John's_Pizza[/url]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchising"]Franchise stores[/url] owners pay a royalty fee 5% of net sales to Papa John's International, and up to 7% of net sales on advertising efforts

So yes, he is getting paid from the franchises.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1352821477' post='1180490']
I don't think govt is the enemy at all. I think they are inefficent running businesses. Their job is to legislate, defend the country, and serve justice fairly and they should stick to that.

The american govt is the worst govt besides every other govt ever created in history imo
[/quote]

I guess we have different views on what Justice is.

[bengalrick]

What I assume you mean is social justice. That is your opinion though, right? Not mine, so how can that be fair justice.

In my opinion, the gov't can go into this with completely great intentions and make things worse. They can't run the freaking post office without a deficit. In times when we are racking up unbelievable amounts of debt every second of every day, we don't need to have a massive inefficient gov't running such a large industry.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1352823442' post='1180504']
What I assume you mean is social justice. That is your opinion though, right? Not mine, so how can that be fair justice.

In my opinion, the gov't can go into this with completely great intentions and make things worse. They can't run the freaking post office without a deficit. In times when we are racking up unbelievable amounts of debt every second of every day, we don't need to have a massive inefficient gov't running such a large industry.
[/quote]

fair for whom?

Rick you understand that a public option doesnt eliminate private insurers it simple makes them compete with what government determines are fair prices for their products?