Errrmmmm … more like “Thank you, Papa John.” (I’d pay $0.15 more per pizza if I knew it would cover the workers’ healthcare, but that would require me to eat a Papa John’s pizza.)
Papa John and I share one thing and one thing only in common: we both believe businesses shouldn’t pay for employees’ healthcare.
I, however, believe in an efficient single-payer system that would relieve employers of ANY health care burden. (Who wants someone who can’t make a good pizza in the healthcare business anyway?)
Papa John believes in forcing minimum wage workers to spend $10,000 a year in private healthcare.
Everyone, this is exactly the case. A lot of employers are going to (and already are, in anticipation of the PPACA’s rules) cut staff to work 29 hours per week so they can avoid the predatory law’s burdensome requirements. What most people don’t realize is that franchisees don’t make a ton of money. I know the guy who owns all the subways in town, something like 8 or 10 of them. After all the overhead and fees, he clears maybe $150k a year. For owning 8 businesses. And he has more than 50 employees total. So you add in the penalty for not providing health care of those employees, and you’re looking at $100k in fines, minimum. He has 80 employees. That means he will lose $10k a year as a business owner. How long do you honestly think he can stay in business if he’s running a net loss every year? So he’s going to do the only thing he can to ensure his business stays afloat: cut the hours to his staff so he doesn’t have to pay the penalty. It’s that, or shed jobs/sell stores. This is the unintended consequence of the PPACA. This is the “I told you so,” moment for so many conservatives who said this law was a bad idea. Because this is just the beginning.
^I have some passages too. this is from david (the one who slew goliath and later became king david).2 Samuel 1:26 – I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.1 Samuel 20:41 – [And] as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of [a place] toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded1 Samuel 18:1 – And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.beautiful, isn’t it?
My apologies. I do.“How is it that America can’t figure this out when every other industrialized and pre-industrialized country in the world can make this work?”Economies of scale, tax burden, and illusion. I’ll break it up.When you have Britain with a population 1/5th ours, while the per-person cost of care may be about the same, the level of bureaucratic involvement spikes to support a larger program. It’s not just that simple, but that’s what I’m getting at. We’re also looking at it in a bubble. There are more factors that play into our situation when compared to other countries’. We have a massive welfare state, we have an illegal immigrant population that draws on the system, we have people abuse the system, et al. The other thing is tax rates for individuals is much higher in countries that have public health care. As I mentioned in my last post (at length), Americans won’t support that kind of tax level… especially people like me who will be hit hardest by it. Most countries have massive tax burdens in place on everyone to support the nanny states they are providing. Ask any American and just about everyone will not be willing to pay half their paycheck so everyone can have “free” healthcare. Our culture doesn’t support it.And lastly, it’s an illusion. In America, the primary complaint is that health care is too expensive. I won’t argue that point… it is getting kind of ridiculous. But when I have shoulder pain, I can call my orthopedic specialist that did my shoulder surgeries and I’ll have an appointment in about a week, maybe two depending on his schedule, and I can be under the knife in likely a week or so after that. Public healthcare systems won’t be that expedient, and specialists are more rare. We also have very little rationing going on in the private insurance area, in public you do. When I think of public health care, I remember reading stories about how 70-year-old people need hip replacements, but because they are deemed too old, they don’t get a new hip. They dehumanize the situation and break it down into a math problem. They ration care.You also have an issue of pending liabilities. Look at all the austerity measures that are being taken in Europe right now. That’s a prime example of where we are headed; when government handouts are running out of control, the debt level becomes unsustainable and the whole system collapses. Eventually, you have more takers than givers, and the system cannot bear any more weight. I will never argue that our system is perfect. But single-payer is not the way to go. “Free” healthcare for all is not appropriate, for it takes responsibility for their care away from the individual and hands it to some bureaucrat. The intent behind the PPACA was good, but the execution sucked big time. People in our government need to identify the root problem of why costs are going up, not try to treat the symptoms and then lay more people on top of an already burdened system. I don’t pretend to have all the answers. But what I do know is the PPACA is wrong for America.
My question is which of our scenarios is more anecdotal instead of the norm. Both sides have a vested interest in tiling the argument in their favor, and telling the stories they want to tell. I’m curious, is there any data out there to show what the average wait time between various countries are for specialist treatment? You only paid 19%, but I’m curious what Canada’s social welfare state looks like, labor participation rate, corporate tax rate, % of GDP revenue, outlays, etc. I guess I would have a much easier time eating a tax bill that includes universal care if I wasn’t paying for someone to eat bonbons at 3 in the afternoon on the taxpayer’s dime. I don’t hear a lot about that coming out of the north. Any insights?I guess my problem with universal health care boils down to this: If the standard of care is the same, I have no issue as long as I don’t continue to feel taken advantage of. But in today’s America, I feel like the “poor,” are taking advantage of a system geared to help the truly needy. Because I am willing to support those who are truly incapable of working. I am not willing to support those who are too lazy to work. And in America, right now, there are entirely too many of the latter.
Sorry I took so long to respond. I was at work earning money to pay my taxes so that disabled vets can get their government benefits.
It must really suck when the taxpayers who are paying for your healthcare pass judgement on you for being disabled, and suck even more when they think that the way you decided to spend your life doesn’t merit the sympathy you think you deserve.
All that being said, I pity you about the same as I pity a single mother of five. You both fall into the category of people who’d end up on the street if it weren’t for hard-working people propping you up with their tax dollars.
“and I’d be interested in what you find. But please don’t post agenda-driven drivel from American Right Wing media inventing problems that we don’t have.”I try to stay away from those in the first place. While I may not agree with a story, I will still read it. That’s why I like RCP: it tries to represent both sides of the argument. I’ll see what I can find.“How do you feel about those who WISH to work but cannot because there are no jobs. Will you support them?”Yes and no. The reason I say that is there are a great deal of caveats to the “wish to work but cannot,” aspect of your statement. The largest one is that there are jobs out there, but jobs Americans feel are below them. They won’t take a job paying $9 an hour because they feel they are owed more. Or they don’t take the job that has them making $8.50 an hour because then they will lose their benefits. Those people I will not support, because there are jobs, they are just choosing to not take them.On the other hand, if there truly are no jobs to be had, then I would support relocation support and re-training to get them their job. But I won’t blanket support them because they then will just take it as a gift and abuse it. This is not just my opinion, this is based on historical evidence. They have done studies that the longer unemployment benefits are extended, the longer high unemployment persists. Our unemployment benefits used to last only 8 weeks. Now we’re up to 3 years. If you can sit on your rear for 2 years without having to do spit to get your benefits, are you really going to be incentivized to go out and look for a job? Or take a job at the above-mentioned rates? Of course not. And that’s why we see the unemployment rate at what it is. And when it persists as long as it has, people stop looking for work because they transfer from unemployment to SSDisability (even though they aren’t disabled). That’s why the labor participation rate is so crappy. The other part is a lot of people have switched to cash-only jobs, meaning they aren’t reporting income to the feds.So to directly answer your question, I will support those who cannot find work because no work is to be found in the area and they are truly efforting to find work and do jobs. I will not support those who can work but choose to not take the low-paying jobs for fear of losing their benefits.When we have agents telling hard workers to quit their jobs so they can get more on welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, medicaid, medicare, and other freebies, there’s something fundamentally wrong with our system. I think our benefits system needs a complete overhaul, but that’s just me.“Your choice is to give them both cheques to ensure the one who needs it gets it, or neither to ensure the cheat doesn’t win. Which, to you, is the greater good.”I consider this a trick question, because both arguments are valid in my book. But, I would say I have to lean towards the latter simply because it sends a message that those who will attempt to abuse the system will not only not get what they want but they will hurt other people as well. This will, in turn, discourage those who are trying to game the system. Thus, only those who need it get it. The reverse, of paying both to ensure those who need it, get it… that will lead to abuse of the system because those who cheat the system know they can get away with it.I have no good solution, because I don’t think there is one. Either someone will abuse the system and hurt the taxpayers (at least the 50% who have a net federal income tax liability), or it will protect the taxpayers, but hurt those who truly need the help. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Who is more right? I don’t know.
ggauss Premium Member almost 11 years ago
Everything that tea party doesn’t understand is now called Obamacare. Get real.
Chillbilly almost 11 years ago
Errrmmmm … more like “Thank you, Papa John.” (I’d pay $0.15 more per pizza if I knew it would cover the workers’ healthcare, but that would require me to eat a Papa John’s pizza.)
Chillbilly almost 11 years ago
Papa John and I share one thing and one thing only in common: we both believe businesses shouldn’t pay for employees’ healthcare.
I, however, believe in an efficient single-payer system that would relieve employers of ANY health care burden. (Who wants someone who can’t make a good pizza in the healthcare business anyway?)
Papa John believes in forcing minimum wage workers to spend $10,000 a year in private healthcare.
Wraithkin almost 11 years ago
Everyone, this is exactly the case. A lot of employers are going to (and already are, in anticipation of the PPACA’s rules) cut staff to work 29 hours per week so they can avoid the predatory law’s burdensome requirements. What most people don’t realize is that franchisees don’t make a ton of money. I know the guy who owns all the subways in town, something like 8 or 10 of them. After all the overhead and fees, he clears maybe $150k a year. For owning 8 businesses. And he has more than 50 employees total. So you add in the penalty for not providing health care of those employees, and you’re looking at $100k in fines, minimum. He has 80 employees. That means he will lose $10k a year as a business owner. How long do you honestly think he can stay in business if he’s running a net loss every year? So he’s going to do the only thing he can to ensure his business stays afloat: cut the hours to his staff so he doesn’t have to pay the penalty. It’s that, or shed jobs/sell stores. This is the unintended consequence of the PPACA. This is the “I told you so,” moment for so many conservatives who said this law was a bad idea. Because this is just the beginning.
dannysixpack almost 11 years ago
^I have some passages too. this is from david (the one who slew goliath and later became king david).2 Samuel 1:26 – I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.1 Samuel 20:41 – [And] as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of [a place] toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded1 Samuel 18:1 – And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.beautiful, isn’t it?
trm almost 11 years ago
Yep, I’m sure if you asked nicely, that Obama presstitute would show you his official Monica Lewinsky Memorial Kneepads.
trm almost 11 years ago
Actually, after Obozo the Anointed (PBUH) works his jobs “miracle”, there’s LESS fish and LESS bread.
Wraithkin almost 11 years ago
My apologies. I do.“How is it that America can’t figure this out when every other industrialized and pre-industrialized country in the world can make this work?”Economies of scale, tax burden, and illusion. I’ll break it up.When you have Britain with a population 1/5th ours, while the per-person cost of care may be about the same, the level of bureaucratic involvement spikes to support a larger program. It’s not just that simple, but that’s what I’m getting at. We’re also looking at it in a bubble. There are more factors that play into our situation when compared to other countries’. We have a massive welfare state, we have an illegal immigrant population that draws on the system, we have people abuse the system, et al. The other thing is tax rates for individuals is much higher in countries that have public health care. As I mentioned in my last post (at length), Americans won’t support that kind of tax level… especially people like me who will be hit hardest by it. Most countries have massive tax burdens in place on everyone to support the nanny states they are providing. Ask any American and just about everyone will not be willing to pay half their paycheck so everyone can have “free” healthcare. Our culture doesn’t support it.And lastly, it’s an illusion. In America, the primary complaint is that health care is too expensive. I won’t argue that point… it is getting kind of ridiculous. But when I have shoulder pain, I can call my orthopedic specialist that did my shoulder surgeries and I’ll have an appointment in about a week, maybe two depending on his schedule, and I can be under the knife in likely a week or so after that. Public healthcare systems won’t be that expedient, and specialists are more rare. We also have very little rationing going on in the private insurance area, in public you do. When I think of public health care, I remember reading stories about how 70-year-old people need hip replacements, but because they are deemed too old, they don’t get a new hip. They dehumanize the situation and break it down into a math problem. They ration care.You also have an issue of pending liabilities. Look at all the austerity measures that are being taken in Europe right now. That’s a prime example of where we are headed; when government handouts are running out of control, the debt level becomes unsustainable and the whole system collapses. Eventually, you have more takers than givers, and the system cannot bear any more weight. I will never argue that our system is perfect. But single-payer is not the way to go. “Free” healthcare for all is not appropriate, for it takes responsibility for their care away from the individual and hands it to some bureaucrat. The intent behind the PPACA was good, but the execution sucked big time. People in our government need to identify the root problem of why costs are going up, not try to treat the symptoms and then lay more people on top of an already burdened system. I don’t pretend to have all the answers. But what I do know is the PPACA is wrong for America.
Chillbilly almost 11 years ago
“… covered for life by the VA.”
“… earned that benefit with my disability rating.”
Nice. Now you can thump your chest about how no one else deserves government healthcare.
You sound like any other freeloader to me.
But I believe you deserve healthcare. That’s just one of the things that makes us different.
Wraithkin almost 11 years ago
My question is which of our scenarios is more anecdotal instead of the norm. Both sides have a vested interest in tiling the argument in their favor, and telling the stories they want to tell. I’m curious, is there any data out there to show what the average wait time between various countries are for specialist treatment? You only paid 19%, but I’m curious what Canada’s social welfare state looks like, labor participation rate, corporate tax rate, % of GDP revenue, outlays, etc. I guess I would have a much easier time eating a tax bill that includes universal care if I wasn’t paying for someone to eat bonbons at 3 in the afternoon on the taxpayer’s dime. I don’t hear a lot about that coming out of the north. Any insights?I guess my problem with universal health care boils down to this: If the standard of care is the same, I have no issue as long as I don’t continue to feel taken advantage of. But in today’s America, I feel like the “poor,” are taking advantage of a system geared to help the truly needy. Because I am willing to support those who are truly incapable of working. I am not willing to support those who are too lazy to work. And in America, right now, there are entirely too many of the latter.
Chillbilly almost 11 years ago
Sorry I took so long to respond. I was at work earning money to pay my taxes so that disabled vets can get their government benefits.
It must really suck when the taxpayers who are paying for your healthcare pass judgement on you for being disabled, and suck even more when they think that the way you decided to spend your life doesn’t merit the sympathy you think you deserve.
All that being said, I pity you about the same as I pity a single mother of five. You both fall into the category of people who’d end up on the street if it weren’t for hard-working people propping you up with their tax dollars.
Wraithkin almost 11 years ago
“and I’d be interested in what you find. But please don’t post agenda-driven drivel from American Right Wing media inventing problems that we don’t have.”I try to stay away from those in the first place. While I may not agree with a story, I will still read it. That’s why I like RCP: it tries to represent both sides of the argument. I’ll see what I can find.“How do you feel about those who WISH to work but cannot because there are no jobs. Will you support them?”Yes and no. The reason I say that is there are a great deal of caveats to the “wish to work but cannot,” aspect of your statement. The largest one is that there are jobs out there, but jobs Americans feel are below them. They won’t take a job paying $9 an hour because they feel they are owed more. Or they don’t take the job that has them making $8.50 an hour because then they will lose their benefits. Those people I will not support, because there are jobs, they are just choosing to not take them.On the other hand, if there truly are no jobs to be had, then I would support relocation support and re-training to get them their job. But I won’t blanket support them because they then will just take it as a gift and abuse it. This is not just my opinion, this is based on historical evidence. They have done studies that the longer unemployment benefits are extended, the longer high unemployment persists. Our unemployment benefits used to last only 8 weeks. Now we’re up to 3 years. If you can sit on your rear for 2 years without having to do spit to get your benefits, are you really going to be incentivized to go out and look for a job? Or take a job at the above-mentioned rates? Of course not. And that’s why we see the unemployment rate at what it is. And when it persists as long as it has, people stop looking for work because they transfer from unemployment to SSDisability (even though they aren’t disabled). That’s why the labor participation rate is so crappy. The other part is a lot of people have switched to cash-only jobs, meaning they aren’t reporting income to the feds.So to directly answer your question, I will support those who cannot find work because no work is to be found in the area and they are truly efforting to find work and do jobs. I will not support those who can work but choose to not take the low-paying jobs for fear of losing their benefits.When we have agents telling hard workers to quit their jobs so they can get more on welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, medicaid, medicare, and other freebies, there’s something fundamentally wrong with our system. I think our benefits system needs a complete overhaul, but that’s just me.“Your choice is to give them both cheques to ensure the one who needs it gets it, or neither to ensure the cheat doesn’t win. Which, to you, is the greater good.”I consider this a trick question, because both arguments are valid in my book. But, I would say I have to lean towards the latter simply because it sends a message that those who will attempt to abuse the system will not only not get what they want but they will hurt other people as well. This will, in turn, discourage those who are trying to game the system. Thus, only those who need it get it. The reverse, of paying both to ensure those who need it, get it… that will lead to abuse of the system because those who cheat the system know they can get away with it.I have no good solution, because I don’t think there is one. Either someone will abuse the system and hurt the taxpayers (at least the 50% who have a net federal income tax liability), or it will protect the taxpayers, but hurt those who truly need the help. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Who is more right? I don’t know.