Papa John's: Obamacare likely to raise costs, employee's hours being cut

You are really not this clueless are you?

 

you must be since you can't answer a simple question.

If the companies won't be paying for it, then who will be paying for the healthcare?

 

That's true because employers wouldn't be paying for a single-payer system, the individual would. There are three fundamental problems though.

First of all the advocates of a single-payer system aren't telling people how much it costs. We can exclude those below the poverty line as they would receive subsidies that are paid for by the rest of the households. Yes, there is a slight "adminstrative" cost advantage to a single-payer system but the differences in the adminstrative costs can be directly linked to fraud prevention. Medicare/Medicaid, for example, have between $40-$100 billions of fraud every year. If they doubled their adminstrative costs then they would prevent perhaps half of this.

Additionally Medicare/Medicaid typically under-pay the costs (not the billing amount) of services and that shortfall is made up for by hospitals over-charging private insurance. With the demise of private insurance the cost to the government increase by about 20% to cover costs and reasonable profits for the health care providers.

Finally, even with "Obamacare" there is a projected shortage of primary care doctors coming. That means that while the individual may have "insurance" they won't be treated because of a lack of doctors. This isn't being caused by a lack of doctors graduating but instead its being caused predominately because government health care programs don't pay primary care doctors enough for new doctors to choose this as their goal. Instead, because of the high debts they incur, they are becoming specialists because it pays about four times as much as what a primary care doctor receives in compensation. This can be addressed by increasing government payments to primary care physicians which raises the cost of the insurance.

In the end we can estimate that every household, except those falling below the poverty level, will have to pony up with an additional $5000-$15,000 in additional taxes to pay for a single-payer system. At the same time a person with a major medical (high deductable) insurance plan and a Healthcare Savings Account (HSA) would pay about $1200/yr for insurance and they would contribute about $1200/yr to their HSA. This are the most cost effective form of health care protection. The same protection at about 1/2 of the cost.

 

http://freakoutnation.com/2012/11/1...-(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s-because-of-obamacare/

 

It certainly is. Are you saying the definition is wrong?

 

So is your employer going to pay you the money they are currently paying an insurance provider to get you insurance now? If not where is that money going to come from, whatever the cost may be (since nobody can even give you a ballpark number)?

49 million eligible for food stamps, and millions more on welfare including illegal aliens who shouldn't be here in the first place, and who gets to pay their share?

How much will it cost for the government to run every other insurance company out of business so the government will have the monopoly?

 

No, they won't. They'll pretend like they didn't see it and then change the topic to something else...

 

I'm not a fan of "Obamacare" but this crap from Republican mulit-millioniare corporate owners that are whining that they can't compete with McDonalds that offered health insurance to their full time employess for years before the ACA was past is really BS. What is really dumb is that Papa John's locations are predominately individual franchises and are not corporate stores. That means the franchise owner, not Papa John's corporation, is responsible for addressing the requirements of the ACA. Many of these franchises are going to qualify as small enterprises that will receive government subsidies and tax considerations to help fund the health insurance they might be required to provide. Many are actually small enough and/or dependent upon part time employees so that the mandates won't even apply to them.

For example there are no tax penalties for a small enterprise with 25 or fewer full time employees, which would probably cover most Papa John's franchises, but the law does offer tax incentives if they do offer insurance.

http://101.communitycatalyst.org/aca_provisions/employer_requirements?id=0002

 

Tax incentives to be paid for by free money that Obama harvested from money trees growing along the Potomac?

No.

Obama will take the money - and healthcare - from Americans who earned it and give it to other Americans who qualify just because they exist.

That is the fundamental injustice of ObamaCare.

It steals from one person and give to another.

 

Actually these companies do not have franchises in the traditional sense of the word, they are just chain stores and the managers pay for the privilege of being the manager for the main office. So technically they are one giant business just like wallyworld, not individual franchises where most of the profits remain in the local area.

 

So people who already can't afford to feed themselves, cloth themselves and shelter themselves, are some how all of a sudden going to be able to afford top notch insurance coverage. Get out of liberal lala land.

 

I get so tired of this ignorant nonsense. MILLIONS of uninsured people use/d the most expensive form of healthcare - the emergency room. Those costs were assumed by the hospital which would raise prices everywhere else to compensate. Those costs end up being paid by the rest of us through higher insurance premiums.

Because they have no insurance, people routinely put off going to the doctor. Once easily treated illnesses become serious and the treatment costs rise exponentially.

Unhealthy people make poor employees, adding to other social ills.

 

If they're workers haven't already started leaving. I know I would leave if you essentially told me you wouldn't be doing full time work anymore.

 

BTW, as is always the case with idiot wing nuts.......they never have any ideas for solving a problem.

Only hyperbolic nonsensical attacks against those who take the lead to solve problems.

Stop the pissing and moaning until you come with some real, problem solving alternatives.

 

Well we could start by eliminating the Obama care tax, and this ridiculously idiotic notion that mandatory anything reduces prices. Not gonna happen.

 

I support the Affordable care act, but Papa Johns does have a point he will lose money from it and here's why.

Papa Johns uses fresh ingredients, so they have higher costs than the other pizza chains because its more expensive to ship those fresh ingredients to the individual franchise stores.

So the health care program by the President, does not affect the small Papa Johns franchises, but the Corporation itself since that is responsible for the brand and provides fresh ingredients to all franchisees at extra expense to them.

The corporation itself has more than 25 employees, and the shareholders make profits from the corporate entity, so if it has more expenses to the laborers who farm for them then that affects his shareholders. That is why he said he has to raise pie prices, to compensate for that loss.

 

A whopping $.12-$.14 cents per pizza, which means he will raise it $1, and take advantage of an opportunity to milk consumers when he has the chance. [sarcasm off.

 

The left has no way to solve problems. Why is it that whenever there is a problem in society, the left always wants the government involved, and then they want to throw money at the problem?

Anytime there is a situation where there are bad results, liberals blame it on under funding.

 

Here's another thing that is going to cost Schnatter some cash - my own personal boycott. Those pizza joints that don't cry about covering their employees will be on the receiving end of my patronage.

 

Papa Johns profit margin 4%

http://biz.yahoo.com/p/712conameu.html

 

Neither of the two corporate parties are in place to solve problems or implement legislation that is coherently beneficial to/for the nation as a whole. Their job is to maintain extremism points of views on non issue issues, so partisan fools are divided and easier to manipulate & conquer. And they are doing a superb job of it with the gullible falling for their evil plans.

 

I agree with you there. Its funny watching Obama and the members of congress sitting there like they are going to come up with a deal.

We all know they are not going to cut spending and work on the deficits, they will work some deal where they raise taxes on people, cut a small part of spending but in a few years it will be back up above where it is today.

They will increase the debt limit, keep adding to the credit card, keep putting more people on welfare etc.

Something drastic needs to happen before this will ever stop.

I blame all politicians. Why should my daughter be footed with a bill that she did nothing to contribute to?

 

Spending has already been cut, twice, under Obama, for the first time in 60 years. Spending proportionate to GDP has decreased every year, and the Govt now spends proportionately less than it did in some Reagan years.

So on what basis do you assert Obama would agree to more cuts?

 

Spending has been cut, yet we have added $6 Trillion to the debt.

I want spending where we are paying down the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing debt.

Obama will not agree to cuts.

 

I'll file that prediction right next to the ones you were making about Obama getting buried in the election and his poll numbers being in the 30s. In 2010.