New, Improved Obamacare Program Released On 35 Floppy Disks
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Well you will need to do more than just amend. You will need to completely rewrite Godwin’s Law. Perhaps, you could rewrite it and name it the Koch Brothers Law, “You Cannot Blame the Koch Brothers for Anything They Do, Even When They Stamp It with Their Name Law”. Because the video clip you referenced clearly stated it was made by Americans for Prosperity. The Koch brothers have been making a number of these deceptive, Fool the Fool, videos including ones to encourage young people not to purchase healthcare insurance. Advocating that anyone, especially young people, go without insurance is just despicable. Will the Koch brothers be there to pick up the bills for those young folks when they do get ill or injured? I think we all know the answer to that question. It’s an unmitigated NO. Personally, I take offense at anyone who argues someone should act irresponsibly, which is what the Koch brothers are doing with their ads. And they are doing so for selfish political reasons. I find that morally reprehensible and repugnant. It’s not bad enough that these ads are false and deceptive; they advocate irresponsible behaviors as well – especially among the youth.
“Both Generation Opportunity and Americans for Prosperity are part of the billionaire Koch brothers-funded empire of independent groups seeking to influence public policy in a more free-market direction.” – The Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...est-where-uncle-sam-wants-to-stick-it/279825/
Americans for Prosperity
“Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a group fronting special interests founded in 2004 by oil billionaire David Koch and Richard Fink (a member of the board of directors of Koch Industries). AFP has been accused of funding astroturf operations but also has been fueling the "Tea Party" efforts. [1] AFP's messages are in sync with those of other groups funded by the Koch Family Foundations and the Kochs' other special interest groups that work against progressive or Democratic initiatives and protections for workers and the environment. Accordingly, AFP opposes labor unions, health care reform, stimulus spending, and cap-and-trade legislation, which is aimed at making industries pay for the air pollution that they create. AFP was also involved in the attacks on Obama’s "green jobs" czar, Van Jones, and has crusaded against international climate talks. According to an article in the August 30, 2010 issue of The New Yorker, the Kochs are known for "creating slippery organizations with generic-sounding names," that "make it difficult to ascertain the extent of their influence in Washington." AFP's budget surged from $7 million in 2007 to $40 million in 2010, an election year. [2][3]. As of August 13th, Americans for Prosperity spent an estimated $45 million on ads to influence the 2012 presidential election, their total budget for 2012 will top $100 million.[4] For a more detailed summary of AFP's 2012 election activities, see: Americans for Prosperity in the 2012 Election.” http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity
WASHINGTON — A political ad that features a Dexter woman criticizing U.S. Rep. Gary Peters, a candidate for U.S. Senate in Michigan, for his vote in favor of the Affordable Care Act is coming under scrutiny from the Washington Post.
In its Fact Checker column, the Post’s Glenn Kessler vets the ad produced by Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group that has spent upwards of $1 million already in targeting Peters, D-Bloomfield Township, who is running to replace the retiring Sen. Carl Levin.
The ad features Julie Boonstra of Dexter, a leukemia patient who says her previous insurance , which she preferred, was canceled under the Affordable Care Act. She says that “the out-of-pocket costs are so high that it’s unaffordable,” and, “if I do not receive my medication I will die.”
Boonstra was a guest of U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, at last month’s State of the Union address as someone who had lost coverage because of the health care reform bill passed in 2010.
The Post, however, said AFP confirmed that Boonstra was able to find a new Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan plan that allowed her to keep her doctor and noted that under the ACA, individual plans have an out-of-pocket maximum of $6,350 a year, including medications.
Kessler quoted a report in the Detroit News saying the new plan’s premium was reduced from $1,100 a month to $571 — meaning that over the course of a year, Boonstra would save $6,348, or just two dollars less than the out-of-pocket maximum for the plan.
Pharmaceutical costs are included in the out-of-pocket maximum, meaning after that amount is paid, drugs are covered at 100%.
The Free Press was unable to reach Boonstra in Dexter at phone numbers listed under her name, and AFP spokesman Levi Russell did not immediately return a telephone call for comment. He told the Post that the costs of her coverage “have quickly become unpredictable” and that instead “of knowing exactly what she would have to pay every month, she now is facing a roller coaster of expenses.”
The ad, which has Boonstra saying Peters’ “decision to vote for Obamacare jeopardized my health” also leaves out Peters’ vote last year to allow insurers to keep selling individual policies that had been offered before the ACA went into effect.
http://www.freep.com/article/201402...xter-woman-washington-post-health-care-peters
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gops-obamacare-horror-stories-strategy-works/
The Facts
First of all, many viewers might think Boonstra lost her doctor, as she mentions her “wonderful doctor” and then says her plan was canceled. But AFP confirms that she was able to find a plan, via Blue Cross Blue Shield, that had her doctor in its network.
Local news reports recount that Boonstra, like many Americans, initially had trouble getting a plan because of the botched launch of healthcare.gov. No doubt that was a difficult experience. She then was invited by her local member of Congress to attend the State of the Union address and participated in a Republican National Committee news conference that highlighted problems with Obamacare’s stumbling launch.
At that news conference, Boonstra said, “I’m paying a higher cost now as far as out of pocket costs and the coverage is just not the same.” But in the new ad she says “the out-of-pocket costs are so high, it’s unaffordable.”
The claim that the costs are now “unaffordable” appeared odd because, under Obamacare, there is an out-of-pocket maximum of $6,350 for an individual plan, after which the insurance plan pays 100 percent of covered benefits. The Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in Michigan that appear to match Boonstra’s plan, as described in local news reports, all have that limit.
Meanwhile, Boonstra told the Detroit News that her monthly premiums were cut in half, from $1,100 a month to $571. That’s a savings of $529 a month. Over the course of a year, the premium savings amounts to $6,348—just two dollars shy of the out-of-pocket maximum.
We were unable to reach Boonstra, but on the fact of it, the premium savings appear to match whatever out-of-pocket costs she now faces.
Levi Russell, a spokesman for AFP, said he “would assume there is an OOP max, but this is the story of Julie, a real person suffering from blood cancer, not some neat and tidy White House PowerPoint about how the ACA is helping everyone.” He said there is a possibility that her specific chemotherapy medication will not be covered.
“Julie’s concerns about her new plan are ongoing and very personal. Since her out of pocket costs are so much higher now, her costs have quickly become unpredictable,” he added. “Rather than knowing exactly what she would have to pay every month, she now is facing a roller coaster of expenses that vary with her health. She said she feels like a surprise is around every corner, since she keeps being hit with new out-of-pocket costs every time she needs treatment, or a test, or even an office visit.”
He concluded: “Now her expenses are unpredictable, and that means unaffordable. It could be $600 one month, and three times that the next month. The reality of what she’s dealing with is much more involved and can’t be swept aside by saying, ‘you have an OOP maximum so quit complaining about your cancer.’”
The Pinocchio Test
The Fact Checker surely does not want to play down the emotional anguish that any cancer patient may face, but a fuller accounting is necessary if AFP is going to air ads like this. In order to properly compare the old plan and the new plan, there needs to be fuller disclosure of the costs and out-of-pocket maximums before claims that the new plan is “unaffordable” can be accepted at face value. Too many anecdotal stories, on both sides, have fallen apart under close scrutiny.
Russell passed along a quote from Boonstra: “My plan, the premiums are half, but the out‑of‑pocket costs are so high that for me, it’s unaffordable. My coverage is 80/20. Blood work, I’m paying 20 percent. If I needed a bone marrow transplant, I would only be covered 80 percent. Everything, everything I do now, I have to pay a percentage of.”
It is one thing to say there are higher out-of-pocket costs, as she did at the RNC news conference, but another to assume that those higher costs are not offset in some way by the significantly lower premium. The reality is that eventually Boonstra will hit the maximum and no longer pay anything. So over the course of the year, the difference in the costs could well even out. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...im-that-doesnt-add-up/?wprss=rss_fact-checker
So basically Julie’s Story is a lie. Julie gets to keep her physician. Julie has her "unaffordable" Obamacare" healthcare insurance. So obviously it wasn't that unaffordable. Her health insurance premiums are slightly more than $500 less than what she paid before Obamacare. But now she is responsible for out of pocket expense which could, underline could, increase her out of pocket costs by up to less than $500/month. So with Obamacare Julie's combined healthcare insurance premiums and maximum out of pocket expenses would cost slightly less than what she paid prior to Obamacare.
Subsequently Koch brother advocates argued that the uncertainty of the out of pocket expenses caused Julie undue duress. Welcome to healthcare insurance. That is they way it has always been. If the uncertainty of her out of pocket expenses is causing Julie undue stress and if Julie really wants to pay that additional premium, I have a number of charities that would be willing to accept it.
So Obamacare is actually better for Julie than what she had before. Her healthcare costs, even with the potential for increased out of pocket expenses is less that what she was paying for premiums alone prior to Obamacare and Obamacare has provided her with certain assurances/guarantees and no lifetime maximums which she didn't have before Obamacare.
In its Fact Checker column, the Post’s Glenn Kessler vets the ad produced by Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group that has spent upwards of $1 million already in targeting Peters, D-Bloomfield Township, who is running to replace the retiring Sen. Carl Levin.
The ad features Julie Boonstra of Dexter, a leukemia patient who says her previous insurance , which she preferred, was canceled under the Affordable Care Act. She says that “the out-of-pocket costs are so high that it’s unaffordable,” and, “if I do not receive my medication I will die.”
Boonstra was a guest of U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, at last month’s State of the Union address as someone who had lost coverage because of the health care reform bill passed in 2010.
The Post, however, said AFP confirmed that Boonstra was able to find a new Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan plan that allowed her to keep her doctor and noted that under the ACA, individual plans have an out-of-pocket maximum of $6,350 a year, including medications.
Kessler quoted a report in the Detroit News saying the new plan’s premium was reduced from $1,100 a month to $571 — meaning that over the course of a year, Boonstra would save $6,348, or just two dollars less than the out-of-pocket maximum for the plan.
Pharmaceutical costs are included in the out-of-pocket maximum, meaning after that amount is paid, drugs are covered at 100%.
The Free Press was unable to reach Boonstra in Dexter at phone numbers listed under her name, and AFP spokesman Levi Russell did not immediately return a telephone call for comment. He told the Post that the costs of her coverage “have quickly become unpredictable” and that instead “of knowing exactly what she would have to pay every month, she now is facing a roller coaster of expenses.”
The ad, which has Boonstra saying Peters’ “decision to vote for Obamacare jeopardized my health” also leaves out Peters’ vote last year to allow insurers to keep selling individual policies that had been offered before the ACA went into effect.
http://www.freep.com/article/201402...xter-woman-washington-post-health-care-peters
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gops-obamacare-horror-stories-strategy-works/
The Facts
First of all, many viewers might think Boonstra lost her doctor, as she mentions her “wonderful doctor” and then says her plan was canceled. But AFP confirms that she was able to find a plan, via Blue Cross Blue Shield, that had her doctor in its network.
Local news reports recount that Boonstra, like many Americans, initially had trouble getting a plan because of the botched launch of healthcare.gov. No doubt that was a difficult experience. She then was invited by her local member of Congress to attend the State of the Union address and participated in a Republican National Committee news conference that highlighted problems with Obamacare’s stumbling launch.
At that news conference, Boonstra said, “I’m paying a higher cost now as far as out of pocket costs and the coverage is just not the same.” But in the new ad she says “the out-of-pocket costs are so high, it’s unaffordable.”
The claim that the costs are now “unaffordable” appeared odd because, under Obamacare, there is an out-of-pocket maximum of $6,350 for an individual plan, after which the insurance plan pays 100 percent of covered benefits. The Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in Michigan that appear to match Boonstra’s plan, as described in local news reports, all have that limit.
Meanwhile, Boonstra told the Detroit News that her monthly premiums were cut in half, from $1,100 a month to $571. That’s a savings of $529 a month. Over the course of a year, the premium savings amounts to $6,348—just two dollars shy of the out-of-pocket maximum.
We were unable to reach Boonstra, but on the fact of it, the premium savings appear to match whatever out-of-pocket costs she now faces.
Levi Russell, a spokesman for AFP, said he “would assume there is an OOP max, but this is the story of Julie, a real person suffering from blood cancer, not some neat and tidy White House PowerPoint about how the ACA is helping everyone.” He said there is a possibility that her specific chemotherapy medication will not be covered.
“Julie’s concerns about her new plan are ongoing and very personal. Since her out of pocket costs are so much higher now, her costs have quickly become unpredictable,” he added. “Rather than knowing exactly what she would have to pay every month, she now is facing a roller coaster of expenses that vary with her health. She said she feels like a surprise is around every corner, since she keeps being hit with new out-of-pocket costs every time she needs treatment, or a test, or even an office visit.”
He concluded: “Now her expenses are unpredictable, and that means unaffordable. It could be $600 one month, and three times that the next month. The reality of what she’s dealing with is much more involved and can’t be swept aside by saying, ‘you have an OOP maximum so quit complaining about your cancer.’”
The Pinocchio Test
The Fact Checker surely does not want to play down the emotional anguish that any cancer patient may face, but a fuller accounting is necessary if AFP is going to air ads like this. In order to properly compare the old plan and the new plan, there needs to be fuller disclosure of the costs and out-of-pocket maximums before claims that the new plan is “unaffordable” can be accepted at face value. Too many anecdotal stories, on both sides, have fallen apart under close scrutiny.
Russell passed along a quote from Boonstra: “My plan, the premiums are half, but the out‑of‑pocket costs are so high that for me, it’s unaffordable. My coverage is 80/20. Blood work, I’m paying 20 percent. If I needed a bone marrow transplant, I would only be covered 80 percent. Everything, everything I do now, I have to pay a percentage of.”
It is one thing to say there are higher out-of-pocket costs, as she did at the RNC news conference, but another to assume that those higher costs are not offset in some way by the significantly lower premium. The reality is that eventually Boonstra will hit the maximum and no longer pay anything. So over the course of the year, the difference in the costs could well even out. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...im-that-doesnt-add-up/?wprss=rss_fact-checker
So basically Julie’s Story is a lie. Julie gets to keep her physician. Julie has her "unaffordable" Obamacare" healthcare insurance. So obviously it wasn't that unaffordable. Her health insurance premiums are slightly more than $500 less than what she paid before Obamacare. But now she is responsible for out of pocket expense which could, underline could, increase her out of pocket costs by up to less than $500/month. So with Obamacare Julie's combined healthcare insurance premiums and maximum out of pocket expenses would cost slightly less than what she paid prior to Obamacare.
Subsequently Koch brother advocates argued that the uncertainty of the out of pocket expenses caused Julie undue duress. Welcome to healthcare insurance. That is they way it has always been. If the uncertainty of her out of pocket expenses is causing Julie undue stress and if Julie really wants to pay that additional premium, I have a number of charities that would be willing to accept it.
So Obamacare is actually better for Julie than what she had before. Her healthcare costs, even with the potential for increased out of pocket expenses is less that what she was paying for premiums alone prior to Obamacare and Obamacare has provided her with certain assurances/guarantees and no lifetime maximums which she didn't have before Obamacare.
Last edited:
Update of 9-5 for the era of Obamacare
[video=youtube_share;FHkxVXB37EU]http://youtu.be/FHkxVXB37EU[/video]
[video=youtube_share;FHkxVXB37EU]http://youtu.be/FHkxVXB37EU[/video]
This, like the other antiobamacare ads you have posted simply are not truthfful. They play to biases and fears. If Obamacare was as bad as you and the Koch brothers say it is, they wouldn't need to spend millions on untruthful ads trying to convince people.
Julie, obviously, does not agree. But hey, why should her opinion count for anything? She's just an individual. An individual who had a health plan that she understood and that she liked. An individual who was told by the president that she could keep that plan "no matter what, period" under Obamacare. Now it turns out that she can't, and she's not happy about that.
Forcing someone to accept a major change in their life after repeatedly telling them they would not be forced to change unless they wanted to tends to piss them off and color their opinion of whatever change you are forcing them to accept.
If the new thing is not massively superior to the old, they're going to proclaim the new thing to be absolute shit. Obama is reaping what he sowed.
Oh, how so? Per my previous posts, by her own admission her Obamacare coverage is better than her previous coverage. When questioned by reporters, the answers she gave them are not consistent with the statements and the message contained within the ad. And that has been the case with all of these ads. When you look behind the cover you find they are outright lies.
There are three possibilities for Julie. One, she is not that bright and is unable to comprehend her circumstances. Two, she is a good actress and being paid to make the ad. Three, she is a partisan and facts just don’t matter to her. Personally I think it is a combination of all the above. I don’t think she understands that even with her out of pocket expenses under Obamacare she will be paying less than what she paid in premiums alone prior to Obamacare.
Well when her opinion is just not consistent with her own statements and published fact as is the case with Julie, I think there is substantial reason to question her cognitive abilities and motivation. The unpleasant fact for you is that using Julie’s own statements to the press – which were not included int Koch boy’s ad. Julie is better off under Obamacare than she was prior to Obamacare. It's simply a matter of math.
And as for Obama do you really want him to release a 1,000 page legalistic clarification for every public comment he makes? Funny, you never insisted on that when Bush Junior, as president, talked about his love affair with fish. You had a big conniption over the Obamacare law being two thousand pages, and now you want Obama to issue a compendium every time he makes a statement? A little common sense here goes a long way.
Existing healthcare plans were godfathered into Obamacare. That is a fact. But there was no guarantee that insurance companies would continue to offer those plans. And the facts are, by Julie’s own admission, her Obamacare coverage is better than what she had before. And contrary to the message contained in her ad, it is also cheaper – even with her out of pocket expenses.
Denial is not a river in Egypt. Here are a couple of questions for you. Who wrote Julie’s script for the ad? How much money did the Koch boys pay Julie through their factors for her participation in the ad?
That is not a fact, it's a lie. Not only is it a lie, it's "the lie to the year". The grandfathering rules were written in such a way as to virtually guarantee that no plans would actually be grandfathered in.
You can keep repeating the words, "the Koch brothers" as often as you like. It doesn't work anymore. You need a new boogeyman.
You and your fellow Democrats can throw cancer patients under the bus all you want and write them off as shills for the evil Koch brothers, but there are a lot more of these stories out there, it's going to get pretty crowded under that bus soon.
Oh hogwash. The truth is insurance companies have been cancelling insurance policies for decades. Insurance companies have been changing insurance policies for decades. And now, every time an insurance company cancels an insurance contract you guys want to blame it on Obamacare regardless of the facts.
The fact is Obamacare does grandfather in old insurance contracts. However, it doesn’t allow insurance companies to cancel and issue new policies that are not in compliance with Obamacare requirements.
http://www.dmhc.ca.gov/library/reports/news/fsghp.pdf
http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/insurance/grandfather/
What, you don’t want people to see the men behind the curtains? You offer up ads financed by these special interest groups as evidence, but then you don’t want us to point out the nefarious characters behind the curtains that are making and disseminating this deceitful crap…really?
Ah no. The unfortunate fact for you is that Julie and cancer patients like her are getting better insurance coverage and at less cost than before the implementation of Obamacare. Thanks to Obamacare, there are no longer any caps on the amount of insurance. Insurance companies can no longer cancel qualified insurance plans. That is a simple but unpleasant fact for you and those like you. That is also why folks like the Koch brothers are spending millions on deceitful ads trying to convince people, especially young people, that Obamacare is bad. If Obamacare was as bad as you need it to be, folks like the Koch boys wouldn’t need to spend tens of millions of their dollars in an attempt to convince people Obamacare is bad with deceitful ads. It would be self-evident. If Obamacare is as bad as the ad claims, it would be very evident and the Koch boys wouldn’t need to spend their millions making and disseminating deceitful ads. It is just that simple.
And the truth is I am your worst nightmare. I am not a Democrat. I am a registered Independent. I vote for Republicans and Democrats. Unfortunately, with the radicalization of the Republican Party, I don't have too may choices these days. The last Republican I voted for and gave money to was McCain back in 2000, back when McCain first flew his maverick banner. I was never a big Clinton or Gore fan. I only voted for Gore in 2000 because I really didn't have much to choose from, Gore or the "peaceful coexistence with fish" spoiled rich kid guy who had failed at virtually everything he attempted...I mean really. Unfortunately for you and those like you ad hominem, name calling, is no substitute for fact and reason.
Last edited:
Call it what you want, it is the "lie of the year". Your spin doesn't change that fact. Obama looked the American people in the face and lied to them over, and over, and over again.
That is the fatal conceit of a statist. You know best. You will dictate what kind of insurance these cancer patients should have. If they don't like it, well, they're just stupid or shilling for the Koch brothers.
I'd say it is pretty evident.
You can call yourself an independent if you like, but I'd say you're about as independent as Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Ah, no he didn’t and you have no evidence he did. Insurance companies had the option to continue those plans. President Obama assumed they would. That isn’t a lie. And it doesn’t change the fact that Julie, the lady in the ad, is getting more and better insurance for less cost with Obamacare.
No it isn’t. It’s Julie’s own admission. By her own admission, she now has her “unaffordable” healthcare insurance and it covers more and it costs her less. Obamacare health insurance has no caps on what it will pay as did her previous insurance policy nor can it be canceled when it becomes too expensive for her insurer. That isn’t statist that is just plain fact and common sense and a little math. You still have not answered my questions. Who wrote Julie’s ad script? Who paid Julie for her part in the ad and how much was she paid to say what she said in the ad?
Yes it is very self-evident. Obamacare is not bad. That is why the Koch boys are spending tens of millions trying to convince people it is with their deceptive advertising.
LOL, thank you for the permission, unfortunately anyone left of Genghis Khan is considered leftist by the Republican Party these days.
CNN: Now on your restaurant bill a 1% Obamacare fee
Don't worry, soon that'll be 2% and then 5% and on-wards we go. Isn't Central Planning swell. Lucky for us our Central Planners (the Federal Reserve Central Banksters of New York) who run our Central Bank for the Central Government have a Central Plan centered on helping them - help us, by taxing us more. Life is wonderful in the USSA - if you're part of the top 1% of a Federal Public "Servant" of The People.
Don't worry, soon that'll be 2% and then 5% and on-wards we go. Isn't Central Planning swell. Lucky for us our Central Planners (the Federal Reserve Central Banksters of New York) who run our Central Bank for the Central Government have a Central Plan centered on helping them - help us, by taxing us more. Life is wonderful in the USSA - if you're part of the top 1% of a Federal Public "Servant" of The People.
This isn't new either. It's a partiasn stunt. Others have tried it. It didn't work. It didn't scare people. In fact it backfired and the businesses quickly reversed course. Papa John's is a case in point.
"Papa John’s profits are up 25 percent—that’s why CEO John Schnatter’s threat to cut workers’ hours and raise the price of pizza by up to 14 cents to offset the company’s cost of Obamacare resulted in a widespread boycott of the pizza chain.
“I got in a bunch of trouble for this,” Schnatter said. “That’s what you do, is you pass on costs. Unfortunately, I don’t think people know what they’re going to pay for this.” The Affordable Care Act dictates that companies with 50-plus full-time employees must provide healthcare coverage to those workers. That means some companies will need to cut back on employee hours to avoid added healthcare costs, according to Schnatter.
Earnings Increased But You Can’t Afford to Offer Healthcare?
Schnatter’s announcement came right after President Obama’s reelection (Schnatter hosted a fundraiser for Mitt Romney), which signals that the Affordable Care Act should remain intact.
In the summer, Schnatter said he would have to raise the cost of pizza by 11 to 14 cents per pie because of healthcare reform, yet the company recently reported a 25 percent jump in earnings and is proudly touting that it will give away 2 million free pizzas during the NFL season.
Never mind that CNN refuted that figure, pointing out that many of Papa John’s employees already are part-timers who are not guaranteed company-sponsored healthcare coverage. The company’s own 2011 annual report states that “most restaurant team members [of which there are 14,400] work part-time and are paid on an hourly basis,” suggesting that only the approximately 2,100 full-time employees—who presumably already have coverage—would be impacted. Moreover, many of the chain’s restaurants are owned by franchisees who may not have 50 full-time employees and thus are not responsible for providing coverage.
But even if Schnatter’s estimated cost increases were accurate, this is a company whose adjusted earnings per share for the third quarter of 2012 surpassed the numbers from a year ago by 25 percent. Moreover, Papa John’s third-quarter total revenue jumped 6.5 percent year over year to $325.5 million and domestic company-owned restaurant revenue improved 11.3 percent to $143.4 million. Per its annual report, the company’s 2011 revenue was $1.22 billion."
http://www.diversityinc.com/leadership/papa-johns-ceo-blames-obamacare-for-cutting-workers-hours/
Given the numbers cited in your example, this business is suffering from inept management. It's business was dying before Obamacare. Obamacare will help cure many problems, but it won't cure private sector management ineptitude.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
You have money set aside for when you DO get sick? Or are going to let others pay your bill? You know they cannot just let you die. So unless you have a couple of hundred thousand lying around, don't you think you ought to contribute to the healthcare pool. One thing is sure, you will get sick.
Question is, who do you want to pay for your care without becoming a burden on society and can you guarantee this financially? I am paying a penalty on Bush's Drug bill because I did not sign up because I was not using medications at that time, but at least I know that I am paying into the pool which I will eventually use to pay for my health care.
Healthcare is not a commodity in which you have a choice. Healthcare professionals have no choice but to treat you when something happens to you which lands you in a hospital or under long term medical care.
A single payer system will work as it does in Europe and Canada. We are just too greedy to contribute a dime toward our own "entitlements".
Last edited:
A catastrophic policy, the sort specifically banned under Obamacare, would be low cost and take care of exactly the issue you are addressing.
Well that is not exactly true either. Obamacare allows catastrophic policies for those under 30 and for those over 30 who have certain hardships.
https://www.healthcare.gov/can-i-buy-a-catastrophic-plan/
And I think you are missing the affordability issue. It does no one any good if the insured cannot meet his/her insurance deductible. If the insured cannot pay the deductible, he/she then becomes a liability to everyone else.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I was responding to Sylvester:" I have not had insurance since 1992. What now i gotta buy insurance? "
The point I was making that, unless you are rich (and who is rich today?), if you have no health insurance, eventually you will become a burden to the state (other people), because you WILL get old and sick and require health care.
So the question is if you want to voluntarily share in all the costs or become a parasite. Even if you are rich and can pay for your own health care, you would still be paying for those who will not or cannot pay.
You are right, though I have been very lucky with my health so just never thought much about it. In the past 30 years i only had one prescription for an infected tooth so dont take medications either. Stay off junk food was my main way of avoiding most issues has worked for me, dont do anything where i can break bones or get injured etc. Anyway, went through the process on the health care website and now i finally have insurance. It was a little confusing for me being self employed since I have to figure everything out on my own but got help at the web site...it is for the better so worked out pretty well.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
You know that is a blatant lie!. If any of the top 1% of the richest people are in government (which they are not), it's because you put them there! Don't come crying to me now. You are the Capitalist. It is true, most Senators are milionaires. Thanks to SCOTUS, that is what it takes to get elected nowadays, but that does not put them anywhere near the top 1%. Its the top 1% who "sponsor" (buy) the Representatives of the people.
But I am willing to bet anyone that if you do not get health insurance and you do get sick, you will have no qualms abuot making others pay for your bill. But then of course that is the Capitalist way of free choice to refuse medical care when you are dying. Will you be that principled?
You are not willing to contribute into your own entitlement programs, but you will use it when time comes, I guarantee it. Don't lie or misrepresent facts.