Obamacare backlash: Denny’s franchise owner to add surcharge to customers' bills

[red states rule]

I hope the people who voted for Obama enjoying the results of his re-election. Many companies have sent out layoff notices, and now another restaurant chain has announced reduced hours, layoffs, and higher prices.
A Florida-based restaurateur who oversees about 1,200 employees throughout the south has a new idea for offsetting costs from the Affordable Care Act (http://topics.syracuse.com/tag/Affordable%20Care%20Act/index-oldest.html): A 5 percent surcharge on all of his customers' bills.
John Metz, president and owner of RREMC Restaurants in West Palm Beach, currently runs 40 Denny's and Dairy Queen locations. He also owns five Hurricane Grill & Wings franchises in Florida. He plans to impose the 5 percent surcharge tax in all of his restaurants starting in January of 2014, when the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented.
"Although it may sound terrible that I'm doing this, it's the only alternative," Metz told The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/john-metz-hurricane-grill-wings-dennys_n_2122412.html?utm_hp_ref=small-business). "I've got to pass the cost on to the consumer."
Metz will also be slashing most of his front-of-the-house employees' hours to fewer than 30 hours per week, a tactic that he expects many business owners will use to avoid paying for "Obamacare."
The current law says that employers with more than 50 full-time workers will be charged a penalty for the number of employees exceeding 30 full-time staffers who are not covered. Metz has an average of 35 full-time employees per location, so a $2,000 penalty per employee would total about $70,000 per restaurant. http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/11/dennys_franchisee_imposes_5_pe.html

[tailfins]

I agree with your premise on prices, layoffs, etc. However, Denny's wasn't good before the election. Their food tastes frozen then reheated. They have badly gone downhill over the years. If it were a choice between Denny's and Burger King, I would choose Burger King.

[red states rule]

I agree with your premise on prices, layoffs, etc. However, Denny's wasn't good before the election. Their food tastes frozen then reheated. They have badly gone downhill over the years. If it were a choice between Denny's and Burger King, I would choose Burger King.

Here is the most recent layoffs, cutback, and bankruptcy filings. All since Obama won re-election
Here is the list of domestic layoffs compiled by DailyJobCuts.com (http://www.dailyjobcuts.com/) since Monday of this week:
NBCUniversal – 500 (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-nbcuniversal-cuts-500-employees-20121112,0,2586218.story)

In a round of year-end belt tightening, NBCUniversal is cutting about 500 employees, or about 1.5% of its total workforce. The cuts are distributed throughout the media company, which boasts nearly 30,000 employees, according to a person close to the situation who asked not to be identified discussing the sensitive topic.

Xerox Corp. – 2,500 (http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20121113/BUSINESS/311130035/Xerox?odyssey=nav|head)

On Tuesday, Xerox provided some sketchy details of that restructuring: By the end of the year, 2,500 current employees will be former employees.

Citigroup Inc. – 100 in Long Island NY (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-13/citigroup-discloses-dismissal-of-100-workers-on-long-island)

Citigroup Inc., the third-biggest U.S. bank, is dismissing 100 people on New York’s Long Island as the lender seeks to cut costs amid a slump in revenue.

Atlantic City’s Casinos – Workers Face Layoffs After Sandy (http://www.nbc40.net/story/20086169/atlantic-city-casino-workers-facing-layoffs-in-sandys-aftermath)

ATLANTIC CITY — While gaming numbers in our area have been sluggish in recent months, the situation has intensified since hurricane sandy, and now more and more casino workers are looking at a cut in hours or even partial or permanent lay offs.

Update: Smithfield Foods Inc. Meat Plant VA – Starting Layoffs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/smithfield-foods-to-begin-layoffs-as-part-of-previously-announced-closure-of-va-meat-plant/2012/11/14/cc02d07a-2e74-11e2-b631-2aad9d9c73ac_story.html)

The Smithfield, Va.-based company said layoffs will start at the Portsmouth plant in January and it will close at the end of March. The first layoffs at the Smithfield Packing Co. facility will involve about 120 workers, with more than 400 workers affected by the time plant is closed, said Jeff Gough, Smithfield’s senior vice president for human resources. Employees have been offered transfer opportunities.

Update: Cummins – Starts Layoffs in Indiana (http://indianapublicmedia.org/news/cummins-begins-layoffs-columbus-workers-40137/)

Layoff notices starting going out this week to the engine-maker‘s white-collar workers at its headquaters in Columbus. Job cuts are also expected at Cummins‘ three southern Indiana plants: the Fuel Systems Plant and MidRange Engine Plant in Columbus and the Engine plant in Seymour.

Solel Solar Systems ( International ) – 140+ (http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000798325)

Three years after acquiring Solel Solar Systems in Beit Shemesh, which produces thermo-solar energy systems, Siemens AG (NYSE: SI; DAX: SIE) is firing about 140 of the company’s 430 employees. In contrast to six months ago when 100 employees were fired, mainly production staff, the latest round of layoffs includes engineering and development personnel, following the company’s decision to close down several major projects.

Pierce Manufacturing in Bradenton – Layoffs begin (http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/blog/morning-edition/2012/11/layoffs-to-start-at-pierce.html)

Pierce Manufacturing in Bradenton, a subsidiary of the manufacturer of emergency response vehicles Oshkosh, is beginning its first round of layoffs, which will eventually affect 325 workers.

Hostess – 3 Plant Closing = 627 Jobs Lost (http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20121113_Hostess_closings_to_cut_627_jobs.html)

The world of Twinkies and Wonder Bread threatened to crumble Monday, as a nationwide strike continued and Hostess Brands Inc., the bankrupt owner of the historic products, said it would close three bakeries, eliminating 627 jobs.

Gamesa Energy – 92 Layoff Notices (http://tribune-democrat.com/local/x880896944/Gamesa-announces-new-round-of-layoffs)

Gamesa Energy has issued layoff notices to more than half of its Cambria Township work force. Company officials say 92 of the plant’s 154 workers are expected to be out of work at the plant by early next year.


Update: Wingspan Portfolio Advisors – 459 Possible Layoffs (http://www.wfaa.com/news/business/Dallas-company-issues-layoff-warning-letter-for-459-employees-178917881.html)

DALLAS — Wingspan Portfolio Advisors, a Carrollton-based loan servicing company, will layoff more than a quarter of its workforce at the end of the year.

Wake Forest Baptist Medical NC – 950 Positions by June 2013 (http://www.digtriad.com/news/article/254529/57/Wake-Forest-Baptist-Announce-Layoffs)

In a news release, WFBMC said about half of the layoffs will come from “vacant, temporary and contract labor positions, as well as normal attrition and retirements.” As many as 475 current employees — about 3.5 percent of the company’s workforce — will get pink slips. While the staff reductions won’t be complete until next summer, 76 employees are being laid off this week.

Turkey Point Nuclear Plant FL – 277 Layoffs Possible (http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/news/2012/11/14/bechtel-power-corp-warns-of-277.html)

The 277 employees are to be laid off between Jan. 6 and May 26. The workers include 77 field engineers, 49 superintendents, 44 design engineers and 22 welding field engineers. The employees are not represented by a union. The layoffs are expected to be permanent.


Tooele County UT – 22 (http://www.tooeletranscript.com/view/full_story/20826038/article-Reduction-in-revenue-leads-to-third-round-of-layoffs?instance=home_news_1st_right)

For the third time in the last four months Tooele County has announced a reduction of employees as the Tooele County Commission and county department heads scramble to reduce expenses to meet an unforeseen reduction in revenue.

Glens Falls Hospital NY – 29 (http://poststar.com/news/local/glens-falls-hospital-announces-layoff/article_f1cc6970-2da6-11e2-8784-0019bb2963f4.html)

Glens Falls Hospital announced Tuesday morning it is eliminating 29 jobs and reducing five other employees to part-time status, as part of a cost-reduction program being blamed on “declining reimbursement levels and other economic challenges.”

Bayou Cane, Louisiana – 7 FD Layoffs Likely (http://www.dailycomet.com/article/20121113/ARTICLES/121119896?tc=ar)

The fire chief’s decision to close the station at Savanne Road and Little Bayou Black Drive is the first of several steps intended to make up the money that will be lost when a federal grant expires in 2014. Other planned cuts include laying off seven employees by Jan. 1, eliminating overtime and reducing the number of calls that its trucks respond to each year.

Publishing Firm Lulu in Raleigh – 9 (http://wraltechwire.com/sel-publishing-firm-lulu-makes-job-cuts-in-raleigh/11767146/)

Raleigh-based Lulu (http://www.lulu.com/), which provides self-publishing services around the world, has made layoffs at its headquarters and other locations. The company is owned by Red Hat co-founder Bob Young. Nine positions were cut in Raleigh and an undisclosed number of positions will be affected at other operations, Lulu said.

Hamilton FD Ohio – Possible 2 Closing – 17 Layoffs (http://www.journal-news.com/news/news/fire-study-close-2-fire-houses-cut-175-jobs/nS49L/)

A study by public safety consultants Berkshire Advisors Inc. recommended a number of changes to improve efficiency in the Hamilton Fire Department, including increasing the workweek from 48 to 52 hours. This would reduce staff by nine firefighters and save the city $825,000 in overtime costs, according to the study. The city is projected to spend $1.1 million in overtime costs in 2012.

Dana Corporation – Warns Employees of Poss. Layoffs (http://www.13abc.com/story/20075240/dana-warns-employees-of-layoffs)

TOLEDO, Ohio -Dana Corporation is warning its employees that there could be a large number of layoffs on the way. The Washington Times reports that Dana will likely pay $24 million over the next six years in healthcare expenses and that cost is driving the layoffs.

Mississippi County Arkansas – About 12 Layoffs (http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article/88622/mississippi-county-cuts-15-million-triggering-layoffs)

The Finance Committee of the Mississippi County Quorum Court slashed $1.5 million from the county’s 2013 budget, which will trigger layoffs of about a dozen employees.

The Commercial Appeal – Another Round of Layoffs? (http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/news/2012/11/12/more-layoffs-at-the-commercial-appeal.html)

According to the media-focused blog Mediaverse, The Commercial Appeal has suffered another rounds of layoffs. This time, the cuts involve the advertising department.


The Brattleboro Retreat – 27 Layoffs, 4 Positions Lost (http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20121114/BUSINESS/311140017/Brattleboro-Retreat-shrinks-staff-by-31-slots?odyssey=nav|head&nclick_check=1)

Peter Albert, vice president for external affairs at the Retreat, said management decided to cut positions after reviewing third quarter revenues and expenditures. “Projecting out the fourth quarter, the year would come in at a loss,” he said.

Otsego County NY – 10 Layoffs Possible (http://thedailystar.com/localnews/x15566599/Otsego-could-cut-10-jobs-in-2013)

As the rough parameters of Otsego County’s 2013 budget take shape, it appears that about 10 county jobs will be eliminated and some public services will be reduced, county Treasurer Dan Crowell said Tuesday.

Late additions to the list from Blaze reader tips.


World Media Enterprises – 105 Jobs Cut (http://www.timesdispatch.com/business/world-media-enterprises-cutting-jobs-closing-manassas-paper/article_831a6da8-2e6c-11e2-8c81-0019bb30f31a.html)

World Media Enterprises Inc., the division created earlier this year by Berkshire Hathaway after it purchased most Media General Inc. newspaper properties, including the Richmond Times-Dispatch, today announced it is eliminating 105 jobs, including 33 related to its decision to shutter the News & Messenger in Manassas.

Reports Of Cuts Coming To GE Healthcare In Vermont (http://www.wcax.com/story/20098299/job-cuts-at-ge-healthcare)

SOUTH BURLINGTON, Vt. - More job cuts at GE Healthcare in South Burlington– though how many is unclear. The Vermont location specializes in developing information technology for the health care industry. About 850 people worked there when GE bought out IDX Systems in 2005. There have been several job cuts since then, including at least two others earlier this year.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/more-layoffs-announced-including-500-at-nbc-citibank-and-one-huge-obama-donors-medical-company/
.

[KarlMarx]

Today, John Metz, the owner of 40 Denny’s franchise restaurants in the state of Florida, announced plans to add a 5 percent surcharge to his customers’ bills (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/2012-election/denny-s-owner-john-metz-charge-customers-5-obamacare-surcharge) to pay for his legal responsibility to make available health care coverage to his employees as required by Obamacare (http://www.examiner.com/topic/obamacare). Beginning in 2014, the looming health care law (http://www.healthcare.gov/law/index.html) imposes penalties on businesses with over 50 employees that don't provide "affordable" health care to employees. Here are the details of this portion of the law (http://biztaxlaw.about.com/od/healthcarebusinesstax/f/How-Does-Health-Care-Law-Affect-Business.htm):


Starting in 2014, large businesses (those with 50 or more full-time workers) that do not provide adequate health insurance will be required to pay an assessment if their employees receive premium tax credits to buy their own insurance. These assessments will offset part of the cost of these tax credits. The assessment for a large employer that does not offer coverage will be $2,000 per full-time employee beyond the company's first 30 workers.



remainder of article at http://www.examiner.com/article/obamacare-backlash-denny-s-franchise-owner-to-add-surcharge-to-customers-bills

(http://www.examiner.com/article/obamacare-backlash-denny-s-franchise-owner-to-add-surcharge-to-customers-bills)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

remainder of article at http://www.examiner.com/article/obamacare-backlash-denny-s-franchise-owner-to-add-surcharge-to-customers-bills

(http://www.examiner.com/article/obamacare-backlash-denny-s-franchise-owner-to-add-surcharge-to-customers-bills)


Good, I hope the laid off workers that voted for the bastard get to cry a lot about their GD stupidity. I have no sympathy for his supporters that get exactly what they deserve. Plenty of the coming unemployed people will be waiters and waitresses that voted for the ffing scum. I hope they enjoy their handiwork. -Tyr

[logroller]

It's still operating revenue. Same effect as merely raising prices, like most all businesses have, but the owner obviously wants to make a political statement. Might as well call it, I bitterly hate Obamacare and want to remind every one of my customers fee.

[red states rule]

Great minds think alike Karl http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37800-Denny’s-Pancakes-With-a-Side-of-Obamacare-Tax Can a staff member merge these threads? LR it is more then a "political statement". Obabacre is killing jobs and shoving the already lousy Obama economy deeper into the sewer. Obamacare is nothing more then a massive tax bill (or do you think it is a massive fee bill?) and power grab

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb1116cd20121115093445.jpg

[fj1200]

^It is a political statement when you turn a cost of doing business into a visible surcharge.

[mundame]

It's still operating revenue. Same effect as merely raising prices, like most all businesses have, but the owner obviously wants to make a political statement. Might as well call it, I bitterly hate Obamacare and want to remind every one of my customers fee.


Correctamundo. And it will drive Denny's out of business, too, because nobody likes that stuff.

Park's Seed Co., a very old company I'd traded with for 40 years, started putting on a surcharge for "transportation costs."

It's gone way, way down in competitiveness and I no longer buy from them. I don't know whether it's cause or effect, but once they start that stuff, they're on their way out.

[DragonStryk72]

It's still operating revenue. Same effect as merely raising prices, like most all businesses have, but the owner obviously wants to make a political statement. Might as well call it, I bitterly hate Obamacare and want to remind every one of my customers fee.

Um yeah? If he just raises the prices, the customers will decide it's just to be a dick, or cause he's a greedy bastard for doing so. He's just being as transparent as possible about it. Moreso than our current administration ever will be.

[fj1200]

^1. Nobody would notice 5%, and 2. many potential customers just don't want to be preached to over their Grand Slam.

[jimnyc]

I think the bottom line is that businesses are not going to take a loss. They are in business to make money. So if something like Obamacare is hurting their bottom line, they will find a way to pass the cost along to employees or customers, or both.

[aboutime]

remainder of article at http://www.examiner.com/article/obamacare-backlash-denny-s-franchise-owner-to-add-surcharge-to-customers-bills

(http://www.examiner.com/article/obamacare-backlash-denny-s-franchise-owner-to-add-surcharge-to-customers-bills)


KarlMarx. All anyone needs to do is look back to 2008, when the Democrats and Obama forced his OBAMACARE bill down the throats of Americans. And remember how most of us who saw the writing on the wall. WARNED THEM about what the results would eventually be. Such as this. Not only with Denny's. But let's just keep watching, and notice the growing number of businesses that do exactly the same thing.

Will Obama still blame Bush????

If you are a good, uniformed, easily-led Liberal...Of course you must blame Bush.

[aboutime]

I agree with your premise on prices, layoffs, etc. However, Denny's wasn't good before the election. Their food tastes frozen then reheated. They have badly gone downhill over the years. If it were a choice between Denny's and Burger King, I would choose Burger King.


tailfins. Guess it just depends on where, and what city the Denny's happens to be in these days.

Not only Denny's, but the other Major fast food chains are going down hill too!

The quality of the service seems to be based on HOW happy the workers are to be there that day. Making their Minimum wage, and listening to people COMPLAIN about almost everything. And demanding FIVE STAR treatment in a ZERO STAR joint.

It's only going to get worse.

[DragonStryk72]

^1. Nobody would notice 5%, and 2. many potential customers just don't want to be preached to over their Grand Slam.

Are you joking me? Did you see the outcry when Papa John's announced they would have to raise the price of their pizzas 11 cents?

[Missileman]

We have only seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the economic damage that will occur because of Obamacare. The idiot Dems, who lack any foresight at all, put in place provisions like "employers have to pay a penalty for each full time employee not insured" and then defined full time as more than 30 hours. So, how many businesses are going to cut their full time employees to 29 hours, avoiding both the requirement to pay the penalty and the requirement to provide benefits? My guess is a substantial number will. Now you have all of these employees, who no longer have insurance and, have taken a 25% cut in their annual take home pay. That should really get the country's economic engine running full speed...NOT!

[fj1200]

Are you joking me? Did you see the outcry when Papa John's announced they would have to raise the price of their pizzas 11 cents?

See that "announced" part? That was the political statement they made rather than just increasing the price.

[aboutime]

Are you joking me? Did you see the outcry when Papa John's announced they would have to raise the price of their pizzas 11 cents?


Keep in mind, there is no outcry from Obama followers who are saving their 11 cents with the Free OBAMA Phones.

[DragonStryk72]

See that "announced" part? That was the political statement they made rather than just increasing the price.

People still would have noticed, just like I notice when the price of Oreos goes up. Whether they announce it or not, this is the age of internet, the world will know about it. My evidence: This entire board. We have a guy in Northern Ireland, as well as a Middle Eastern person who post here regularly about US Affairs, even. That's not even anything that effects them, and yet they still know.

They'll notice, just like Borders customers noticed when the Rewards program store credit point went from every $100, to every $150.

[Trigg]

We have only seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the economic damage that will occur because of Obamacare. The idiot Dems, who lack any foresight at all, put in place provisions like "employers have to pay a penalty for each full time employee not insured" and then defined full time as more than 30 hours. So, how many businesses are going to cut their full time employees to 29 hours, avoiding both the requirement to pay the penalty and the requirement to provide benefits? My guess is a substantial number will. Now you have all of these employees, who no longer have insurance and, have taken a 25% cut in their annual take home pay. That should really get the country's economic engine running full speed...NOT!

Not only that, but I believe there is a provision in obamacare that charges a penalty if a person doesn't carry their own PRIVATE insurance.

So these hard working people, get their hours cut, loose their insurance and if they don't buy it themselves. THEY GET A PENALTY.

Thanks to all those who voted the dumb ass back into the whitehouse.

[logroller]

Um yeah? If he just raises the prices, the customers will decide it's just to be a dick, or cause he's a greedy bastard for doing so. He's just being as transparent as possible about it. Moreso than our current administration ever will be.
Oh yeah, 30 cents more on a grand slam breakfast, that greedy prick... covering his costs. Here's a blurb from January 2012--
"Denny's is looking at a very modest menu increase," said Liz Brady, a spokeswoman for the company, CNN Money reported Wednesday.

The South Carolina-based company expects food costs to rise between 3 percent and 5 percent this year, according to Bloomberg. The company, which has more than 1,600 locations, has not said when the change would take effect.
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/01/05/price-increase-first-starbucks-now-dennys

Right after the election, that's when!


We have only seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the economic damage that will occur because of Obamacare. The idiot Dems, who lack any foresight at all, put in place provisions like "employers have to pay a penalty for each full time employee not insured" and then defined full time as more than 30 hours. So, how many businesses are going to cut their full time employees to 29 hours, avoiding both the requirement to pay the penalty and the requirement to provide benefits? My guess is a substantial number will. Now you have all of these employees, who no longer have insurance and, have taken a 25% cut in their annual take home pay. That should really get the country's economic engine running full speed...NOT!
your premise doesn't match your conclusion.
if they didn't have insurance to begin with, they can't cease having it. If they had insurance to begin with, then theres no fine for not having it.

[Kathianne]

We have only seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the economic damage that will occur because of Obamacare. The idiot Dems, who lack any foresight at all, put in place provisions like "employers have to pay a penalty for each full time employee not insured" and then defined full time as more than 30 hours. So, how many businesses are going to cut their full time employees to 29 hours, avoiding both the requirement to pay the penalty and the requirement to provide benefits? My guess is a substantial number will. Now you have all of these employees, who no longer have insurance and, have taken a 25% cut in their annual take home pay. That should really get the country's economic engine running full speed...NOT!

I agree, in actuality, I think Obama consciously or not, has created a perfect storm to change many employers and employee relations. Indeed, it may change families.

Many folks making between $50-100k per year are college grads in positions that have 0 to do with their 'majors.' Their attaining a degree was an entry into 'trainable' positions. Yes, they can learn.

Now though, the focus on Obamacare and health care's escalating costs, the former doesn't seem a panacea to curtailing the later.

So, there are literally millions of trainable college grads, begging for jobs. Many are working minimum wage or close to it, often without benefits, being part-time. Fire one employee at $75k, hire 2 new employees at 25-29 hours each. Pay them $25-30 an hour. No pensions, no benefits.

[Robert A Whit]

remainder of article at http://www.examiner.com/article/obamacare-backlash-denny-s-franchise-owner-to-add-surcharge-to-customers-bills

(http://www.examiner.com/article/obamacare-backlash-denny-s-franchise-owner-to-add-surcharge-to-customers-bills)

Notice that the rule stipulates full time workers. This is why other companies chose to cut workers back to 30 hours and then hire somebody else to pick up the slack. Avoiding paying.

Also, the US SC stipulated that the people do not have to purchase insurance.

[Robert A Whit]

Oh yeah, 30 cents more on a grand slam breakfast, that greedy prick... covering his costs. Here's a blurb from January 2012-- http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/01/05/price-increase-first-starbucks-now-dennys

Right after the election, that's when!


your premise doesn't match your conclusion.
if they didn't have insurance to begin with, they can't cease having it. If they had insurance to begin with, then theres no fine for not having it.


So, are insurance premiums going up as republicans said they would or down as Obama promised?

Insurance agents are in line to get very rich.

[jafar00]

That's the difference between the USA and Australia. A company Director lost his job for suggesting that his stores hike prices and blame it on the carbon tax. So when is the Denny's boss leaving?


The head of one of Australia's largest bakery franchises, Brumby's bakery, has resigned after urging store owners to put up their prices and blame the hikes on the carbon tax.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/brumbys-boss-quits-over-carbon-tax-pricehike-memo-20120706-21lxs.html#ixzz2CT0S8ZuN

[SassyLady]

^It is a political statement when you turn a cost of doing business into a visible surcharge.

Would it have been a "cost of doing business" if Obamacare had not been implemented? Or, are you saying that the owner was planning on raising prices by that same percentage anyway? If so, then he is not making any more profit than he originally was making.

[red states rule]

Oh yeah, 30 cents more on a grand slam breakfast, that greedy prick... covering his costs. Here's a blurb from January 2012-- http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/01/05/price-increase-first-starbucks-now-dennys

Right after the election, that's when!


your premise doesn't match your conclusion.
if they didn't have insurance to begin with, they can't cease having it. If they had insurance to begin with, then theres no fine for not having it.

It is 30 cents for EVERY Grand Slam breakfast sold. How many are sold per day and then multiply that by all of his stores, then take the math out for one year. Also, add in the money for lost wages as the full time workers see their hours taken to below 30 hours. This man is trying to grow his business, finance the lifestyle for his employees, and make a profit. If not for Obama, Dems, and liberal do-gooders he would not have raise prices, cut workers and their hours, and worry about the future of his business and INVESTMENT. My God what the hell were the voters thinking when they gave their approval for this nightmare to continue for another 4 years?

[red states rule]

Would it have been a "cost of doing business" if Obamacare had not been implemented? Or, are you saying that the owner was planning on raising prices by that same percentage anyway? If so, then he is not making any more profit than he originally was making.

It is happening at Red Lobster, Taxes Roadhouse, Papa Johns, Olive Garden, and major companies are laying off workers and cutting overhead. If you thought the last 4 years were bad - you have not seen anything yet
The list of companies trying to protect themselves from the president’s destructive legislation and economic and regulatory polices is a long one.
Top among them is Murray Energy (http://www.ohiovalleycoal.com/), the nation’s largest independently owned coal company, which directly blamed the reelection of Obama for layoffs. The company has grown from its production of one million tons of coal after its founding in 1988 to 30 million tons today, its website says (http://www.ohiovalleycoal.com/history.shtml).
Murray Energy immediately chopped (http://www.wtov9.com/news/news/murray-energy-confirms-layoffs-three-subsidiaries/nS2qF/) 163 positions at facilities in Ohio, Utah, Illinois, and West Virginia.
Robert E. Murray (http://www.ohiovalleycoal.com/message.shtml), chairman of the giant coal concern, read a prayer to his executives and offered a list of what he sees coming now that Obama is in control for another four years, reported the Intelligencer and News-Register of Wheeling, West Virginia.
The American people have made their choice. They have decided that America must change its course, away from the principals of our Founders. And, away from the idea of individual freedom and individual responsibility. Away from capitalism, economic responsibility, and personal acceptance.
We are a Country in favor of redistribution, national weakness and reduced standard of living and lower and lower levels of personal freedom....
The takers outvoted the producers. In response to this, I have turned to my Bible and in II Peter, Chapter 1, verses 4-9 it says, “To faith we are to add goodness; to goodness, knowledge; to knowledge, self control; to self control, perseverance; to perseverance, godliness; to godliness, kindness; to brotherly kindness, love.”
Lord, please forgive me and anyone with me in Murray Energy Corp. for the decisions that we are now forced to make to preserve the very existence of any of the enterprises that you have helped us build. We ask for your guidance in this drastic time with the drastic decisions that will be made to have any hope of our survival as an American business enterprise.
Amen.
Murray foresees “drastically reduced economic activity,” the newspaper reported, “reduced electric power consumption,” “even more drastically reduced coal markets with even worse coal pricing,” and “total destruction of the coal industry by 2030.”
According to (http://www.ohiovalleycoal.com/history.shtml) its website, Murray “employs 3,000 people in some of the most economic depressed regions in the United States,” which didn’t matter much to Obama. When he ran for president the first time, he promised to destroy the coal industry: “If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant,” Obama told (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRl5HWZS6JY) the San Francisco Chronicle, “they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them.”
And that’s just the coal business.
From sea to shining sea, companies are downsizing (http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/grusbf5/good-morning-america-heres-those-layoffs-you-voted) — and quickly (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how-many-businesses-have-announced-closings-or-lay-offs-since-obama-won-a-second-term/).
Another top industry affected by this administration’s drive toward collectivization is the medical device business, which ObamaCare hits with a 2.3-percent excise tax. But companies moved to protect themselves before the election.
For instance, Stryker Corporation (http://www.stryker.com/), according to Medical Marketing and Media, said it would “eliminate 5% of its global workforce as part of an effort to realize $100 million in annual productivity gains to offset the hit when the excise tax takes effect in 2013.”
According to (http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/oct/27/shirley-medical-device-tax-will-impact-jobs-and/) a report in the Ventura County Star in late October,
Boston Scientific anticipates $100 million in additional taxes next year, with layoffs to follow. Medtronic estimates a $175 million loss in 2013 and will cut 1,000 workers. Stryker plans 1,170 job cuts.
Other medical manufacturers will follow: Smith & Nephew, with 770 layoffs; Abbott Labs, 700; Covidien, 595; Kinetic Concepts, 427; St. Jude Medical, 300; Welch Allyn 275; and Hill Rom, 200.
In January, medical device manufacturers in the U.S. will be asked to take a 2.3 percent hit to their bottom line in the form of a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices, part of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.
The 2.3 percent tax will be imposed on gross sales of products from elastic bandages to pacemakers to imaging systems. Although the tax is intended to raise $28.5 billion over 10 years to help cover the costs of Obamacare, opponents warn there will be unintended consequences.
The reelection of Obama won’t help that picture.
Companies are also shifting to more part-time workers to avoid the high cost of ObamaCare, as FreeEnterprise.com explained (http://www.freeenterprise.com/health-care/health-care-law-could-push-workers-part-time-jobs):
Under the health care law, if a company has more than 50 “full time equivalent” workers, a combination of full and part-time employees, but doesn’t offer “affordable” coverage that meets the government’s minimum value standard, the company will have to pay a penalty.
This penalty is determined by the number of full-time employees minus 30 full-time employees. So to reiterate a very important point: part-time workers are not part of the penalty formula. The health care law creates a perverse incentive to hire part-time versus full-time workers.
Thus, the Kroger (http://www.kroger.com/Pages/Default029.aspx) grocery store chain, which employs 350,000 workers and would face huge penalties under ObamaCare, has altered (http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012/11/red-alert-kroger-to-slash-hourly.html) the hours of its (non-exempt) hourly workers, as has (http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2012/10/10/darden-restaurants-limits-worker-hours.html) the Darden restaurant chain, which operates Red Lobster and Olive Garden.
That said, other reports of layoffs include Vestas (http://www.vestas.com/), a wind company that will cut (http://earthfix.opb.org/energy/article/more-layoffs-for-major-wind-company/) 3,700 employees by the end of 2012 and 3,000 by the end of 2013, Cigna health insurance (http://www.kten.com/story/20049247/cigna-to-lay-off-1300) (1,300), TE Connectivity (http://www.bizjournals.com/triad/news/2012/11/08/te-connectivity-to-close-greensboro.html) (620), Energizer Holdings (http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/energizer-to-slash-workforce-by-percent-close-three-factories/article_2a72c60e-29e8-5a71-94c9-2d4a3b34a0fe.html) (1,500, 10 percent of it workforce), Turbocare (http://www.rep-am.com/Business/681890.txt) (220), U.S. Cellular (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20121107/NEWS08/121109803/u-s-cellular-drops-chicago-cuts-640-local-jobs) (640), First Energy (http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/11/firstenergy_third_quarter_earn.html) (400 by 2016), and many more.
Almost all these reports appeared a day or two after the election, which might mean executives had planned for layoffs some time ago, then executed them when another electoral disaster hit the increasingly leftist GOP.
Boehner at Peace With ObamaCare
For his his part, Boehner has made his peace with ObamaCare, noting that the reelection of the president means his fight against the bill is over, although Republicans might make a half-hearted effort to tweak the worst parts of the law.
Asked by ABC News' Diane Sawyer whether repealing the healthcare law is “still your mission,” Boehner replied, "The election changes that. It’s pretty clear that the president was reelected; Obamacare is the law of the land.”
SAWYER: But you won't be spending the time next year trying to repeal Obamacare?
BOEHNER: There are certainly maybe parts of it that we believe need to be changed, we may do that. No decisions at this point.
Boehner did not, apparently, explain why Republicans cannot use other measures to disable the bill, such as refusing to provide appropriations for it. The Constitution provides (http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag23_user.html) that all tax and spending bills must arise in the House of Representatives. Were the GOP to refuse to fund ObamaCare, it could not be implemented.
Indeed, as The New American reported (http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag23_user.html) in September, the Pacific Legal Foundation is pursuing exactly that avenue to overturn the bill on constitutional grounds, arguing that because ObamaCare originated in the Senate, it is invalid.
Ironically, it was the Supreme Court’s ruling (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf) that the penalties associated with ObamaCare regulations are taxes that makes it unconstitutional.http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/item/13619-layoffs-begin-after-obama-reelected

[logroller]

So, are insurance premiums going up as republicans said they would or down as Obama promised?

Insurance agents are in line to get very rich.
forgive me, but I don't put much stock in what politicians say. The facts are there for those who care to look. Healthcare expenses have increased dramatically over the last 40 years, and withbaby boomers retiring, it's going to increase more so.
mine went up in 2002 and again in 2007. Based on that interval, I should expect another hike. Havent had one yet though. I expect increases over time. The insurance industry is clamoring to handle a huge influx of new customers to the market; 30 million people; ever heard of supply and demand? More demand plus supply shortage/lag results in price increases. It's pretty basic economics. There are things which can be done to decrease that supply lag. Has your state established an exchange program yet? Have you contacted your insurer to find out what plans they've submitted? Or have you just sat back, cursed the whole thing and stamped your feet as many state and federal legislators have?
Prices will go up more so if people fight every step of the way; hope you enjoy being right so much. theres an expression, when God gives you lemons, curse the lemons and squirt them in an own wound. Oh wait, make lemonade.
I haven't lived as long as most here, but I've seen some booms and busts. First the dotcoms, then real estate, next is healthcare. Why would you disparage insurers for trying to turn a buck? You should be trying to get in now, on the ground floor.


Would it have been a "cost of doing business" if Obamacare had not been implemented? Or, are you saying that the owner was planning on raising prices by that same percentage anyway? If so, then he is not making any more profit than he originally was making.
i don't think FJ said anything about excessive profits.
i posted an article from January stating Denny's was going to raise prices 3-5% due to increased food costs-- this Obamacare surcharge is 5%. Coincidence?

[red states rule]

LR Obamacare was NEVER designed to provide health ins for those who do not have it or cannot not afford it. Obamacare is costing over ONE TRILLION dollars and you could take half that amount and buy a policy for those who do not have coverage. If was nothing but a f'ing tax bill and it is increasing the size and cost of government - which is something that always makes libs swell with pride

[logroller]

It is 30 cents for EVERY Grand Slam breakfast sold. How many are sold per day and then multiply that by all of his stores, then take the math out for one year. Also, add in the money for lost wages as the full time workers see their hours taken to below 30 hours. This man is trying to grow his business, finance the lifestyle for his employees, and make a profit. If not for Obama, Dems, and liberal do-gooders he would not have raise prices, cut workers and their hours, and worry about the future of his business and INVESTMENT. My God what the hell were the voters thinking when they gave their approval for this nightmare to continue for another 4 years?
Choosing to ignore the announcement that Denny's was increasing their prices due to food costs?
It's ok rsr; keeping spouting the same thing that got Obama reelected.
The people were thinking that conservatives have done nothing but transfer wealth away from the people and blame it in them. Maybe it's their fault, maybe it's not. But your acerbic tone is what won Obama the election. I've been saying cons need to chill out with their blame game name- calling, but you didn't listen. Just like I'm saying now you need to focus on implementing the ACA in the most efficient way possible. 30 cents on grand slam isn't a very efficient means of influencing its outcome; it just irritates people. Including those who might be open to changing their opinion.

[red states rule]

Choosing to ignore the announcement that Denny's was increasing their prices due to food costs?
It's ok rsr; keeping spouting the same thing that got Obama reelected.
The people were thinking that conservatives have done nothing but transfer wealth away from the people and blame it in them. Maybe it's their fault, maybe it's not. But your acerbic tone is what won Obama the election. I've been saying cons need to chill out with their blame game name- calling, but you didn't listen. Just like I'm saying now you need to focus on implementing the ACA in the most efficient way possible. 30 cents on grand slam isn't a very efficient means of influencing its outcome; it just irritates people. Including those who might be open to changing their opinion.
It is hardly news LR that food prices are going up. They have been soaring along with the cost of gas, energy, and everything else. I have seen that for the last 3 years every time I go to the store. What name calling LR? I have made it clear Obama won because he has divided the nation into takers and producers. and the takers now outnumber the producers. that is not name calling that is telling the truth.
The 30 cents is just part of the cost LR. Ask the workers who have lost their job since last Tuesday what they think. Or all the closings that companies have announced since last Tuesday. and the numbers keep going up everyday. I ham irritated that a majority of people now think they are entitled to "free" stuff and do not care that someone else is paying for it

[logroller]

LR Obamacare was NEVER designed to provide health ins for those who do not have it or cannot not afford it. Obamacare is costing over ONE TRILLION dollars and you could take half that amount and buy a policy for those who do not have coverage. If was nothing but a f'ing tax bill and it is increasing the size and cost of government - which is something that always makes libs swell with pride
buy a policy from who? For who? I prefer to choose my own policy. It's more efficient that way.
It was never designed as "Obamacare", it's the patient protection and affordable care act. Ppaca, or just ACA for short. it absolutely was designed to provide 30 million people with insurance. Have you checked on the exchange program being designed in you state? Didn't think so. Just more regurgitated talking points. Keep it up, dems in 2016 are counting on it.

[red states rule]

buy a policy from who? For who? I prefer to choose my own policy. It's more efficient that way.
It was never designed as "Obamacare", it's the patient protection and affordable care act. Ppaca, or just ACA for short. it absolutely was designed to provide 30 million people with insurance. Have you checked on the exchange program being designed in you state? Didn't think so. Just more regurgitated talking points. Keep it up, dems in 2016 are counting on it.

Eh, how about an insurance company. We are talking about spending HALF of the cost of Obamacare LR. That is over $500 BILLION!! LR, this tax bill is costing jobs right now, and it will RATION care. You can continue to ignore what is going on around you and believe your very naïve liberal do gooder fantasy - but this will do for health care what libs did for the housing industry. My God LR people are losing their full time status, their benefits, we are seeing costs passed onto us, and FEWER people will get on the job coverage in the long run. We see the IRS hiring THOUSANDS of new tax collectors so much for the plan to be only to provide coverage for those who do not have it. Not to mention the money Obamacare adds to the deficit and national debt. Thanks a lot LR

[logroller]

It is hardly news LR that food prices are going up. They have been soaring along with the cost of gas, energy, and everything else. I have seen that for the last 3 years every time I go to the store. What name calling LR? I have made it clear Obama won because he has divided the nation into takers and producers. and the takers now outnumber the producers. that is not name calling that is telling the truth.
The 30 cents is just part of the cost LR. Ask the workers who have lost their job since last Tuesday what they think. Or all the closings that companies have announced since last Tuesday. and the numbers keep going up everyday. I ham irritated that a majority of people now think they are entitled to "free" stuff and do not care that someone else is paying for it
Wrong, Obama won because he talked about We; you just keep talking about us vs them. You're the divisive one.
Truth is not fact; its based on faith, and faith is prone to prejudice. People are hiring. I got a job since last Tuesday. Good for me I guess. I chose a field that is experiencing growth; maybe those laid off should do the same. But if they cannot and get sick, I don't have a problem funding their access to health care. People get sick, I wish them well. But I can't sit inside a doctors office all day and wait to see who can't afford it. Are their concerns over ACA; of course. It's a huge undertaking; but instead complaining constantly, maybe try participating in such a way that the costs can be lessened.

Btw, calling people 'Libs' is name- calling;

[red states rule]

Wrong, Obama won because he talked about We; you just keep talking about us vs them. You're the divisive one.
Truth is not fact; its based on faith, and faith is prone to prejudice. People are hiring. I got a job since last Tuesday. Good for me I guess. I chose a field that is experiencing growth; maybe those laid off should do the same. But if they cannot and get sick, I don't have a problem funding their access to health care. People get sick, I wish them well. But I can't sit inside a doctors office all day and wait to see who can't afford it. Are their concerns over ACA; of course. It's a huge undertaking; but instead complaining constantly, maybe try participating in such a way that the costs can be lessened.

Btw, calling people 'Libs' is name- calling;
He did not talk about WE LR he talked about punishing achievement. Class warfare. How you need government to survive. Julia and cradle to grave handouts paid for by someone else. LR wake the hell up and look at the people who have lost their job since the election http://www.dailyjobcuts.com/#.UJwVDQHUOEh.facebook If you honestly think government run healthcare is cheaper and more efficient then private run healthcare I pity you and your thought process

[Missileman]

your premise doesn't match your conclusion.
if they didn't have insurance to begin with, they can't cease having it. If they had insurance to begin with, then theres no fine for not having it.

There is no conflict between my premise and conclusion.

There are currently employees who are getting employer-subsidized insurance who are going to be forced to find a new insurance carrier, or at least start a new non-subsidized policy with their current insurance company, when their employer stops providing health insurance. That insurance is highly likely to be more expensive since they're no longer getting "group" rates. Lot's of them will be unable to afford it having just taken a 25% cut in salary.

[red states rule]

There is no conflict between my premise and conclusion.

There are currently employees who are getting employer-subsidized insurance who are going to be forced to find a new insurance carrier, or at least start a new non-subsidized policy with their current insurance company, when their employer stops providing health insurance. That insurance is highly likely to be more expensive since they're no longer getting "group" rates. Lot's of them will be unable to afford it having just taken a 25% cut in salary.

I remember being told how the cost of coverage would go DOWN. Well benefit enrollment ended yesterday and I saw the cost of my coverage spike just like the cost of everything else. Thanks a lot LR. You are your fellow Obama supporters are really doing a great job of sticking it to America and those of us still lucky enough to have a job

[Missileman]

It is happening at Red Lobster, Taxes Roadhouse, Papa Johns, Olive Garden, and major companies are laying off workers and cutting overhead. If you thought the last 4 years were bad - you have not seen anything yet

LOL...no RSR...Taxes Roadhouse will be the franchise name after Obama takes them over like GM.

[red states rule]

LOL...no RSR...Taxes Roadhouse will be the franchise name after Obama takes them over like GM.

At least it was a funny typo. Thanks for finding it MM :salute:

[aboutime]

At least it was a funny typo. Thanks for finding it MM :salute:


Looks like somewhat of a FREUDIAN Slip that makes you laugh as well. Good stuff.

[logroller]

He did not talk about WE LR he talked about punishing achievement. Class warfare. How you need government to survive. Julia and cradle to grave handouts paid for by someone else. LR wake the hell up and look at the people who have lost their job since the election http://www.dailyjobcuts.com/#.UJwVDQHUOEh.facebook If you honestly think government run healthcare is cheaper and more efficient then private run healthcare I pity you and your thought process
No pity for me; I have a great new job and a beautiful family (with insurance)
But I don't believe govt run healthcare is better; nor does the healthcare law prescribe government delivered health care. I pity your thought process if you believe it does. There is only one government institution which provides healthcare-- the VA. As far as I am aware, ppaca doesn't concern the VA.

There is no conflict between my premise and conclusion.

There are currently employees who are getting employer-subsidized insurance who are going to be forced to find a new insurance carrier, or at least start a new non-subsidized policy with their current insurance company, when their employer stops providing health insurance. That insurance is highly likely to be more expensive since they're no longer getting "group" rates. Lot's of them will be unable to afford it having just taken a 25% cut in salary.
you said the full-time employee was uninsured; then you said he would lose hours so the employer could avoid that requirement. Then you said he'd lose insurance. He never had insurance in your example; then you claim he'd lose it. Your logic failed. I highlighted that.
Now "group" insurance rates I have an issue with. Not that groups shouldn't be able to bargain collectively, no problem there IMO, but that the "group" is defined by the employer-- that I have a problem with. Choices are what make a market flourish. When those choices are limited, the market suffers. Part of the ACA is the creation of market exchanges for health insurance. This would/could/ should allow for a "group" to be formed by any number of participants; even more than the number who are represented by a group of coworkers. So the group discount will not only still be available, but will be represented in even greater numbers and have more extensive options. That is, if people actively participate in its construction.

[taft2012]

I agree with your premise on prices, layoffs, etc. However, Denny's wasn't good before the election. Their food tastes frozen then reheated. They have badly gone downhill over the years. If it were a choice between Denny's and Burger King, I would choose Burger King.

I don't understand your point here.

So because you prefer Burger King's food to Denny's, Obamacare is OK? Or is it that Denny's is poorly run and can not deal with Obamacare as well as Burger King? How is your preference for one restaurant's food over another's relevant to how Obamacare is impacting them?

Or were you just being completely irrelevant to the subject?

[Missileman]

No pity for me; I have a great new job and a beautiful family (with insurance)
But I don't believe govt run healthcare is better; nor does the healthcare law prescribe government delivered health care. I pity your thought process if you believe it does. There is only one government institution which provides healthcare-- the VA. As far as I am aware, ppaca doesn't concern the VA.

you said the full-time employee was uninsured; then you said he would lose hours so the employer could avoid that requirement. Then you said he'd lose insurance. He never had insurance in your example; then you claim he'd lose it. Your logic failed. I highlighted that.
Now "group" insurance rates I have an issue with. Not that groups shouldn't be able to bargain collectively, no problem there IMO, but that the "group" is defined by the employer-- that I have a problem with. Choices are what make a market flourish. When those choices are limited, the market suffers. Part of the ACA is the creation of market exchanges for health insurance. This would/could/ should allow for a "group" to be formed by any number of participants; even more than the number who are represented by a group of coworkers. So the group discount will not only still be available, but will be represented in even greater numbers and have more extensive options. That is, if people actively participate in its construction.

There are currently companies that don't offer insurance that are going to have to under Obamacare OR pay a penalty for every uninsured full-time employee. Say goodbye to their full-time employees. There are also companies that currently subsidize their employees' insurance in part or wholly. IMO, these companies will do the same in order to stay competitive or to put more profit in their pockets. Either way, say goodbye to their full-time employees as well.
My point still stands...these workers are going to take a 25% cut in salary AND have to maintain or procure insurance. As was pointed out by another poster, to add insult to injury, if the 25% cut in salary makes you unable to afford insurance, the federal government will help you out with a <strike>tax</strike> penalty.

[aboutime]

There are currently companies that don't offer insurance that are going to have to under Obamacare OR pay a penalty for every uninsured full-time employee. Say goodbye to their full-time employees. There are also companies that currently subsidize their employees' insurance in part or wholly. IMO, these companies will do the same in order to stay competitive or to put more profit in their pockets. Either way, say goodbye to their full-time employees as well.
My point still stands...these workers are going to take a 25% cut in salary AND have to maintain or procure insurance. As was pointed out by another poster, to add insult to injury, if the 25% cut in salary makes you unable to afford insurance, the federal government will help you out with a <strike>tax</strike> penalty.


Missileman. Perhaps we need to get together and figure a way to use SIGN LANGUAGE that Logroller might understand, better than the typed, English words we use here.

Seems like, no matter how you try to explain what appears to be representative of 'common sense', and 'logic' to some. The Peg just never seems to fit into the hole...called comprehension. And it all becomes more Liberal Jibberish.

[Robert A Whit]

I agree with your premise on prices, layoffs, etc. However, Denny's wasn't good before the election. Their food tastes frozen then reheated. They have badly gone downhill over the years. If it were a choice between Denny's and Burger King, I would choose Burger King.

I ate a fish sandwich at Burker King one time this year and it has been at least 15 years since I last ate at Dennys.

For a cheap and very good breakfast, I enjoy Nations. And their hamburgers are first rate.
But since Dinos is so close, I end up there more than other places. But I usually prefer fixing my own meals.

So, Denny's can double their prices and not affect me.

[Kathianne]

There are currently companies that don't offer insurance that are going to have to under Obamacare OR pay a penalty for every uninsured full-time employee. Say goodbye to their full-time employees. There are also companies that currently subsidize their employees' insurance in part or wholly. IMO, these companies will do the same in order to stay competitive or to put more profit in their pockets. Either way, say goodbye to their full-time employees as well.
My point still stands...these workers are going to take a 25% cut in salary AND have to maintain or procure insurance. As was pointed out by another poster, to add insult to injury, if the 25% cut in salary makes you unable to afford insurance, the federal government will help you out with a <strike>tax</strike> penalty.

We're on the same page.

[Kathianne]

Oh yeah, 30 cents more on a grand slam breakfast, that greedy prick... covering his costs. Here's a blurb from January 2012-- http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/01/05/price-increase-first-starbucks-now-dennys

Right after the election, that's when!


your premise doesn't match your conclusion.
if they didn't have insurance to begin with, they can't cease having it. If they had insurance to begin with, then theres no fine for not having it.

There are fines for an employer not providing and also for citizen not having.

[logroller]

There are currently companies that don't offer insurance that are going to have to under Obamacare OR pay a penalty for every uninsured full-time employee. Say goodbye to their full-time employees. There are also companies that currently subsidize their employees' insurance in part or wholly. IMO, these companies will do the same in order to stay competitive or to put more profit in their pockets. Either way, say goodbye to their full-time employees as well.
My point still stands...these workers are going to take a 25% cut in salary AND have to maintain or procure insurance. As was pointed out by another poster, to add insult to injury, if the 25% cut in salary makes you unable to afford insurance, the federal government will help you out with a <strike>tax</strike> penalty.You ignore that the federal government gives assistance in the form of subsidies for insurance. In fact, for the situation you describe to occur, an employee must receive federal subsidies on insurance--in such a case, therefor, the aforementioned employee would likely have insurance, thus not be subject to the tax penalty.


There are fines for an employer not providing and also for citizen not having.
. Those fines for the individual (at their max in 2016) are 2.5% of income or $695 (whichever is greater) So taking mm's example of someon working 29 hrs/wk, 52 weeks/yr, $8/hr , they make a little over $12k-- the fine is $695. But they make $12k/yr, placing them solidly below the 133% of poverty line ($14k/yr) to qualify for Medicaid. So unless they just didn't want to fill out the paperwork, they'd have insurance and not be subject to the fine tax penalty what have you.
Im a little curious how many here have a dog in this fight-- who doesn't have health insurance here? Who here employs 50 or more people?

[fj1200]

People still would have noticed, just like I notice when the price of Oreos goes up. Whether they announce it or not, this is the age of internet, the world will know about it. My evidence: This entire board. We have a guy in Northern Ireland, as well as a Middle Eastern person who post here regularly about US Affairs, even. That's not even anything that effects them, and yet they still know.

They'll notice, just like Borders customers noticed when the Rewards program store credit point went from every $100, to every $150.

Customers noticing a price increase and customers being told that a price increase, and a highly visible surcharge at that, is because of Obamacare are two different things. Besides, I get pizza from PJ's quite often and I have no idea what the rack rate is on the Hawaiian BBQ Chicken Pizza. Yum BTW. The market will bear what the market will bear.


Would it have been a "cost of doing business" if Obamacare had not been implemented? Or, are you saying that the owner was planning on raising prices by that same percentage anyway? If so, then he is not making any more profit than he originally was making.

:dunno: The protest here is against a highly visible new "cost of doing business;" without BO-Care no new cost. The market would punish him severely if he attempted to increase his profits via a surcharge I'm sure.

[Robert A Whit]

forgive me, but I don't put much stock in what politicians say. The facts are there for those who care to look. Healthcare expenses have increased dramatically over the last 40 years, and withbaby boomers retiring, it's going to increase more so.
mine went up in 2002 and again in 2007. Based on that interval, I should expect another hike. Havent had one yet though. I expect increases over time. The insurance industry is clamoring to handle a huge influx of new customers to the market; 30 million people; ever heard of supply and demand? More demand plus supply shortage/lag results in price increases. It's pretty basic economics. There are things which can be done to decrease that supply lag. Has your state established an exchange program yet? Have you contacted your insurer to find out what plans they've submitted? Or have you just sat back, cursed the whole thing and stamped your feet as many state and federal legislators have?
Prices will go up more so if people fight every step of the way; hope you enjoy being right so much. theres an expression, when God gives you lemons, curse the lemons and squirt them in an own wound. Oh wait, make lemonade.
I haven't lived as long as most here, but I've seen some booms and busts. First the dotcoms, then real estate, next is healthcare. Why would you disparage insurers for trying to turn a buck? You should be trying to get in now, on the ground floor.

The FACTS are obscure that go to explaining the market.

My belief on rising health costs is elementary.

When people are frightened, either by their own declining health, or as often happens, the woman pushes for more doctors visits (what man has not been urged by a spouse or GF to please, go see the doctor?) and women have the babies which as it turns out is not cheap to deliver said child much less she will want almost daily attention from a doctorm it leads to higher health costs. Demand is high. When demand is high, prices go up. The number of doctors per 100 people is not keeping up. America has had to rely on foreign doctors moving here for medical attention.

Now, when any doctor notices that the bill payer has lots of cash,such as insurance companies or the government, one way to enrich the doctor is to keep raising prices.

Too much demand, too few doctors is the formula for high healh costs.

Women I believe are the major demand on the health market. They won't want to go broke paying the doctor so they make sure if they have the money that they buy insurance.

Women as it turns out act on emotion and den't bother to do the math.

Say she saves the insurance premium in her own account,. She has a slush fund for health costs. Say she does get insurance but the deductable is pretty high. She has the slush fund for the co pay.

Most of them won't think that way.

As it turned out, Obama's law is designed to funnel more cash to insurance companies. But along with that the doctors will be burdened with many more customers. With insurance, people will go to doctors many more times than they actually need to. They can't find a doctor who can cure the common cold, but they still go to the doctor because in therir mind, they must get value for the insurance premium they pay.

Insurance adds to the problem as does the Government.

When they force tinker with a natural market, bad things happen.

[Robert A Whit]

Companies can't get insurance as cheap as $2,000 so their smart move is to pay that and not insurance. They net more cash. Indeed, they may decide to pay the worker the difference.

[fj1200]

Choices are what make a market flourish. When those choices are limited, the market suffers. Part of the ACA is the creation of market exchanges for health insurance. This would/could/ should allow for a "group" to be formed by any number of participants; even more than the number who are represented by a group of coworkers. So the group discount will not only still be available, but will be represented in even greater numbers and have more extensive options. That is, if people actively participate in its construction.

But the TRUE problem with our HC system is the over-regulation we are stuck with plus the complete disconnect between consumers of HC and the providers of HC. The folly in the approach that our government took in "solving" the problem was not to analyze the true problem but to decide how close to nationalized HC they could get and still get it passed.

[Robert A Whit]

You ignore that the federal government gives assistance in the form of subsidies for insurance. In fact, for the situation you describe to occur, an employee must receive federal subsidies on insurance--in such a case, therefor, the aforementioned employee would likely have insurance, thus not be subject to the tax penalty.


. Those fines for the individual (at their max in 2016) are 2.5% of income or $695 (whichever is greater) So taking mm's example of someon working 29 hrs/wk, 52 weeks/yr, $8/hr , they make a little over $12k-- the fine is $695. But they make $12k/yr, placing them solidly below the 133% of poverty line ($14k/yr) to qualify for Medicaid. So unless they just didn't want to fill out the paperwork, they'd have insurance and not be subject to the fine tax penalty what have you.
Im a little curious how many here have a dog in this fight-- who doesn't have health insurance here? Who here employs 50 or more people?

My dog in the fight is my children.

I am receiving Medicare. Premium costs $120 per month and SS pays about 1115 per month and the $120 is taken out of that. .

[Missileman]

You ignore that the federal government gives assistance in the form of subsidies for insurance. In fact, for the situation you describe to occur, an employee must receive federal subsidies on insurance--in such a case, therefor, the aforementioned employee would likely have insurance, thus not be subject to the tax penalty.

Thousands more dependent on government is a desirous outcome of Obamacare? I'm not sure I've seen a single provision of the Affordable Care Act that's actually affordable.

[Kathianne]

Thousands more dependent on government is a desirous outcome of Obamacare? I'm not sure I've seen a single provision of the Affordable Care Act that's actually affordable.

That which cannot be sustained, will not be.

[aboutime]

That which cannot be sustained, will not be.


The one, important question we will never hear from those who voted for Obama is.
"What do we do when all of the Free Money, and other stuff stops coming?"

As far as I can tell. No scientist, or politician has ever figured out how to get BLOOD from a STONE.

[logroller]

My dog in the fight is my children.

I am receiving Medicare. Premium costs $120 per month and SS pays about 1115 per month and the $120 is taken out of that. .
The ACA threshold for Children is under 26 are covered by their parents.
So you're receiving Medicare and have dependant children under 26?
Entirely possible; assuming you're SS is your sole income (you don't qualify for TANF?) they'd be covered by Medicaid I'd guess, under a different policy. Is that the case? Or are you're children actually independent adults?
I'm willing to bet your children pay the taxes which fund your SS payments and Medicare premium.


Thousands more dependent on government is a desirous outcome of Obamacare? I'm not sure I've seen a single provision of the Affordable Care Act that's actually affordable.

millions already are dependent on government. And retiring baby boomers will drive that number up. Ina perfect world I'd agree with your assessment -- government out of it-- but the reality is public health is a public concern, and growing increasing so. As for affordable provisions: Zero cost access to health screenings, counseling, prevention and even some treatment for things such as hypertension, STIs, aortic arrhythmia, vaccines and a host of other preventative care treatments are proven to be cost-saving. You seem to think insurance companies have never stuck the cost of prevention on the patient, then if the patient doesn't get that preventative care, and get sick, they drop them. It happens, a lot, and the burden lands on the public anyways. The previous model was not sustainable. Same view for ssi IMO. If you look at the ssi commitments as a liability for the government, the public debt in 2009 was $59 trillion. I'm sure it's gone up since Obama took office; but the grim reality is Obama didn't invent the creative accounting tricks that mislead the public view of what our government owes, nor did he put the promises in place for entitlements. He inherited it. rather we like it or not, It's Our burden. How do we pay it down exactly-- tax cuts?

[Kathianne]

The ACA threshold for Children is under 26 are covered by their parents.
So you're receiving Medicare and have dependant children under 26?
Entirely possible; assuming you're SS is your sole income (you don't qualify for TANF?) they'd be covered by Medicaid I'd guess, under a different policy. Is that the case? Or are you're children actually independent adults?
I'm willing to bet your children pay the taxes which fund your SS payments and Medicare premium.



millions already are dependent on government. And retiring baby boomers will drive that number up. Ina perfect world I'd agree with your assessment -- government out of it-- but the reality is public health is a public concern, and growing increasing so. As for affordable provisions: Zero cost access to health screenings, counseling, prevention and even some treatment for things such as hypertension, STIs, aortic arrhythmia, vaccines and a host of other preventative care treatments are proven to be cost-saving. You seem to think insurance companies have never stuck the cost of prevention on the patient, then if the patient doesn't get that preventative care, and get sick, they drop them. It happens, a lot, and the burden lands on the public anyways. The previous model was not sustainable. Same view for ssi IMO. If you look at the ssi commitments as a liability for the government, the public debt in 2009 was $59 trillion. I'm sure it's gone up since Obama took office; but the grim reality is Obama didn't invent the creative accounting tricks that mislead the public view of what our government owes, nor did he put the promises in place for entitlements. He inherited it. rather we like it or not, It's Our burden. How do we pay it down exactly-- tax cuts?

Cut to the chase, you accept that Obamacare is going to basically kill off the baby boom, to make way for his brave new world. You are assuming you are part of the later.

[logroller]

Cut to the chase, you accept that Obamacare is going to basically kill off the baby boom, to make way for his brave new world. You are assuming you are part of the later.
That is in no way what I mean or believe. Baby boomers retiring will place significant burdens upon the Medicare system; the generation now is going to need to pay for it. If that makes me brave, I'm humbled; I think of it as being realistic. Speaking of being realistic, all evidence points to the baby boomers living longer than the current generation. We're I to conclude snidely, I'd say it is the baby boomers who are killing off the younger generation-- not the other way around.

[logroller]

But the TRUE problem with our HC system is the over-regulation we are stuck with plus the complete disconnect between consumers of HC and the providers of HC. The folly in the approach that our government took in "solving" the problem was not to analyze the true problem but to decide how close to nationalized HC they could get and still get it passed.
To what regulations are you referring?
We don't have a nationalized healthcare system. Not even close. The VA is the only givt agency that delivers health care.
I think you re taking a very self-fulfilling view regarding disconnected care. Do you know the contemporary issues in the healthcare to which you speak. Have you researched how those issues may or may have not been considered? Name five issues, and I'll do the research.


The FACTS are obscure that go to explaining the market.

My belief on rising health costs is elementary.

When people are frightened, either by their own declining health, or as often happens, the woman pushes for more doctors visits (what man has not been urged by a spouse or GF to please, go see the doctor?) and women have the babies which as it turns out is not cheap to deliver said child much less she will want almost daily attention from a doctorm it leads to higher health costs. Demand is high. When demand is high, prices go up. The number of doctors per 100 people is not keeping up. America has had to rely on foreign doctors moving here for medical attention.

Now, when any doctor notices that the bill payer has lots of cash,such as insurance companies or the government, one way to enrich the doctor is to keep raising prices.

Too much demand, too few doctors is the formula for high healh costs.

Women I believe are the major demand on the health market. They won't want to go broke paying the doctor so they make sure if they have the money that they buy insurance.

Women as it turns out act on emotion and den't bother to do the math.

Say she saves the insurance premium in her own account,. She has a slush fund for health costs. Say she does get insurance but the deductable is pretty high. She has the slush fund for the co pay.

Most of them won't think that way.

As it turned out, Obama's law is designed to funnel more cash to insurance companies. But along with that the doctors will be burdened with many more customers. With insurance, people will go to doctors many more times than they actually need to. They can't find a doctor who can cure the common cold, but they still go to the doctor because in therir mind, they must get value for the insurance premium they pay.

Insurance adds to the problem as does the Government.

When they force tinker with a natural market, bad things happen.
Are you aware there are healthcare workers who aren't doctors? We have a diverse delivery system, including PAs, nurses, live in care like group homes, self-help workers like physical therapists, even physical trainers at the gym etc. these people exist to lower costs and maximize efficiency-- it will require a sweeping increase to the entire system to accomodate the demand for healthcare. The traditional model is long overdue for a change. While I agree the insurance model is troublesome- it's long become the model we employ. If i was king for a day, id say insurance should all be mandatory non-profit-- but Im not king, and that wont fly here. What are your suggestions?

[Robert A Whit]

Man with cleats on his shoes, aka log roller


Are you aware there are healthcare workers who aren't doctors? We have a diverse delivery system, including PAs, nurses, live in care like group homes, self-help workers like physical therapists, even physical trainers at the gym etc. these people exist to lower costs and maximize efficiency-- it will require a sweeping increase to the entire system to accomodate the demand for healthcare. The traditional model is long overdue for a change. While I agree the insurance model is troublesome- it's long become the model we employ. If i was king for a day, id say insurance should all be mandatory non-profit-- but Im not king, and that wont fly here. What are your suggestions?

Why not apply market principles? Doctors make profits. Insurance companies do too. As you keep saying, Obama care is not the Feds caring for you, they force you to buy a product. I still can't see how that is constitutional. What If the law was like in Switzerland and we all had to own guns? Even if you don't want to, the Govt would force you to.

While I don't doubt that you are correct, do you know what happens when a doctor treats a person under medicare?

Say your doctor decides that you are at rish for cancer of the colon. And he has you show up at the hospital out patient part. And you go there and get the colon examed.

This happened to me. And the hospital got the shaft as did the Doctor.

Medicare flat ruled it out. Said I did not need that exam and that I was to pay nobody.

Now, what happens at the hospital or doctors office when they have to make up those costs?

Face it, Democrats are the only ones who can't see the problems since they adore their GOD in DC.

[Missileman]

As for affordable provisions: Zero cost access to health screenings, counseling, prevention and even some treatment for things such as hypertension, STIs, aortic arrhythmia, vaccines and a host of other preventative care treatments are proven to be cost-saving.

There is no such thing as zero-cost in Obamacare, someone is paying for it.

[logroller]

There is no such thing as zero-cost in Obamacare, someone is paying for it.
I'm aware. I meant, as I'm sure you are aware, that the patient incurs zero cost. Are you were of the costs incurred when someone doesn't get preventative care?

[logroller]

Man with cleats on his shoes, aka log roller



Why not apply market principles? Doctors make profits. Insurance companies do too. As you keep saying, Obama care is not the Feds caring for you, they force you to buy a product. I still can't see how that is constitutional. What If the law was like in Switzerland and we all had to own guns? Even if you don't want to, the Govt would force you to.

While I don't doubt that you are correct, do you know what happens when a doctor treats a person under medicare?

Say your doctor decides that you are at rish for cancer of the colon. And he has you show up at the hospital out patient part. And you go there and get the colon examed.

This happened to me. And the hospital got the shaft as did the Doctor.

Medicare flat ruled it out. Said I did not need that exam and that I was to pay nobody.

Now, what happens at the hospital or doctors office when they have to make up those costs?

Face it, Democrats are the only ones who can't see the problems since they adore their GOD in DC.
I face the fact people have no idea what is in the ACA. That's not a dem issue-- I've pointed out several fallacious beliefs in this thread and get accused of having cleats??? I play soccer. It's fun. What's your point? Ad hominem all you have left now? anecdotes? What were your risk factors for colon cancer? Was that not agreed upon with the insurer beforehand? Maybe the doctor should have got approval beforehand-- my doctor does!
If God is in DC, this must be gospel.

Colorectal Cancer ScreeningColorectal cancer is usually found in people age 50 or older, and the risk of getting it increases with age. Medicare covers colorectal screening tests to help find pre-cancerous polyps (growths in the colon) so they can be removed before they become cancerous and to help find colorectal cancer at an early stage. Treatment works best when colorectal cancer is found early.
Who is covered?
All people with Medicare age 50 and older, but there is no minimum age for having a screening colonoscopy.
How often is it covered?
• Fecal Occult Blood Test—Once every 12 months.
• Flexible Sigmoidoscopy—Once every 48 months after the last flexible sigmoidoscopy or barium enema; or 120 months after a previous screening colonoscopy.
• Screening Colonoscopy—Once every 120 months (high risk every 24 months) or 48 months after a previous flexible sigmoidoscopy.
• Barium Enema—Once every 48 months (high risk every 24 months) when used instead of sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy.
Your costs if you have Original Medicare.
You pay nothing for the fecal occult blood test. You pay nothing for the flexible sigmoidoscopy or screening colonoscopy, if your doctor accepts assignment.
For barium enemas, you pay 20% of the Medicare-approved amount for the doctor’s services. The Part B deductible doesn’t apply. If it’s done in a hospital outpatient setting, you pay a copayment.
Are you at high risk for colorectal cancer?
Risk for colorectal cancer increases with age. It’s important to continue with screenings, even if you were screened before you had Medicare. Your risk for colorectal cancer increases if any of the following are true:
• You have had colorectal cancer before, even if it has been completely removed.
• You have a close relative, such as a sister or brother, parent or child, who had colorectal polyps or colorectal cancer.
• You have a history of polyps.
• Youhaveinflammatoryboweldisease(likeulcerativecoli tisorCrohn’sdisease).http://www.medicare.gov/Pubs/pdf/10110.pdf

Btw, Switzerland has a non- profit model. But what do you think happens to someone such as yourself who is no longer profitable to treat in a market principled environment? Perhaps your lack if coverage for that colonoscopy was the market at work.

[Missileman]

I'm aware. I meant, as I'm sure you are aware, that the patient incurs zero cost. Are you were of the costs incurred when someone doesn't get preventative care?

Are you aware of how many people have lived their entire lives having never seen a doctor? People are going to get sick and die whether they get preventative screenings or not. People are going to get diseases that cost a small fortune to treat whether they get screenings or not. The government needs to get the hell out of healthcare and put the impetus back on the individual to determine their fate healthwise. If someone smokes and develops lung cancer, it's on them. If someone eats like a hippo and develops obesity related conditions it on them. If you take the individual's responsibility out of the equation, all you wind up with are people acting irresponsibly. The government trying to force people to act responsibly is not the answer either.

[logroller]

Are you aware of how many people have lived their entire lives having never seen a doctor? People are going to get sick and die whether they get preventative screenings or not. People are going to get diseases that cost a small fortune to treat whether they get screenings or not. The government needs to get the hell out of healthcare and put the impetus back on the individual to determine their fate healthwise. If someone smokes and develops lung cancer, it's on them. If someone eats like a hippo and develops obesity related conditions it on them. If you take the individual's responsibility out of the equation, all you wind up with are people acting irresponsibly. The government trying to force people to act responsibly is not the answer either.
You neglected to answer my question. Are you aware of the significant costs incurred by our society from unhealthy persons?
Nonetheless, ill answer your's -- Relatively few that I am aware of. The Amish. (I do believe there is an exception under the aca for such persons whose beliefs proscribe modern health care) Pray tell though; how many Americans never see a doctor in their lifetime?

So letting people die-- that's your solution to health care. That's succinct enough I guess. Not gonna gain much traction though, seeing as how healthcare's primary purpose is to keep people healthy. People are still free to be unhealthy, they'll just need to pay for the costs incurred by society.

[red states rule]

Now that Obamacare is here to stay, good luck trying to find a Doctor when you need one.
The promises of ObamaCare were always too ridiculous to even think about believing (that is, of course, unless one had become infected with the ObamaZombie virus). The idea that we could add millions of Americans onto the government dole and yet the price to taxpayers would go down was flatly absurd. The idea that Congress could enact such sweeping legislation without increasing taxes on Americans was just as crazy, and the Supreme Court has certainly lifted the veil on that lie.

http://n.b5z.net/i/u/68100167/i/july12/0710doctors.jpg
But perhaps the nuttiest deception of all was that such a move towards more government control of the healthcare industry was somehow going to improve the healthcare industry. I simply ask the question, “When have you ever seen that happen?” Seriously? When has the increased involvement of the bureaucratic state ever made a more efficient or effective product or industry?
Did it help the mortgage industry? How about the field of education? Even those who say, “The government saved the automotive industry” should think more critically. Before accepting the bailout money they were desperate to receive, those private companies demanded what? An agreement that the company could get out from under the thumb of government control once its debt had been paid off.
Outside of our country, look at the example we see in Europe. Do you realize that there used to be a thriving French computer industry? They were on the cutting edge of computer technology. Then the government got involved. Have you seen the state of the French computer field? Yowzaa. Think Atari, circa 1980.
So why would we ever believe that the increased involvement of Barack Obama’s government is going to improve our medical and health fields? The system that is the envy of the world is going to get an increased dose of big government. That won’t end well. And it’s not just right-wing radio hosts that feel that way. The men and women who make our health industry the best the world has ever seen do as well (http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/09/report-83-percent-of-doctors-have-considered-quitting-over-obamacare/#ixzz20EKU23Kz):
Eighty-three percent of American physicians have considered leaving their practices over President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, according to a survey released by the Doctor Patient Medical Association.
The DPMA, a non-partisan association of doctors and patients, surveyed a random selection of 699 doctors nationwide. The survey found that the majority have thought about bailing out of their careers over the legislation, which was upheld last month by the Supreme Court.
Even if doctors do not quit their jobs over the ruling, America will face a shortage of at least 90,000 doctors by 2020. The new health care law increases demand for physicians by expanding insurance coverage. This change will exacerbate the current shortage as more Americans live past 65.
By 2025 the shortage will balloon to over 130,000, Len Marquez, the director of government relations at the American Association of Medical Colleges, told The Daily Caller.

There are undoubtedly a host of reasons why this is the case, and to be fair, part of it could be unsubstantiated hysteria that has been created about the law. But even if that explains some of the 83% who have considered leaving the profession, there’s obviously other reasons as well. What could they be?

Perhaps these doctors see that increased government involvement in the insurance field all but guarantees decreased reimbursement payments for their services. Doctors already have a perfect case study of poor government reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid. Typically, a doctor provides a service and then negotiates with the insurance company for the reimbursement for their expenses. If the insurance company does not negotiate fairly in the doctor’s eyes, the doctor begins to refuse their business. That hurts the insurance company, so there is a dual interest that keeps them honest. But with government, there is nothing a doctor can do many times, short of refusing Medicare patients. That will not be a possibility for all the newly insured patients from the government exchanges under ObamaCare. Consequently, doctors know exactly what is coming: they are going to get stiffed on many bills. When you couple that with the incredibly high cost of doing business (medical malpractice as but one example) that is only going to increase, the incentive to be a doctor quickly disappears.
There’s one other element to this story that can’t be missed. This is a survey of active doctors. As anyone who has been entrenched in the same profession for years knows, it’s tough to leave what you have become accustomed to, good at, and comfortable in. Therefore, it’s unlikely that there will be a mass exodus from the medical field of these current doctors, unless it gets real bad, real fast. The bigger story may be what this will do to those who are considering medical school. If 83% of current doctors would consider leaving because of what’s coming, it’s not tough to assume that some of the best and brightest potential doctors are having serious second thoughts about setting out down this path. It’s much easier to change course before you’ve started.
This is where we’re headed thanks to Obama’s intrusion on “behalf of uninsured Americans.” Isn’t it funny that every time government intervenes on our behalf as the people, we always end up getting screwed? http://www.peterheck.com/libtree/liberty_tree/view/2395/83__of_doctors_considering_leaving_medicine_due_to _obamacare

[Missileman]

You neglected to answer my question. Are you aware of the significant costs incurred by our society from unhealthy persons?
Nonetheless, ill answer your's -- Relatively few that I am aware of. The Amish. (I do believe there is an exception under the aca for such persons whose beliefs proscribe modern health care) Pray tell though; how many Americans never see a doctor in their lifetime?

So letting people die-- that's your solution to health care. That's succinct enough I guess. Not gonna gain much traction though, seeing as how healthcare's primary purpose is to keep people healthy. People are still free to be unhealthy, they'll just need to pay for the costs incurred by society.

The problem is this...you could spend a quintillion in preventative care and still not avoid expensive medical treatment. No matter how much you spend, you can't avoid the inevitable. I'll grant that society should spend whatever it takes to mitigate suffering, but that's a far cry from what you're advocating. And healthcare's purpose is not to keep people healthy, it's to extend the lives of the unhealthy. Healthy people don't need doctors except for injuries.

As for my question about seeing a doctor, think globally and historically and then see if you think it's relatively few.

[fj1200]

To what regulations are you referring?
We don't have a nationalized healthcare system. Not even close. The VA is the only givt agency that delivers health care.
I think you re taking a very self-fulfilling view regarding disconnected care. Do you know the contemporary issues in the healthcare to which you speak. Have you researched how those issues may or may have not been considered? Name five issues, and I'll do the research.

So I shall attempt to prove a negative? Hmm, a challenge. In the meantime could you show how my premise is incorrect and how consumers are directly responsible for paying the bill and fully comprehend the actual cost involved? And when I speak of close to nationalized HC I speak of increasing regulations on private industry and the unfunded mandates placed on it to achieve national goals.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I think the bottom line is that businesses are not going to take a loss. They are in business to make money. So if something like Obamacare is hurting their bottom line, they will find a way to pass the cost along to employees or customers, or both.

Which is the way business has ALWAYS worked, and should always work.

[red states rule]

So letting people die-- that's your solution to health care. That's succinct enough I guess. Not gonna gain much traction though, seeing as how healthcare's primary purpose is to keep people healthy. People are still free to be unhealthy, they'll just need to pay for the costs incurred by society.

Ahh liberal compassion. Yes LR and fellow libs are willing to spend every dollar I have to take care of the "poor" and if I say no they I want the "poor" to die.

So what's nect LR as libs start down the road to keep people "healthy"? We already have seen fat taxes, ban on salt, soft drinks, and other "unhealthy" foods. Will libs then make it the law for all Americans to join a gym? Will government inspectors come into our homes to see what food we have in the fridge, freezer, and pantry? Monthly government supervised weigh ins? Now that the Obamacare is the law, and is here to stay, there is nothing the government cannot mandate and force the people to do when it comes to their health - now that the government is deeply involved with the health care system

[logroller]

Ahh liberal compassion. Yes LR and fellow libs are willing to spend every dollar I have to take care of the "poor" and if I say no they I want the "poor" to die.

So what's nect LR as libs start down the road to keep people "healthy"? We already have seen fat taxes, ban on salt, soft drinks, and other "unhealthy" foods. Will libs then make it the law for all Americans to join a gym? Will government inspectors come into our homes to see what food we have in the fridge, freezer, and pantry? Monthly government supervised weigh ins? Now that the Obamacare is the law, and is here to stay, there is nothing the government cannot mandate and force the people to do when it comes to their health - now that the government is deeply involved with the health care system

Ahh conservative hyperbole. Yes RSR, and fellow cons are willing to take money for insurance and then drop it when patients get sick and can't work or pay their premiums anymore. Them becoming ill and consequently destitute, not their problem. If they are healthy and wealthy-- A-OK.

I didn't say anything about what you wanted. But tell me, what happens to those who get cancer and have no insurance?

[red states rule]

Ahh conservative hyperbole. Yes RSR, and fellow cons are willing to take money for insurance and then drop it when patients get sick and can't work or pay their premiums anymore. Them becoming ill and consequently destitute, not their problem. If they are healthy and wealthy-- A-OK.

I didn't say anything about what you wanted. But tell me, what happens to those who get cancer and have no insurance?

LR you would have responded the same way if 6 years ago I would have told you Obama and the Dems would ram through a "health reform" bill that would FORCE private citizens to buy a product/service under the threat of fines and or jail time and would do it without a single Republican vote - you would have called me crazy. If I would have told you the bill would be so bad that Dems would have to openly bribe fellow Dems to secure their vote by handing out waivers on the House and Senate floor and approving millions in pork projects to get their support you would have called it conservative hyperbole. And if I would have listed all the taxes in the "reform" bill that hit every income level including retired seniors, you would have said Dems would never do such a thing since they "care" about the working class and seniors. But libs seldom allow facts to get in the way of their good intentions LR

[red states rule]

and lets not forget all the taxes (or are they fees LR?) in Obamacare. You see libs also measure compassion by how much money they throw at a "problem" and just because you earned your money does not mean you are entitled to it. These are the taxes that kick in by 2013 and yes, there are more that kick in with the start of 2014.
Taxes that took effect in 2010:
1. Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971
2. Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113
3. “Black liquor” tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105
4. Tax on Innovator Drug Companies ($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980
5. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike ($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004
6. Tax on Indoor Tanning Services ($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399
Taxes that took effect in 2011:
7. Medicine Cabinet Tax ($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959
8. HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike ($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959
Tax that took effect in 2012:
9. Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Min$/Jan 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957
Taxes that take effect in 2013:
10. Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income: Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93

<tbody>

Capital Gains

Dividends

Other*



2012

15%

15%

35%



2013+

23.8%

43.4%

43.4%


</tbody>

*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.
11. Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax ($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:

<tbody>

First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee

All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee



Current Law

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed



Obamacare Tax Hike

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed


</tbody>

Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93
12. Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers ($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986
13. High Medical Bills Tax ($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995
14. Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” ($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center (http://ncrcpreschool.org/page.php?pid=11http://ncrcpreschool.org/page.php?pid=11http://ncrcpreschool.org/page.php?pid=11)) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389
15. Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D ($4.5 bil/Jan 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994
16. $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives ($0.6 bil/Jan 2013). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000


Read more: http://atr.org/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes-a6996#ixzz2CoQ4U9s5
Follow us: @taxreformer on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=cNTREaBzmr37DZadbi-bpO&u=taxreformer)

[aboutime]

Ahh conservative hyperbole. Yes RSR, and fellow cons are willing to take money for insurance and then drop it when patients get sick and can't work or pay their premiums anymore. Them becoming ill and consequently destitute, not their problem. If they are healthy and wealthy-- A-OK.

I didn't say anything about what you wanted. But tell me, what happens to those who get cancer and have no insurance?



Thank you, so very, very much logroller. Thank you for proving my suspicions about your educational challenges are true..

Guess you still aren't aware how typically Liberal, and Partisan you are. Being so busy trying to make up new..OLD talking points that STILL DON'T WORK.

As for your question about "What happens to those who get cancer and have no insurance?"

As much as you MUST deny it. They will be treated, and often cured of their cancer, whether they do, or don't have insurance. THAT IS...until OBAMACARE goes into effect in 2014. Then....YOU ARE SCREWED, and you can thank Everyone who voted for Obama.

[logroller]

LR you would have responded the same way if 6 years ago I would have told you Obama and the Dems would ram through a "health reform" bill that would FORCE private citizens to buy a product/service under the threat of fines and or jail time and would do it without a single Republican vote - you would have called me crazy. If I would have told you the bill would be so bad that Dems would have to openly bribe fellow Dems to secure their vote by handing out waivers on the House and Senate floor and approving millions in pork projects to get their support you would have called it conservative hyperbole. And if I would have listed all the taxes in the "reform" bill that hit every income level including retired seniors, you would have said Dems would never do such a thing since they "care" about the working class and seniors. But libs seldom allow facts to get in the way of their good intentions LR
forget 6 years ago, there's no jail time for noncompliance with ACA-- it's just tax. Not fines or fees. I believe we have debated this, I conceded.


and lets not forget all the taxes (or are they fees LR?) in Obamacare. You see libs also measure compassion by how much money they throw at a "problem" and just because you earned your money does not mean you are entitled to it. These are the taxes that kick in by 2013 and yes, there are more that kick in with the start of 2014. see above re: fees.


Thank you, so very, very much logroller. Thank you for proving my suspicions about your educational challenges are true..

Guess you still aren't aware how typically Liberal, and Partisan you are. Being so busy trying to make up new..OLD talking points that STILL DON'T WORK.

As for your question about "What happens to those who get cancer and have no insurance?"

As much as you MUST deny it. They will be treated, and often cured of their cancer, whether they do, or don't have insurance. THAT IS...until OBAMACARE goes into effect in 2014. Then....YOU ARE SCREWED, and you can thank Everyone who voted for Obama.
It would be proven as true not are true. If you're gonna knock my education as challenged, you might not want to make grammatical errors. Sorta makes you look like a dolt.

Talk about empty points being made-- you care to back that up?
Who pays for that treatment? it's not free...so Someone must pay for it if it is provided.
Let me get this straight, more people with insurance means less people get treatment...care to elaborate on how that is even possible, let alone likely...Oh let me guess, a mass exodus of care providers...another talking point being pushed perhaps? Maybe you can just hear something and take it as fact, but ill believe it when I see it. So far conservatives have been mistaken ,repeatedly, about the many aspects of the ACA. I have addressed many in this thread alone.
So if you want to see the ppaca changed, I suggest you address the actual law and the realities of modern health care delivery and not chase after hyperbolic stigmatism.

[Kathianne]

Number crunching from CATO:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_ers_74rfAHiGtYU2nHmnlIhotL


The 49ers (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_ers_74rfAHiGtYU2nHmnlIhotL) How ObamaCare will keep unemployment high — by forcing small companies to cut their workforce to fewer than 50 people

By MICHAEL TANNER
Last Updated: 4:32 AM, November 18, 2012
Posted: 9:28 PM, November 17, 2012


...

While restaurants, with traditionally low profit margins and large numbers of low-skilled, low-wage workers, are exceptionally vulnerable to ObamaCare’s costs, other business are being hit too. For example, Boston Scientific has announced that it will now lay off up to 1,400 workers and shift some jobs to China.


And Dana Holdings, an auto-parts manufacturer with more than 25,000 employees, says it to is exploring ObamaCare-related layoffs.


These, and countless other employers across the country, are not doing an impression of Montgomery Burns. They are simply responding to economic reality.


Under ObamaCare, employers with 50 or more full-time workers must provide health insurance for all their workers, paying at least 65% of the cost of a family policy or 85% of the cost of an individual plan. Moreover, the insurance must meet the federal government’s requirements in terms of what benefits are included, meaning that many businesses that offer insurance to their workers today will have to change to new, more expensive plans.


ObamaCare’s rules make expansion expensive, particularly for the 500,000 US businesses that have fewer than 100 employees.


Suppose that a firm with 49 employees does not provide health benefits. Hiring one more worker will trigger the mandate. The company would now have to provide insurance coverage to all 50 workers or pay a tax penalty.

...


Under the circumstances, how likely is the company to hire that 50th worker? Or, if a company already has 50 workers, isn’t the company likely to lay off one employee? Or cut hours and make some employees part time, thus getting under the 50 employee cap? Indeed, a study by Mercer found that 18% of companies were likely to do exactly that. It’s worth noting that in France, another country where numerous government regulations kick in at 50 workers, there are 1,500 companies with 48 employees and 1,600 with 49 employees, but just 660 with 50 and only 500 with 51.


New York City’s small business could be particularly hard hit. Of the 238,851 city firms included in a state Department of Labor survey, 96% had fewer than 50 employees. How many of them, given the chance to expand, will look at the mandate and decide they’d rather keep their small business small?


Overall, according to the Congressional Budget Office, ObamaCare could end up costing as many as 800,000 jobs.


The election showed us that ObamaCare is likely to be with us for quite some time. Unfortunately, a great many workers are about to find out the consequences of that decision.


Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

[jimnyc]

Yep, good article. I can't repeat myself enough, business owners are in business to make money. If it hurts their bottom dollar, they will cut back in the workforce or pass costs along to the consumer. It's not much difference to when the price of certain crops increase - do you see those serving various foods losing money? Of course not, the price just goes up to compensate for the increase in the product cost.

[April15]

I hope the people who voted for Obama enjoying the results of his re-election. Many companies have sent out layoff notices, and now another restaurant chain has announced reduced hours, layoffs, and higher prices.I love the results. It is about time employers used their available tax deductions for employee benefits like healthcare. It is so dumb that they feel they need to make a show of it.

[jimnyc]

I love the results. It is about time employers used their available tax deductions for employee benefits like healthcare. It is so dumb that they feel they need to make a show of it.

They will do what best helps their bottom line - profits. Taking "advantage" of healthcare will NOT help them in anyway whatsoever. The writing is on the wall with hundreds and hundreds of companies already, that have made their disdain vocal thus far - they will simply lay people off or increase costs to the consumer to pay for the healthcare.

[April15]

They will do what best helps their bottom line - profits. Taking "advantage" of healthcare will NOT help them in anyway whatsoever. The writing is on the wall with hundreds and hundreds of companies already, that have made their disdain vocal thus far - they will simply lay people off or increase costs to the consumer to pay for the healthcare.I do own a construction business and I can find no reason to raise my price for work because of the supposed Obama care mandates. But then I already provide healthcare to my workers so I am fine in the eyes of the law.

[jimnyc]

I do own a construction business and I can find no reason to raise my price for work because of the supposed Obama care mandates. But then I already provide healthcare to my workers so I am fine in the eyes of the law.

Apples and oranges. How many companies out there are not currently covered by the mandate, those are the ones I speak of. Not everyone can afford to do so, and not everyone is willing to take a big hit in their wallets.

[jimnyc]

I do own a construction business and I can find no reason to raise my price for work because of the supposed Obama care mandates. But then I already provide healthcare to my workers so I am fine in the eyes of the law.

Btw, can you give me a job? Preferably one I can do remotely? :poke:

[Robert A Whit]

I face the fact people have no idea what is in the ACA. That's not a dem issue-- I've pointed out several fallacious beliefs in this thread and get accused of having cleats??? I play soccer. It's fun. What's your point? Ad hominem all you have left now? anecdotes? What were your risk factors for colon cancer? Was that not agreed upon with the insurer beforehand? Maybe the doctor should have got approval beforehand-- my doctor does!
If God is in DC, this must be gospel.
http://www.medicare.gov/Pubs/pdf/10110.pdf

Btw, Switzerland has a non- profit model. But what do you think happens to someone such as yourself who is no longer profitable to treat in a market principled environment? Perhaps your lack if coverage for that colonoscopy was the market at work.

OK, I said cleats but should have said spikes. Lumberjacks who roll logs have spikes.

I tried to copy all of your post but don't know how.

Your claim is that colon cancer is detected early by the ACA. Trouble is, I have medicare and my doctor did it when I was around 67 trying to detect cancer. But his proceedure was ruled out by the Government.

How can you NOT see that The Feds took over medicine?

I believe that shortly after new year, doctors get another 33 percent cut in fees.

I believe we will hear that whoosing sound of doctors retiring and then who will treat us?

[Robert A Whit]

I face the fact people have no idea what is in the ACA. That's not a dem issue-- I've pointed out several fallacious beliefs in this thread and get accused of having cleats??? I play soccer. It's fun. What's your point? Ad hominem all you have left now? anecdotes? What were your risk factors for colon cancer? Was that not agreed upon with the insurer beforehand? Maybe the doctor should have got approval beforehand-- my doctor does!
If God is in DC, this must be gospel.
http://www.medicare.gov/Pubs/pdf/10110.pdf

Btw, Switzerland has a non- profit model. But what do you think happens to someone such as yourself who is no longer profitable to treat in a market principled environment? Perhaps your lack if coverage for that colonoscopy was the market at work.

You are correct. And they don't know what happens to the Doctors either.

My doctor did what in his professional belief was best for ME. Medicare in short is a BAD deal for doctors. And hospitals.

I honestly expect that many hospitals will close.
When Doctors incomes go down, they can't afford to pay nurses and assistants the present wages thus the pressure on the office help is not good.

My lack of payment to the hospital and doctors and their help is due to my Government policy, aka medicare.

I just checked on the wellness check ups and it says you can get it so long as the doctor accepts it.

My cardiologist informed me that if Obama won, he planned major changes to his medical practice.

We will get what we deserve.

And it sucks.

[April15]

Btw, can you give me a job? Preferably one I can do remotely? :poke:Construction is a hands on business. So you would have to live in California, San Francisco Bay Area. Then pass a physical exam and an interview to see if I think you could do the job.

[red states rule]

forget 6 years ago, there's no jail time for noncompliance with ACA-- it's just tax. Not fines or fees. I believe we have debated this, I conceded.

see above re: fees.


It would be proven as true not are true. If you're gonna knock my education as challenged, you might not want to make grammatical errors. Sorta makes you look like a dolt.

Talk about empty points being made-- you care to back that up?
Who pays for that treatment? it's not free...so Someone must pay for it if it is provided.
Let me get this straight, more people with insurance means less people get treatment...care to elaborate on how that is even possible, let alone likely...Oh let me guess, a mass exodus of care providers...another talking point being pushed perhaps? Maybe you can just hear something and take it as fact, but ill believe it when I see it. So far conservatives have been mistaken ,repeatedly, about the many aspects of the ACA. I have addressed many in this thread alone.
So if you want to see the ppaca changed, I suggest you address the actual law and the realities of modern health care delivery and not chase after hyperbolic stigmatism.

LR, try NOT paying ANY tax to the government and see what happens. Yes you CAN go to jail over not paying these Obamacare taxes. LR you have clearly gone over to Liberalville and you do not care what this tax bill is doing to the very people you and other libs claim to care about. The very people Obama and Dems told us were going to be helped by Obamacare, are losing their jobs or seeing their work hours reduced by as much as 25%. But you do not give a damn as you have placed your political agenda ahead of their ability to make a living. So when people lose their jobs because of Obamacare you stick your head in the sand and ignore it. And then later claim the problem does not exist or you blame greedy CEO's for putting profit ahead of people. Either way you screw over the working class people who simply got in the way of the libs desire to take over the health care industry.

[red states rule]

Apples and oranges. How many companies out there are not currently covered by the mandate, those are the ones I speak of. Not everyone can afford to do so, and not everyone is willing to take a big hit in their wallets.

The minute a small business owner hires that 50th fulltime worker (30 hours or more per week) that owner needs to write a huge check to the Obama Treasury. That is why people are losing their jobs and seeing their hours reduced. The people taking the hit April are the very ones Obama and the libs said would be helped. But that is what usually happens when do-gooder libs get their way

[aboutime]

Construction is a hands on business. So you would have to live in California, San Francisco Bay Area. Then pass a physical exam and an interview to see if I think you could do the job.



April15. Just wondering. How many employee's you now have? And, how many of them speak English as their first language?

[Larrymc]

^It is a political statement when you turn a cost of doing business into a visible surcharge.i call it information, i think every receipt should seperate Governmental fees to show how much the Government has its hand in every thing

[fj1200]

i call it information, i think every receipt should seperate Governmental fees to show how much the Government has its hand in every thing

So you're able to break down every government cost, tax, and regulation into definable fees? You must be smart. Most people don't want their Grand Slam with a side of politics.

[Larrymc]

So you're able to break down every government cost, tax, and regulation into definable fees? You must be smart. Most people don't want their Grand Slam with a side of politics.of course i was being sarcastic, but im sure a computer program could do the job, but even then, probably couldn't catch them all.

[Mr. P]

So you're able to break down every government cost, tax, and regulation into definable fees? You must be smart. Most people don't want their Grand Slam with a side of politics.

Most people don't have a clue how much tax or fees they pay to the FED per yr either (including payroll tax). If they did I think they'd be outraged.

I'm all for this business owner being transparent regarding his 5% increase. Political statement, maybe, but I don't think so. If more businesses did it maybe folks wouldn't be so ill informed as to what they actually pay to the government on a daily basis. I think that's a good thing. Just sayin

[aboutime]

April15. Just wondering. How many employee's you now have? And, how many of them speak English as their first language?


Just wondering if April15 saw this question above. And if so? If he would let us know the answers?

[fj1200]

of course i was being sarcastic, but im sure a computer program could do the job, but even then, probably couldn't catch them all.

Of course.


Most people don't have a clue how much tax or fees they pay to the FED per yr either (including payroll tax). If they did I think they'd be outraged.

I'm all for this business owner being transparent regarding his 5% increase. Political statement, maybe, but I don't think so. If more businesses did it maybe folks wouldn't be so ill informed as to what they actually pay to the government on a daily basis. I think that's a good thing. Just sayin

They certainly don't have a clue but I think this ploy will backfire on him. Time'll tell.

[red states rule]

Most people don't have a clue how much tax or fees they pay to the FED per yr either (including payroll tax). If they did I think they'd be outraged.

I'm all for this business owner being transparent regarding his 5% increase. Political statement, maybe, but I don't think so. If more businesses did it maybe folks wouldn't be so ill informed as to what they actually pay to the government on a daily basis. I think that's a good thing. Just sayin

If more did the Feds would be forced to live within their means and make real cuts. Here is one women who has kept track of the money she has handed over the to government and the total is shocking
Scanlon and her husband appear to be model, middle-class Americans. They have a mortgage and have recently finished their car payments. They are also very proud that they have no outstanding credit card debt after making major financial cutbacks. But the economic downturn has been difficult for them. Scanlon’s husband, Michael, was laid off this year when the steel plant where he worked shut its doors permanently. He was out of work for three and a half months, but now found a new job as an electrician with a crane company.
So how much has this working class family paid to the government to date? A whopping $26,000. Well, actually the total looks more like this:
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/5665-620x66.png (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/maryland-woman-has-kept-track-of-every-tax-on-her-in-2012-and-youre-not-going-to-believe-how-much-shes-paid-so-far/attachment/5665/)
“This is 27 percent of mine and my husbands combined income,” Scanlon said with minor irritation, “and the total taxes paid in 2012 will easily tip over $30,000 by the end of the fiscal year.” In contrast, Scanlon said, she is only required to give 10% to her church.
“The government takes almost three times more than the church,” the devoted Presbyterian notes, “but the government dose not do even a fraction of the good that the church does.” http://www.theblaze.com/stories/maryland-woman-has-kept-track-of-every-tax-on-her-in-2012-and-youre-not-going-to-believe-how-much-shes-paid-so-far/

[red states rule]

So you're able to break down every government cost, tax, and regulation into definable fees? You must be smart. Most people don't want their Grand Slam with a side of politics.

Looks as if you want your Grand Slam with your usual Super Sized Order of hyperbole

[fj1200]

Looks as if you want your Grand Slam with your usual Super Sized Order of hyperbole

I got to church for preachin', not Denny's.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Denny's is passing an increase in cost on to the consumer, just like every other business in the world does.

[fj1200]

Denny's is passing an increase in cost on to the consumer, just like every other business in the world does.

Every other business is adding an ACA surcharge?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Every other business is adding an ACA surcharge?

your reading comprehension skills need work.

Let me try again...


When a business has a cost increase, they pass it on to their customers. That is and has been general business practice since the dawn of time.

If you want to get all whiny and claim no one else is passing on increased costs from the ACA, you'll have to prove it.

Better?

[fj1200]

your reading comprehension skills need work.

Let me try again...


When a business has a cost increase, they pass it on to their customers. That is and has been general business practice since the dawn of time.

If you want to get all whiny and claim no one else is passing on increased costs from the ACA, you'll have to prove it.

Better?

Temper, temper, you should know that how you write something determines how someone reads it. The thread is about ACA as a specific surcharge. Every other business does not implement regulatory changes in that manner. Please indicate where I've stated that no one is passing on ACA costs.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Temper, temper, you should know that how you write something determines how someone reads it. The thread is about ACA as a specific surcharge. Every other business does not implement regulatory changes in that manner. Please indicate where I've stated that no one is passing on ACA costs.

No, the intelligence, or in your case the lack there of, determines how someone reads what is posted.

The thread is about Denny's adding a surcharge because of ACA costs they will incur, as is their right.

They are passing those costs on to the consumer.

Businesses pass on increased costs, regardless of where the cost originates, to the consumer.

If a 'regulatory change' increases the cost of doing business, then yes, businesses as a matter of long standing practice will pass the cost for that 'regulatory change' on to the consumer.

You apparently lack the intelligence to understand this basic fact of business.

[fj1200]

No, the intelligence, or in your case the lack there of, determines how someone reads what is posted.

The thread is about Denny's adding a surcharge because of ACA costs they will incur, as is their right.

They are passing those costs on to the consumer.

Businesses pass on increased costs, regardless of where the cost originates, to the consumer.

If a 'regulatory change' increases the cost of doing business, then yes, businesses as a matter of long standing practice will pass the cost for that 'regulatory change' on to the consumer.

You apparently lack the intelligence to understand this basic fact of business.

Dude, rather than make your ignorant assumptions...


Please indicate where I've stated that no one is passing on ACA costs.

So far your posts have added nothing that everyone on the thread doesn't already agree with.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Dude, rather than make your ignorant assumptions...


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by fj1200 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=597182#post597182)

Please indicate where I've stated that no one is passing on ACA costs.


So far your posts have added nothing that everyone on the thread doesn't already agree with.

Let's try this, dumb ass...

I said...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=597161#post597161)

Denny's is passing an increase in cost on to the consumer, just like every other business in the world does.

You replied...

Every other business is adding an ACA surcharge?

Now, show ME where I said 'Every other business is adding an ACA surcharge'.

Dumb ass. You can't, because I did not say it. I said every other business in the world passes on increased costs to the consumer.

Stop playing stupid semantics games. unless of course that's all you're capable of here.

[red states rule]

I got to church for preachin', not Denny's.

I am sure you would be content, happy, and feel right at home sitting next to Obama while Rev Wright is preachin'

[red states rule]

The CBS anchors were not to happy with the CEO of Cheesecake Factory admitting Obamacare is going to be very costly to business. Note the male anchor snicker when this fact is mentioned

<iframe width="475" height="267" title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/118774" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

[fj1200]

Let's try...

I see that you are having trouble understanding what this thread is about. It's about a restaurant chain adding a surcharge, specifically in response to ACA, as a way to show an increase in cost. My comment, formed as a question, was specifically about not all businesses adding costs on a specific line item to show regulatory changes. Will all companies attempt to pass on costs? Sure, no argument here. Will all companies add them as surcharges? Hardly any.


I am sure you would be content, happy, and feel right at home sitting next to Obama while Rev Wright is preachin'

Yeah, yeah, that's exactly right. However did you guess? :rolleyes:

:laugh:

[Marcus Aurelius]

... Will all companies attempt to pass on costs? Sure, no argument here. Will all companies add them as surcharges? Hardly any....



So, your whine, excuse me 'argument', is that he called it a surcharge and told you why he was adding it, and you'd have preferred Denny's just increase their prices and let you wallow in ignorance as to the reason. Got it.

http://cd3.styleanddesign.netdna-cdn.com/forum/images/smilies/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[aboutime]

So, your whine, excuse me 'argument', is that he called it a surcharge and told you why he was adding it, and you'd have preferred Denny's just increase their prices and let you wallow in ignorance as to the reason. Got it.

http://cd3.styleanddesign.netdna-cdn.com/forum/images/smilies/emoticons/rolleyes.gif


Marcus. That is the GAME the smarter than everyone else people always play. Just like Obama, the master of speech, and Distortion of the English language. The GAME is Rhetoric, and Semantics.

If you happen to use a word they need, and want to argue about. They use semantics to make the user look foolish, or simple. Because THEY INSIST...they are just SO MUCH SMARTER than everyone else. And they appoint themselves as the Grammar Cops, or English Cops as a means of overruling everything, and anything others say...because they just don't reach the standards they Insist others always should.

What they prove to the rest of us is. Even if they have FIVE Master's Degree's. They still aren't smart enough to avoid MARKING THEIR HANDS, AND FEET WITH "R's, and "L's" to get them through each day, and home.

[red states rule]

Yeah, yeah, that's exactly right. However did you guess? :rolleyes:

:laugh:

FU, your arrogant, condescending, know it all, and I am smarter than you attitude was the first indication

[red states rule]

So, your whine, excuse me 'argument', is that he called it a surcharge and told you why he was adding it, and you'd have preferred Denny's just increase their prices and let you wallow in ignorance as to the reason. Got it.

http://cd3.styleanddesign.netdna-cdn.com/forum/images/smilies/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

FU has a tendency to ignore basic economic principals and based on his posts; his knowledge of what it takes to meet a payroll would fit inside a thimble

[Robert A Whit]

I do own a construction business and I can find no reason to raise my price for work because of the supposed Obama care mandates. But then I already provide healthcare to my workers so I am fine in the eyes of the law.

I once worked in heavy construction. Tell me this.

What are your plans should construction in this are slow way down again? Do you lay off or curtail those benefits?

When I worked in Heavy Construction, the major company I worked for was huge. And had jobs globally. They went bankrupt. Think those who lost jobs still have health benefits?

Want to know what huge is in construction? Back then, about 10,000 employees worked for the company full time. Many more by counting the crews hired for a particular job. Today though somebody revived the company name, they don't do what they once did.

[gabosaurus]

You succeed in business by offering a service and doing it better than anyone else.
Take the music business. Downloads have almost made brick and mortar stores a thing of the past. Yet places like Lou's Records in San Diego and Waterloo Records in Austin not only are still there, but their business is stronger than ever.
The reason is customer service. You hire employees who know and love what you are selling and pay them adequately. You cultivate your base customers and treat them well.

Fast food restaurants and convenience stores exist to sell volumes. They don't care who works for them and who buys their product. The big chains continue to exist through huge advertising campaigns that almost compel people to come in.

Smaller businesses succeed by satisfying a niche. A satisfied customer is a repeat customer.
I know this for a fact because my dad has done their advertising campaigns for 30 years.

[red states rule]

You succeed in business by offering a service and doing it better than anyone else.
Take the music business. Downloads have almost made brick and mortar stores a thing of the past. Yet places like Lou's Records in San Diego and Waterloo Records in Austin not only are still there, but their business is stronger than ever.
The reason is customer service. You hire employees who know and love what you are selling and pay them adequately. You cultivate your base customers and treat them well.

Fast food restaurants and convenience stores exist to sell volumes. They don't care who works for them and who buys their product. The big chains continue to exist through huge advertising campaigns that almost compel people to come in.

Smaller businesses succeed by satisfying a niche. A satisfied customer is a repeat customer.
I know this for a fact because my dad has done their advertising campaigns for 30 years.

But with the massive taxes, regulation, and other roadblocks Obama has imposed on the private sector - the private sector is reacting
Boeing Announces Big Layoffs in Defense Division cut 30% of workforce
Anonymous employer in Los Vegas: “I have 114 employees. I’m firing 22”
Momentive Inc. plans 150 “temporary” layoffs” – Tyler County West Virginia
Wilkes-Barre Pennsylvania “voluntary furloughs” for 300 town workers. Joe Biden’s gift to his old neighborhood
<!--Ad Injection:random--> <!-- WCJ_Right_Sidebar_300x250 --> <iframe name="google_ads_iframe_/11156719/WCJ_Right_Sidebar_300x250_0" width="300" height="250" id="google_ads_iframe_/11156719/WCJ_Right_Sidebar_300x250_0" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" style="border: 0px currentColor;"></iframe>

Berks County Pennsylvania Exide Technologies to lay off 150 workers
Groupon is starting with 80 employee layoffs. But more will certainly follow as the stock price has dropped from $20.00 to $3.85 in the past year
TE Connectivity to close Guilford North Carolina plant to lay off 620
50 Layoffs at Anniston Alabama weapons incinerator plant
Murray Energy of Steubenville Ohio to layoff 150
Associated Milk Producers of Worthington Minnesota has laid off 130 workers
Stanford Brake plant of Lincoln County Kentucky to lay off 75 by Christmas
TurboCare, Oce Manchester and East Hartford Connecticut laying off more than 220 workers
ATI of North Richland Hills Texas to layoff 172
SpaceX – Rocketdyne Hawthorne California lays off 100
Providence Journal lays off 23 full time employees
CVPH of Plattsburgh New York to lay off 17
New Energy of Indiana lays off final 40 workers and closes up
102 East Carbon Utah miners lose jobs – war on coal KIAs
U.S. Cellular in Chicago cuts 640 workers and Obama fans get what they voted for
Career Education cutting 900 jobs across Illinois
Vesta Wind Systems cutting 3,000 Oregon getting what THEY voted for!
FirstEnergy Akron Ohio cuts 200
Energizer of St. Louis to cut about 1,500 in Vermont and Missouri
West Ridge Mine a Utah coal company has laid off 102 miners
Strap yourself in, America and prepare for this to get much worse before it gets better. http://www.westernjournalism.com/massive-layoffs-greet-obama-re-election/

[Missileman]

You succeed in business by offering a service and doing it better than anyone else.
Take the music business. Downloads have almost made brick and mortar stores a thing of the past. Yet places like Lou's Records in San Diego and Waterloo Records in Austin not only are still there, but their business is stronger than ever.
The reason is customer service. You hire employees who know and love what you are selling and pay them adequately. You cultivate your base customers and treat them well.

Fast food restaurants and convenience stores exist to sell volumes. They don't care who works for them and who buys their product. The big chains continue to exist through huge advertising campaigns that almost compel people to come in.

Smaller businesses succeed by satisfying a niche. A satisfied customer is a repeat customer.
I know this for a fact because my dad has done their advertising campaigns for 30 years.

Not to quibble, but you succeed in business by making a profit.

[aboutime]

FU, your arrogant, condescending, know it all, and I am smarter than you attitude was the first indication



red states rule. Either FU is Gabby, or FU and Gabby are related, and share the same EMPTY space between FOUR ears.

[logroller]

So, your whine, excuse me 'argument', is that he called it a surcharge and told you why he was adding it, and you'd have preferred Denny's just increase their prices and let you wallow in ignorance as to the reason. Got it.

http://cd3.styleanddesign.netdna-cdn.com/forum/images/smilies/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
A surcharge is a tax. Tax is assessed based on some unit. For example, gas excise tax: gallon, or sales tax: subtotal dollars. Denny's is charging the surcharge like a sales tax, but that's not how the ACA costs are assessed. It's just an increased cost of doing business due to increased cost of employment just like if someone got hurt and workers comp premiums increased; but could also be from the increased cost of food as Denny's announced several months prior that they would. seeing as the incurred food costs is directly related to the amount of food sold, and ACA taxes arent, its more likely an increase to food costs and the surcharge is a political statement. He's free to say Obamacre incurred cost adjustment at the bottom of every receipt, free speech, but its still a political statement rather than a direct surcharge.

[red states rule]

A surcharge is a tax. Tax is assessed based on some unit. For example, gas excise tax: gallon, or sales tax: subtotal dollars. Denny's is charging the surcharge like a sales tax, but that's not how the ACA costs are assessed. It's just an increased cost of doing business due to increased cost of employment just like if someone got hurt and workers comp premiums increased; but could also be from the increased cost of food as Denny's announced several months prior that they would. seeing as the incurred food costs is directly related to the amount of food sold, and ACA taxes arent, its more likely an increase to food costs and the surcharge is a political statement. He's free to say Obamacre incurred cost adjustment at the bottom of every receipt, free speech, but its still a political statement rather than a direct surcharge.

I would think being a supporter of Obamacare you would be proud to have people informed they are paying for the tremendous benefits their fellow citizens are receiving LR. So what if prices go up? So what if full time workers see their hours reduced by 25% or more? So what if people lose their jobs? It is all about the common good and collective right? Besides we have MORE Obamacare taxes that will hit everyone at every income level on 1/1/13. The "best" of Obamcare is yet to come

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb1205cd20121204090854.jpg

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=597545#post597545)

So, your whine, excuse me 'argument', is that he called it a surcharge and told you why he was adding it, and you'd have preferred Denny's just increase their prices and let you wallow in ignorance as to the reason. Got it.


A surcharge is a tax. Tax is assessed based on some unit. For example, gas excise tax: gallon, or sales tax: subtotal dollars. Denny's is charging the surcharge like a sales tax, but that's not how the ACA costs are assessed. It's just an increased cost of doing business due to increased cost of employment just like if someone got hurt and workers comp premiums increased; but could also be from the increased cost of food as Denny's announced several months prior that they would. seeing as the incurred food costs is directly related to the amount of food sold, and ACA taxes arent, its more likely an increase to food costs and the surcharge is a political statement. He's free to say Obamacre incurred cost adjustment at the bottom of every receipt, free speech, but its still a political statement rather than a direct surcharge.

Odd, that's not what the majority of online dictionaries call it. Most just call it an extra fee or charge.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/surcharge

sur·charge (sûrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifchärjhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gif)n.1. An additional sum added to the usual amount or cost.
2. An overcharge, especially when unlawful.
3. An additional or excessive burden; an overload.
4. a. A new value or denomination overprinted on a postage or revenue stamp.
b. The stamp to which a new value has been applied.

5. Law The act of surcharging.




http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surcharge

1
a : overcharge (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/overcharge)
b : to charge an extra fee
c : to show an omission in (an account) for which credit ought to have been given

2
British : overstock (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/overstock)

3
: to fill or load to excess <the atmosphere…was surcharged with war hysteria — H. A. Chippendale>

4
a : to mark a surcharge on (a stamp)
b : overprint (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/overprint) <surcharge a banknote>




How the costs of the ACA are assessed by the government, and how the expense of following it are assessed by businesses are two completely different animals, and you know it.

Denny's is a business. The ACA will increase the cost of doing business. Denny's is passing that cost on to their customers, and telling them exactly why the costs are increasing.

I am staggered by those who would prefer to remain blissfully ignorant of the reason their Grand Slam meals will cost a little more.

[Larrymc]

Odd, that's not what the majority of online dictionaries call it. Most just call it an extra fee or charge.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/surcharge


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surcharge


How the costs of the ACA are assessed by the government, and how the expense of following it are assessed by businesses are two completely different animals, and you know it.

Denny's is a business. The ACA will increase the cost of doing business. Denny's is passing that cost on to their customers, and telling them exactly why the costs are increasing.

I am staggered by those who would prefer to remain blissfully ignorant of the reason their Grand Slam meals will cost a little more.Boy these guy has upset the Obama fans, no one was supposed to Notice

[fj1200]

So, your whine, excuse me 'argument', is that he called it a surcharge and told you why he was adding it, and you'd have preferred Denny's just increase their prices and let you wallow in ignorance as to the reason. Got it.

As my first post in this thread said;


^It is a political statement when you turn a cost of doing business into a visible surcharge.

It would be helpful if you'd follow the flow here.


Marcus. That is the GAME...

The "game" is putting actual thought into arguments rather than throwing out knee-jerk arguments and engaging in the groupthink that you people seem to like.


FU, your arrogant, condescending, know it all, and I am smarter than you attitude was the first indication

Oh, I thought it was my constant repetition of black theological principals.


FU has a tendency to ignore basic economic principals and based on his posts; his knowledge of what it takes to meet a payroll would fit inside a thimble

:rolleyes: You wouldn't know a basic economic principal if it slapped you in the face. I'm sure there are some cartoons on the subject that would get you up to speed; Scrooge McDuck comes to mind.

[Larrymc]

As my first post in this thread said;
It would be helpful if you'd follow the flow here.



The "game" is putting actual thought into arguments rather than throwing out knee-jerk arguments and engaging in the groupthink that you people seem to like.



Oh, I thought it was my constant repetition of black theological principals.



:rolleyes: You wouldn't know a basic economic principal if it slapped you in the face. I'm sure there are some cartoons on the subject that would get you up to speed; Scrooge McDuck comes to mind.i can't believe this thread is still going, what is it some one said "Can't Fix Stupid"

[fj1200]

i can't believe this thread is still going, what is it some one said "Can't Fix Stupid"

Exactly, this thread was done after post #9. ;)

[Marcus Aurelius]

Quote Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius View Post
So, your whine, excuse me 'argument', is that he called it a surcharge and told you why he was adding it, and you'd have preferred Denny's just increase their prices and let you wallow in ignorance as to the reason. Got it.

As my first post in this thread said;

Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
^It is a political statement when you turn a cost of doing business into a visible surcharge.




Proving my point that you'd rather wallow in blissful ignorance than know why your meals are more expensive at Denny's.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Exactly, this thread was done after post #9. ;)

Of course, since your opinions are the end all and be all, why continue a thread after you make a statement, right?

Dumb ass.

[fj1200]

Proving my point that you'd rather wallow in blissful ignorance than know why your meals are more expensive at Denny's.

Blissful ignorance eh? It doesn't take a surcharge for me to know that ACA is a piece of crap. With you it takes more I guess.

[logroller]

i can't believe this thread is still going, what is it some one said "Can't Fix Stupid"
Was that your fifth grade teacher after a spelling lesson?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Blissful ignorance eh? It doesn't take a surcharge for me to know that ACA is a piece of crap. With you it takes more I guess.

Your sig is appropriate... Your stupidity is not thus handicapped by limitations.

[fj1200]

Of course, since your opinions are the end all and be all, why continue a thread after you make a statement, right?

Dumb ass.

You're a hateful little man aren't you? Besides, I stated fact.

Have you ever wondered why the ACA increased costs 5% at Denny's but only 11 cents per pizza at Papa John's (who didn't require a surcharge btw to get his point across)?

[fj1200]

Your sig is appropriate... Your stupidity is not thus handicapped by limitations.

It does rock doesn't it? It was inspired by liberals and posters like you.

[Marcus Aurelius]

It does rock doesn't it? It was inspired by liberals and posters like you.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz................

[Marcus Aurelius]

You're a hateful little man aren't you? Besides, I stated fact.

Have you ever wondered why the ACA increased costs 5% at Denny's but only 11 cents per pizza at Papa John's (who didn't require a surcharge btw to get his point across)?

You really need to do something about that stick up your ass.

Your problem is you simply dislike the word surcharge. If Denny's hadn't called the cost increase to the customer a surcharge, you'd be happily wallowing in your oft displayed ignorance.

[logroller]

Odd, that's not what the majority of online dictionaries call it. Most just call it an extra fee or charge.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/surcharge


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surcharge


How the costs of the ACA are assessed by the government, and how the expense of following it are assessed by businesses are two completely different animals, and you know it.

Denny's is a business. The ACA will increase the cost of doing business. Denny's is passing that cost on to their customers, and telling them exactly why the costs are increasing.

I am staggered by those who would prefer to remain blissfully ignorant of the reason their Grand Slam meals will cost a little more.do I need to bump the announcement from Denny's corp that said the price increase was due to food costs over six months prior to this surcharge attributable to ACA? I notice no one has responded...likely because its devastating to your argument that this guy is just letting the people know why... So who's blissfully ignorant here?

[Marcus Aurelius]

do I need to bump the announcement from Denny's corp that said the price increase was due to food costs over six months prior to this surcharge attributable to ACA? I notice no one has responded...likely because its devastating to your argument that this guy is just letting the people know why... So who's blissfully ignorant here?

A... yeah, I'd like to see that please.

B... Argument? I'm simply pointing out the sheer stupidity of whining like little girls about him calling it a 'surcharge'.

If someone doesn't like the 'political statement' Denny's is making calling it a 'surcharge', they can feel free to eat elsewhere. They should NOT feel free to expect the guy to not exercise his rights to free speech by making such a 'political statement'.

It seems to some, free speech only applies when you agree with the message.


BTW, the increase for food costs is for Denny's across the board. The 'surcharge' is from a single franchisee, with multiple locations, not Denny's as a whole, and is in addition to the food cost increases. So, your argument that the increase is really from the food costs increasing is simply untrue.

[Larrymc]

Was that your fifth grade teacher after a spelling lesson?No i think it was someone describing you.

[logroller]

Oh yeah, 30 cents more on a grand slam breakfast, that greedy prick... covering his costs. Here's a blurb from January 2012--

(http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/01/05/price-increase-first-starbucks-now-dennys)
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/01/05/price-increase-first-starbucks-now-dennys


Talk about a slam! The Denny’s “Grand Slam” breakfast you love so much may soon cost you more.

"Denny's is looking at a very modest menu increase," said Liz Brady, a spokeswoman for the company, CNN Money reported Wednesday.

The South Carolina-based company expects food costs to rise between 3 percent and 5 percent this year, according to Bloomberg. The company, which has more than 1,600 locations, has not said when the change would take effect.
I've no issue with free speech, just misinformation for political reasons.

[fj1200]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz................

Logical reasoning and rational thought make Marcus sleepy.


You really need to do something about that stick up your ass.

Your problem is you simply dislike the word surcharge. If Denny's hadn't called the cost increase to the customer a surcharge, you'd be happily wallowing in your oft displayed ignorance.

You seem to have a fascination with mine, nevertheless I care not a whit what the guy does. I expect him to attempt to pass on his costs but I don't expect to see a "business license," as an example, surcharge anytime soon.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Talk about a slam! The Denny’s “Grand Slam” breakfast you love so much may soon cost you more.

"Denny's is looking at a very modest menu increase," said Liz Brady, a spokeswoman for the company, CNN Money reported Wednesday.

The South Carolina-based company expects food costs to rise between 3 percent and 5 percent this year, according to Bloomberg. The company, which has more than 1,600 locations, has not said when the change would take effect.

I've no issue with free speech, just misinformation for political reasons.

You must have missed/ignored this...


BTW, the increase for food costs is for Denny's across the board. The 'surcharge' is from a single franchisee, with multiple locations, not Denny's as a whole, and is in addition to the food cost increases. So, your argument that the increase is really from the food costs increasing is simply untrue.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Logical reasoning and rational thought make Marcus sleepy.


Actually, it's the complete lack of it on your part that made me doze off.

[fj1200]

Actually, it's the complete lack of it on your part that made me doze off.

As you say. I thought you might have gotten tired repeating the same information that nobody disagrees with.

[logroller]

A... yeah, I'd like to see that please.

B... Argument? I'm simply pointing out the sheer stupidity of whining like little girls about him calling it a 'surcharge'.

If someone doesn't like the 'political statement' Denny's is making calling it a 'surcharge', they can feel free to eat elsewhere. They should NOT feel free to expect the guy to not exercise his rights to free speech by making such a 'political statement'.

It seems to some, free speech only applies when you agree with the message.


BTW, the increase for food costs is for Denny's across the board. The 'surcharge' is from a single franchisee, with multiple locations, not Denny's as a whole, and is in addition to the food cost increases. So, your argument that the increase is really from the food costs increasing is simply untrue.



This particular franchisee is certainly subject to Denny's food price increases. The food price adjustment is conspicuously similar to the surcharge amount announced well after. Yet I see nothing in the OP mentioning food price increases in addition to the surcharge--just the surcharge. So do you have a source to back that up...Or is that just an assumption you made to fit your argument?

[Marcus Aurelius]

This particular franchisee is certainly subject to Denny's food price increases. The food price adjustment is conspicuously similar to the surcharge amount announced well after. Yet I see nothing in the OP mentioning food price increases in addition to the surcharge--just the surcharge. So do you have a source to back that up...Or is that just an assumption you made to fit your argument?

The food cost increases were announced in 2012.
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Denny-s-planning-modest-price-increase-soon-2439684.php

Denny's Corp., a family restaurant chain with about 1,600 locations, will raise menu prices this year to help make up for higher commodity costs and maintain profit margin, Chief Executive Officer John Miller (http://www.sfgate.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=business&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22John+Miller%22) said.


The franchise owner said his 'surcharge' would begin in 2014, when most of Obamacare kicks in.
http://consumerist.com/2012/11/16/dennys-franchisee-to-add-5-obamacare-surcharge/

The owner of dozens of Denny’s restaurants and the Hurricane Grill chain says he plans on adding a 5% “Obamacare Surcharge” to his menus in 2014 when a number of facets of the Affordable Care Act will kick in.


Are you really not bright enough to see those are two different cost increases? Seriously?

[aboutime]

How many people HONESTLY care what the Increase in prices are called at Denny's, McDonalds, Wendy's, TGIF, Outback, or any of the other countless restaurants, or fast food outlets???

If people do not go to Denny's. No Hit, No Foul.

I haven't personally been to a Denny's since my last week in San Diego. And that was in 1981, just before flying back to the East coast.

And now. The nearest Denny's I know of is about 10, or 12 miles away, and out of my way.

What's the big deal over whether Denny's added a Surcharge, or Increase? Does it make the food taste different?

[Marcus Aurelius]

How many people HONESTLY care what the Increase in prices are called at Denny's, McDonalds, Wendy's, TGIF, Outback, or any of the other countless restaurants, or fast food outlets???

If people do not go to Denny's. No Hit, No Foul.

I haven't personally been to a Denny's since my last week in San Diego. And that was in 1981, just before flying back to the East coast.

And now. The nearest Denny's I know of is about 10, or 12 miles away, and out of my way.

What's the big deal over whether Denny's added a Surcharge, or Increase? Does it make the food taste different?

Apparently, the idea that anyone would make a 'political statement' is abhorrent to some posters here. Like I said, according to some, freedom of speech only seems to apply when said speech agrees with them.

[aboutime]

Apparently, the idea that anyone would make a 'political statement' is abhorrent to some posters here. Like I said, according to some, freedom of speech only seems to apply when said speech agrees with them.


AMEN! That has been the Democrat/Obama Theme all along.

So now. I guess you know. Because you pointed that out, as many others have done.

You are now fully qualified...LIBERALLY SPEAKING...to be called an American Racist, and Terrorists....IN THEIR EMPTY MINDS!

[Marcus Aurelius]

AMEN! That has been the Democrat/Obama Theme all along.

So now. I guess you know. Because you pointed that out, as many others have done.

You are now fully qualified...LIBERALLY SPEAKING...to be called an American Racist, and Terrorists....IN THEIR EMPTY MINDS!

I was called a racist the first time I refused to support Obama in 2008. Odd, since my ex-wife is of another race and I don't think she ever thought I was a racist.

[aboutime]

I was called a racist the first time I refused to support Obama in 2008. Odd, since my ex-wife is of another race and I don't think she ever thought I was a racist.


Marcus. I honestly do not believe our race has anything to do with being called racist. It seems the Dem/Liberal/Obama crowd has decided that it doesn't matter what race we happen to be. But if we dare disagree with them, or Obama. That is like the Cops, Judge, and Jury..all in one...Deciding WE ARE GUILTY of Racism, and we are Racists for daring to disagree.

It's not unusual for me either. Since I first discovered FORUMS like this, and others. Every time I dared to voice my opinion, and disclosed how I didn't like, or agree with Obama, or the Democrats. I have lived with the BADGE OF COURAGE...I call the label as a Racist.

The one, and best way to know whether telling the truth is working is when...being called names is the FIRST reaction the IGNORANT have as their defense that discloses..THEY ARE JUST IDIOTS.

It seems. Most FORUMS generally become a Melting Pot that sooner, or later becomes a Popularity, meeting place divided by two kinds of people.
Those who want to hear the truth, and those who are offended by the truth.

[red states rule]

Was that your fifth grade teacher after a spelling lesson?

More like your Economics 101 instructor grading your Economics 101 exam :laugh:

[red states rule]

You're a hateful little man aren't you? Besides, I stated fact.

Have you ever wondered why the ACA increased costs 5% at Denny's but only 11 cents per pizza at Papa John's (who didn't require a surcharge btw to get his point across)?

11 cents per pizza nationwide is a chunk of money. PLUS they have already laid off workers and more layoffs are coming.
35 employees have lost their jobs at Papa John's Louisville headquarters. That's six percent of the company's six hundred workers here in Louisville.
Papa John's says the layoffs include all different types of administration jobs. In a statement, the company says it is operating in one of the worst economies in decades, and that the pizza business is not immune. http://www.wdrb.com/global/story.asp?S=11109076 PLUS Papa Johns is expected to REDUCE the work hours of many employees to below 30 hours to avoid Obamcare. (Just as many companies are doing) Once again, your "knowledge" of the facts is showing FU

[red states rule]

Apparently, the idea that anyone would make a 'political statement' is abhorrent to some posters here. Like I said, according to some, freedom of speech only seems to apply when said speech agrees with them.

You have a firm grasp on the obvious.

[fj1200]

11 cents per pizza nationwide is a chunk of money. PLUS they have already laid off workers and more layoffs are coming.

PLUS Papa Johns is expected to REDUCE the work hours of many employees to below 30 hours to avoid Obamcare. (Just as many companies are doing) Once again, your "knowledge" of the facts is showing FU

Geesh, the only thing showing is how much I put into a post. Have I disputed anything that you've added? No, I made a direct comparison, 11 cents vs 5%, of the effect on menu items. Since this thread is mostly about what private companies can get away with in how their businesses are affected; how about some actual related information and real world results.

Olive Garden owner to hold off on worker changes (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/olive-garden-owner-hold-off-200230971.html)Olive Garden owner Darden Restaurants to hold off on worker changes tied to health care reform
NEW YORK (AP) -- The owner of Olive Garden and Red Lobster says it won't bump any full-time workers down to part-time status, after its tests aimed at limiting health care costs resulted in a publicity backlash that took a bite out of sales.At the same time, Darden Restaurants Inc. isn't ruling out relying more heavily on part-timers over the long haul.
The company, based in Orlando, Fla., is set to announce Thursday that none of its current full-time employees will have their status changed as a result of the new regulations. The move will come just two days after the company lowered its profit outlook for the year, citing failed promotions and negative publicity from its tests that used more part-time employees. The tests were aimed at keeping down costs tied to new health care regulations, which will require large companies to provide insurance to full-time workers starting in 2014.
After Darden's tests were reported in October, the company received a flood of feedback from customers through its website, on Facebook and in restaurants, said Bob McAdam, who heads government affairs and community relations for Darden. Additionally, he said that internal surveys showed both employee and customer satisfaction declined at restaurants where the tests were in place.
"What that taught us is that our restaurants perform better when we have full-time hourly employees involved," he said.

Darden likely make moves in the long term to the best employee mix given the new regulations but it's clear they can't do whatever they want without some negative consequences.

FWIW, your link doesn't mention anything about ACA, it mentions the bad economy.

[Marcus Aurelius]

You have a firm grasp on the obvious.

That's what she said.....

[red states rule]

Geesh, the only thing showing is how much I put into a post. Have I disputed anything that you've added? No, I made a direct comparison, 11 cents vs 5%, of the effect on menu items. Since this thread is mostly about what private companies can get away with in how their businesses are affected; how about some actual related information and real world results.

Olive Garden owner to hold off on worker changes (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/olive-garden-owner-hold-off-200230971.html)

Olive Garden owner Darden Restaurants to hold off on worker changes tied to health care reform



Darden likely make moves in the long term to the best employee mix given the new regulations but it's clear they can't do whatever they want without some negative consequences.

FWIW, your link doesn't mention anything about ACA, it mentions the bad economy.

Wow, a company trying to recover their lost profits over the added costs of doing business due to Obamacare. How un-American. Of course the loyal PR staff for Obama in the liberal media have savaged these companies and expressed their "outrage" over their perfectly understandable reaction to Obamacare. I am sure the Obama economy will do "great" with the added taxes and regulations imposed on the private sector by Obamacare

[Abbey Marie]

So, tomorrow, my husband and I have to go to our neighborhood pharmacy for blood work, BP screening, weight, and a couple other things, at the demand of my husband's employer's insurance carrier. Despite the fact that we go in for regular checkups with our doctor. Until we do this, his employer will deduct $40 per week from his salary.

No word yet why this is so important to them all of a sudden, given the fact that we both get these things checked regularly by our GP. I am predicting that if they do not like any of the results, there will be more stringent requirements and/or increases in premiums. Welcome to the brave new world of health care under His Holiness The Obama.

[red states rule]

So, tomorrow, my husband and I have to go to our neighborhood pharmacy for blood work, BP screening, weight, and a couple other things, at the demand of my husband's employee-provided insurance carrier. Depsite the fact that we go in for regular checkups with our doctor. Until we do this, his employer will deduct $40 per week from his salary.

No word yet why this is so important to them all of a sudden, given the fact that we both get these things checked regularly by our GP. I am predicting that if they do not like any of the results, there will be more stringent requirements and/or increases in premiums. Welcome to the brave new world of health care under His Holiness The Obama.

Get use to it Abbey. Next up perhaps food inspections to verify only "healthy and approved" food is in your kitchen and pantry?

[aboutime]

So, tomorrow, my husband and I have to go to our neighborhood pharmacy for blood work, BP screening, weight, and a couple other things, at the demand of my husband's employer's insurance carrier. Depsite the fact that we go in for regular checkups with our doctor. Until we do this, his employer will deduct $40 per week from his salary.

No word yet why this is so important to them all of a sudden, given the fact that we both get these things checked regularly by our GP. I am predicting that if they do not like any of the results, there will be more stringent requirements and/or increases in premiums. Welcome to the brave new world of health care under His Holiness The Obama.


Abbey. Unfortunately. That kind of thing is only the beginning of the problems. Seems that technique is being used by many employer's these days. Worried about how they will be able to keep providing Health Insurance coverage for employee's. The Govt. has them and their employee's (your hubby) jumping through those RED TAPE hoops. Just waiting for someone NOT TO COMPLY, causing them to END their coverages. It's all based on DOLLARS, and Obamacare is going to cost MANY MORE DOLLARS for employers in both coverages, and fines later on. That's what the DEMOCRATS and OBAMA have wanted from the GET GO.

[red states rule]

As far as food inspections, I can Michelle Obama approving the final list of "naughty" and "nice" food that people will be allowed to consume - or pay a tax (or a fee as LR calls them)

[red states rule]

So, tomorrow, my husband and I have to go to our neighborhood pharmacy for blood work, BP screening, weight, and a couple other things, at the demand of my husband's employer's insurance carrier. Despite the fact that we go in for regular checkups with our doctor. Until we do this, his employer will deduct $40 per week from his salary.

No word yet why this is so important to them all of a sudden, given the fact that we both get these things checked regularly by our GP. I am predicting that if they do not like any of the results, there will be more stringent requirements and/or increases in premiums. Welcome to the brave new world of health care under His Holiness The Obama.

Abbey. it sounds like Obamacare is catching up to you. Here is a flow chart that I hope helps you navigate through the Obamacare plan [QUOTE] http://i32.tinypic.com/9jdlk8.jpg /QUOTE]

[red states rule]

Geesh, the only thing showing is how much I put into a post. Have I disputed anything that you've added? No, I made a direct comparison, 11 cents vs 5%, of the effect on menu items. Since this thread is mostly about what private companies can get away with in how their businesses are affected; how about some actual related information and real world results.

Olive Garden owner to hold off on worker changes (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/olive-garden-owner-hold-off-200230971.html)

Olive Garden owner Darden Restaurants to hold off on worker changes tied to health care reform



Darden likely make moves in the long term to the best employee mix given the new regulations but it's clear they can't do whatever they want without some negative consequences.

FWIW, your link doesn't mention anything about ACA, it mentions the bad economy.

BTW, I am happy fewer people will not lose there jobs at Darden shops. However if you enjoyed getting their 2 meals for $20 - you should have voted for Romney and you could still get them. Oops, if they removed that deal from the menu that would be a "political statement" right?

[fj1200]

Wow, a company trying to recover their lost profits over the added costs of doing business due to Obamacare. How un-American. Of course the loyal PR staff for Obama in the liberal media have savaged these companies and expressed their "outrage" over their perfectly understandable reaction to Obamacare. I am sure the Obama economy will do "great" with the added taxes and regulations imposed on the private sector by Obamacare

Please indicate where I disagreed with that.


BTW, I am happy fewer people will not lose there jobs at Darden shops. However if you enjoyed getting their 2 meals for $20 - you should have voted for Romney and you could still get them. Oops, if they removed that deal from the menu that would be a "political statement" right?

:rolleyes: No, a political statement is a press release or a surcharge.

[Kathianne]

I assume that everyone here saw the 'better than ever' unemployment figures released in the past days. A perspective:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-07/number-workers-aged-25-54-back-april-1997-levels


umber Of Workers Aged 25-54 Back To April 1997 Levels Submitted by Tyler Durden (http://www.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden) on 12/07/2012

When people think of the conventional battery of options the BLS applies to fudge the monthly payrolls number, the labor force participation is the first thing that comes mind: after all the thesis is that old workers are increasingly dropping out of the labor force and retiring. Nothing could be further from the truth as can be seen in this chart (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS12024230)of workers aged 55-69, i.e. the prime retirement age. But perhaps a far more important secular issue is the complete lack of pickup in the prime worker demographic, those aged 25-54, which in November dropped by 400k to 94 MM. This is a level first breached in April 1997, in other words in the past 15 years not a single incremental job has been gained in this most productive and lucrative of age groups!



Furthermore, there is absolutely no demographic reason why America, which has a substantial natural growth rate across all demographics, should not see more workers from the younger age cohorts enter this age group. We are, however, confident one will promptly be discovered as this chart becomes prevalent in the mainstream media.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/12/25-54_0.jpg (http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/12/25-54.jpg)
And, as a tangent, workers aged 55 and Over:
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/12/55-69_0.jpg (http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/12/55-69.jpg)
Source: St. Louis Fed (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/LNS12000060.txt)

[Robert A Whit]

So, tomorrow, my husband and I have to go to our neighborhood pharmacy for blood work, BP screening, weight, and a couple other things, at the demand of my husband's employer's insurance carrier. Despite the fact that we go in for regular checkups with our doctor. Until we do this, his employer will deduct $40 per week from his salary.

No word yet why this is so important to them all of a sudden, given the fact that we both get these things checked regularly by our GP. I am predicting that if they do not like any of the results, there will be more stringent requirements and/or increases in premiums. Welcome to the brave new world of health care under His Holiness The Obama.

I don't think that in CA one can get such things done. I get my blood work done by an approved laboratory. I have spent 95 percent of my life with no so called health insurance so have no experience with those types of requests.

[aboutime]

Here are the ACTUAL better than ever Unemployment rates....a LOOK AT REALITY...4115

[logroller]

As far as food inspections, I can Michelle Obama approving the final list of "naughty" and "nice" food that people will be allowed to consume - or pay a tax (or a fee as LR calls them)
I conceded, show some grace RSR.

[logroller]

Wow, a company trying to recover their lost profits over the added costs of doing business due to Obamacare. How un-American. Of course the loyal PR staff for Obama in the liberal media have savaged these companies and expressed their "outrage" over their perfectly understandable reaction to Obamacare. I am sure the Obama economy will do "great" with the added taxes and regulations imposed on the private sector by Obamacare



"If I leave the prices the same, but say on the menu that there is a 5 percent surcharge for Obamacare, customers have two choices. They can either pay it and tip 15 or 20 percent, or if they really feel so inclined, they can reduce the amount of tip they give to the server, who is the primary beneficiary of Obamacare, Metz told The Huffington Post. "Although it may sound terrible that I'm doing this, it's the only alternative. I've got to pass the cost on to the consumer."


Vindictive maybe, but that makes sense, except

Metz said he will hold meetings at all his restaurants starting in December to discuss the surcharge and to tell employees "that because of Obamacare, we are going to be cutting front-of-the-house employees to under 30 hours, effective immediately."


...and why is he doing that...



Currently, the law states that employers with more than 50 full-time equivalent employees will be charged a penalty for any employees over 30 full-time employees that they don't cover. Several employers have cited that provision -- including
Darden Restaurants (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/health-care-reform-part-time-work_n_1952455.html)
,
Papa John's (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/papa-johns-obamacare-john-schnatter_n_2104202.html)
,
Apple-Metro (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/applebees-backlash_n_2118231.html?utm_hp_ref=small-business)
and
Jimmy John's (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/zane-tankel-applebees-obamacare_n_2094568.html)
-- in announcing plans to skirt the law by cutting employees' hours to make them part time.



I see, so he won't actually incur any additional costs?

No, in fact



Metz said he will take the extra step of adding a surcharge because he believes the law will eventually expand to include penalties for not covering full-time equivalent employees. If he has to pay a penalty for his average 35 full-time equivalent employes per restaurant, he said it would cost him $75,000 per location. In that case, he said raising prices wouldn't be an option, since he'd have to raise prices about 25 percent to cover the costs of Obamacare, which would be "catastrophic" for his business.


So the surcharge doesn't even cover the costs he believes will be put in place. So what's his motivation here...



Metz said he hopes the post-election meetings will inspire employees rather than alienate them. "What we're going to ask them to do is to speak to their elected officials, to try to convey what this means in terms of their jobs and their livelihoods," Metz said.



Its a political statement; it maybe based in economic interests, but the surcharge is not the result of an incurred cost.



quotes from the OP source interview :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/john-metz-hurricane-grill-wings-dennys_n_2122412.htmlutm_hp_ref=small-business

[red states rule]

LR you really are a piece of work. The impact on the private sector is clear but "you do not see it" The very people you and Obama claim Obamacare will help is putting these very people out of work, cutting their work hours, and increasing the cost of healthcare ins for the rest of us. Yet you chose to ignore these clear facts. As I posted before, libs like you really do not care about the middle class or those trying to grow their business. All you care about is advancing the liberal agenda and increasing the size and control of the Federal government. So what if middle class folks lose their jobs? It is a small price to pay for the implementation of Obamacare. Besides there are many other federal handouts that will "help" these people. Now we see another impact of Obamacare. This time pet owners will take a hit
Santa Claus is no stranger to rooftops. But the mayor of Millstone Township, N.J., wants to kick him off one. She says the 40-foot tall inflated Santa could be a holiday hazard.
The giant jolly old elf is at the center of a legal battle. The owner of Seasonal World put Kris Kringle on the roof to spread some holiday cheer, but there is nothing cheerful about the 5 tickets he received because of it.
"There is no ordinance or development agreement that says I can't display it," said Tony Schiavone.
The town disagrees, and now Schiavone is on the mayor's naughty list again this year. Last year he was ticketed for a 20-foot Santa on the roof. That dispute was settled out of court, even though Schiavone said the McDonald's next door, which had the same inflatable on its roof, wasn't ticketed.
"It's what I do every year, I've been doing it for 12 years and they've been basically harassing me for 12 years," Schiavone said.
Mayor Nancy Grbelja told Fox 5 the Santa is against the rules because it is a distraction and that if a strong gust of wind comes, you better watch out. She said: "It's big and it's a hazard."
But Schiavone said there is no way Santa is blowing off this roof.
"It's weighted down with sandbags and bolted to the building," he said.
Some customers we spoke with accuse the town of being like the Grinch and say this Santa scandal is silly.
The mayor said she is no scrooge and that she has nothing against Santa himself, just the location of the oversized one.
But Schiavone has no plans to move him.
A court date has been set for after Christmas.


Read more: http://www.myfoxny.com/story/20292101/battle-over-inflatable-santa-claus#ixzz2EbkVyo5H I will give you this LR. When libs set out to f*** us over - you people go all out to make sure it is done completely

[logroller]

LR you really are a piece of work. The impact on the private sector is clear but "you do not see it" The very people you and Obama claim Obamacare will help is putting these very people out of work, cutting their work hours, and increasing the cost of healthcare ins for the rest of us. Yet you chose to ignore these clear facts. As I posted before, libs like you really do not care about the middle class or those trying to grow their business. All you care about is advancing the liberal agenda and increasing the size and control of the Federal government. So what if middle class folks lose their jobs? It is a small price to pay for the implementation of Obamacare. Besides there are many other federal handouts that will "help" these people. Now we see another impact of Obamacare. This time pet owners will take a hit I will give you this LR. When libs set out to f*** us over - you people go all out to make sure it is done completely
i grew up middle class, and have discussed relevant policy and taxes extensively ever since. Take a long hard look at the bush tax cuts and the effect its had in decreasing the marginal tax rate for the middle class, only to thrust them into the amt and pay a higher effective tax rate by negating their deductions--then explain why AMt hasnt been adjusted for inflation if helping the middle class is such a great priority for Congress over the last decade (if not longer).

I owned and operated a small business for ~5 years; have you? I'll take being lectured to by someone who's never done it with a healthy dose of apathy.

[Missileman]

i grew up middle class, and have discussed relevant policy and taxes extensively ever since. Take a long hard look at the bush tax cuts and the effect its had in decreasing the marginal tax rate for the middle class, only to thrust them into the amt and pay a higher effective tax rate by negating their deductions--then explain why AMt hasnt been adjusted for inflation if helping the middle class is such a great priority for Congress over the last decade (if not longer).

I owned and operated a small business for ~5 years; have you? I'll take being lectured to by someone who's never done it with a healthy dose of apathy.

Your arguments about the Denny franchise are valid. However, as I stated earlier, congress has set up a perfect storm with Obamacare. A couple years from now when there's no such thing as a full-time employee and the economy has gone into full reverse because American families have 25% less buying power, you can look back and see why it was such a crap-lousy piece of legislation.

[aboutime]

i grew up middle class, and have discussed relevant policy and taxes extensively ever since. Take a long hard look at the bush tax cuts and the effect its had in decreasing the marginal tax rate for the middle class, only to thrust them into the amt and pay a higher effective tax rate by negating their deductions--then explain why AMt hasnt been adjusted for inflation if helping the middle class is such a great priority for Congress over the last decade (if not longer).

I owned and operated a small business for ~5 years; have you? I'll take being lectured to by someone who's never done it with a healthy dose of apathy.


LR. Tell us. Tell us now. Exactly WHAT KIND OF BUSINESS you operated. And how many employee's you had during that 5 year period, and the years you did it.

As for being lectured. It appears. The only person you approve of, when it comes to being lectured is OBAMA. And we all know. He has never run a business. Big, small, or Pretend.
So. Don't come here bragging about your UNSUCCESSFUL small business to us.
You should tell us the truth, as to WHY you no longer are in business. Rather than claiming how much more superior you feel you are to everyone else....whom you have no idea about.
Wanna talk Business?
I'm game. Answer my questions. Then we'll talk.

[fj1200]

I'm game. Answer my questions. Then we'll talk.

:laugh:

[logroller]

Your arguments about the Denny franchise are valid. However, as I stated earlier, congress has set up a perfect storm with Obamacare. A couple years from now when there's no such thing as a full-time employee and the economy has gone into full reverse because American families have 25% less buying power, you can look back and see why it was such a crap-lousy piece of legislation.
I got that same response from HR reps-- wait and we'll see how it is. I think you're onto something, The negative effects of ACA will be plentiful. but I'm not one to wait and see. I'm sure some see cutting FTE's as solution, but that'll only be temporary. When I look at the whole piece for an opportunity to lessen those effects, I've only found the exchanges. Yet there seems to be little to no discussion on how those might be beneficial (relatively speaking). It's law and its going to stay that way for awhile; why not focus on implementation in ways that aren't as bad, instead of just waiting. In a perfect storm, would you just heave to and wait, or do your best to stave off doom?

[red states rule]

i grew up middle class, and have discussed relevant policy and taxes extensively ever since. Take a long hard look at the bush tax cuts and the effect its had in decreasing the marginal tax rate for the middle class, only to thrust them into the amt and pay a higher effective tax rate by negating their deductions--then explain why AMt hasnt been adjusted for inflation if helping the middle class is such a great priority for Congress over the last decade (if not longer).

I owned and operated a small business for ~5 years; have you? I'll take being lectured to by someone who's never done it with a healthy dose of apathy.

The Bush tax cuts helped grow the US economy and generated MORE revenue for the country. As far as the AMT, Dems have not showed any interest in adjusting it - or repealing it as it should be. Dems had control of Congress for years LR and only increased spending, regulation, and the size and power of the Federal government. It is amazing how Dems created the AMT to make sure the "rich" did not use dedication to "escape" paying their "fair share" yet reject Republican offers to cap deductions and only want to jack up tax rates on folks who are already paying the vast majority of Federal income taxes collected. As far as you being a business owner, I noticed you used the past tense. Did you run your companies finances like Obama is running the nations. If so I understand why you used the past tense :laugh:

[Missileman]

I got that same response from HR reps-- wait and we'll see how it is. I think you're onto something, The negative effects of ACA will be plentiful. but I'm not one to wait and see. I'm sure some see cutting FTE's as solution, but that'll only be temporary. When I look at the whole piece for an opportunity to lessen those effects, I've only found the exchanges. Yet there seems to be little to no discussion on how those might be beneficial (relatively speaking). It's law and its going to stay that way for awhile; why not focus on implementation in ways that aren't as bad, instead of just waiting. In a perfect storm, would you just heave to and wait, or do your best to stave off doom?

It's been my experience that those who try to ride out a perfect storm, instead of evacuating, wind up dead or in need of rescue.

My company, and it's a large one, has spent the last 4 years of economic downturn making small cuts here and there to employee benefits to maintain their bottom line. Today, about the only benefit left is the company subsidizing the insurance policy, (no, it's not a full buy). Given their track record, I have no doubt, that Oct 2013, when the contract with the insurance company expires, they will add what they were paying in premiums to the profit margin. They have already started the part time employee strategy in a couple departments.

[aboutime]

:laugh:


Laugh all you want. Both of you think, and act the same way. In fact. I'll happily laugh at you. Not with you.

[red states rule]

Many people no longer care what Obama does or how much they punish the producers in this country. Perhaps if THEY are impacted they will no longer smirk and look down of those who are speaking out. Regarding of what Congress down about the fiscal cliff, 5 more Obam ataxes hit all of us on 1/1/13/ Again LR, so much for caring about the middle class and retired folks
Regardless of Fiscal Cliff: Five More Obamacare Taxes Hitting on January 1 There are five major Obamacare taxes taking effect on January 1, 2013 -- saddling the economy with a $268 billion tax increase:
The Obamacare Medical Device Tax – a $20 billion tax increase: Medical device manufacturers employ 409,000 people in 12,000 plants across the country. Obamacare imposes a new 2.3 percent excise tax on gross sales – even if the company does not earn a profit in a given year. In addition to killing small business jobs and impacting research and development budgets, this will increase the cost of your health care – making everything from pacemakers to prosthetics more expensive.
The Obamacare “Special Needs Kids Tax” – a $13 billion tax increase: The 30-35 million Americans who use a Flexible Spending Account (FSA) at work to pay for their family’s basic medical needs will face a new government cap of $2,500 (currently the accounts are unlimited under federal law, though employers are allowed to set a cap).
There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are several million families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. This Obamacare tax provision will limit the options available to these families.
The Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income – a $123 billion tax increase: This is a new, 3.8 percentage point surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income:

<tbody>


Capital Gains

Dividends

Other*



2012

15%

15%

35%



2013+ (current law)

23.8%

43.4%

43.4%


</tbody>
The table above also incorporates the scheduled hike in the capital gains rate from 15 to 20 percent, and the scheduled hike in dividends rate from 15 to 39.6 percent.
The Obamacare “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deductions – a $15.2 billion tax increase: Currently, those Americans facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). This tax increase imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. By limiting this deduction, Obamacare widens the net of taxable income for the sickest Americans. This tax provision will most harm near retirees and those with modest incomes but high medical bills.
The Obamacare Medicare Payroll Tax Hike -- an $86.8 billion tax increase: The Medicare payroll tax is currently 2.9 percent on all wages and self-employment profits. Under this tax hike, wages and profits exceeding $200,000 ($250,000 in the case of married couples) will face a 3.8 percent rate instead. This is a direct marginal income tax hike on small business owners, who are liable for self-employment tax in most cases. The table below compares current law vs. the Obamacare Medicare Payroll Tax Hike:

<tbody>


First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee

All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee



Current Law

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed



Obamacare Tax Hike

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed


</tbody>




Read more: http://atr.org/regardless-fiscal-cliff-five-more-obamacare-a7362#ixzz2EmlC0yrO
Follow us: @taxreformer on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=cNTREaBzmr37DZadbi-bpO&u=taxreformer)

[fj1200]

Laugh all you want. Both of you think, and act the same way. In fact. I'll happily laugh at you. Not with you.

That's clearly not true although I wouldn't expect you to be able to discern the difference.