Papa John Is Mad About Obama Care

I don't understand how anyone can see that its right to underpay your employees and not ATLEAST give them healthcare. These millionaire people can afford for their employees to have healthcare especially since they are usually underpaid... Businesses and people are just about businesses...

People want money, money, money and more money. People are greedy... Those CEOS don't give a damn about their employees. All they care is about making money... Oh if one of the employees gets sick and dies.. oh well i can just hire someone else thats desperate for a job. How in any way is that right?

Like that applebees guy in the link nyxx posted... he is mad that he will have to give his employees insurance. He would prefer fire people than to help them....It doesn't matter to him that most of those people probably have bills to pay and children to take care of... as long as he doesnt have to pay for insurance he is happy.

Pathetic.

 

Doesn't make any sense.

 

Taxes are as old as time. If a third of my income is going to be taxed I would at least prefer it to go towards programs that benefit all or the majority of Americans, such as healthcare. And education.

Which reminds me, you didn't answer my question earlier. How is government sponsored education different from government sponsored healthcare?

 

For the past 20 some odd years I have worked in the restaurant "industry". I am so very glad this is coming aout about Papa John's. Also, how the Applebee's CEO views things.

Rest assured...ALL of these places would much, much rather fire someone who is out sick than even attempt to work with them. If you break a bone while working at a restaurant, my personal experience was that you get replaced. I broke an arm falling on a floor that was Not Posted Wet. Do NOT think they could have cared less. I had to drive my straight-drive truck home AFTER I informed the owner that I'd broken my arm. He says, "Do you want a glass of wine?" LOL I KNOW that I am just an example.

Most people seem to want to overlook that restaurant work - as far as waiting tables and cooking IS NOT EASY WORK! And it is a known fact - and even shown here in this thread in post after post - that people that work in this field consistently make less money than anywhere else. Somehow this is perceived as being FINE!!! Yet, there are buiness owners (Papa John's, Applebee's, etc) that are literally making MILLIONS of dollars and CRY because they are going to maybe (but not yet) have to offer their employees health insurance...employees that have been working like demons and making much less than they would make somewhere else as they make others wealthy. Yay for big business owners! :2thumbsup:

I found it particularly interesting that some of the very people that have worked in this business have related how much (or rather little) they made and explained WHY it was this way. And that was that. So...I guess that makes it all hunky-dorey, since it was explained and all. I don't know the answer, but I know it isn't right...and explaining, technically, WHY or HOW they (Papa John and his ilk) can "get away" with it doesn't make it right.

 

"He" refers to StpLSD25

 

Couple of women I lived with worked as waitresses. The one I'll relate took place in Hawaii. Management called a MANDATORY meeting once a month. So I asked the woman I was living with--"so this is mandatory or you get fired?" Yes,she said. So I asked her what the pay was for meeting in the early morning if it was MANDATORY. Said she didn't know because no one ever punched their time card for the meetings. Well,now--I said--that shit will stop today. You punch in when you go. After having worked at the Ford plant in Milpitas,Cal,I learned you never give them an inch--they'll take 5 miles.

The time clock was very loud and when the owner heard ONE time card punch in--he knew he was had. Said-"I THINK MARGARET HAS SOMETHING TO TELL US," expecting her to shrink down and mumble around---nope. She set him straight about what MANDATORY meetings mean. It means they PAY. From then on,everyone punched in. (about 25 workers). Fuck 'em. I have many stories from the oil fields,the auto industry,farm work,the roofing industry, etc of people getting fucked over so that the employer gains.

 

I have had my very last Papa John's Pizza.

 

No, I mentioned Ferrari's. Because you said this...

For alot of people, health care is about as available as a Ferrari. Just because it exists for a price doesn't mean it's available. You know what you meant by that comment, just as you know what was meant by my reply.

Look Indi, I get the point you're making, a fundamentalist libertarian stance. And I think alot of others here do too. It's an absolutist position that does cause a person to think about health care at its foundation.
I've kind of played with this discussion rather than take a stand cause I find it interesting. I think of myself as a moderate libertarian, way more than a social liberal. I'm far from one that thinks the govt has all the answers, quite the opposite. But I've found this discussion interesting, it's not as much screaming and yelling as this subject causes most other places. However most of it has been us explaining what we think doesn't work. How about some posts about what people think WOULD work? Here's some points that seem apparent to me...

1. Our current system doesn't work. Anyone, rich poor or middle class knows that, it seems.
2. Alot of people, myself included, don't think Obamacare will be a big improvement.

I think you and I would agree that govt has a role in society. The question is what is the role of govt? I lean against redistribution of wealth, and against govt run programs. Not always, but I lean that way. I do believe that one role of govt is to 'provide for the common welfare'. There should be an authority that helps guarantee our food doesn't poison us, protect us from (real not imagined) enemies, build infrastructure, etc.
So in that case a system of regulation to insure that someone called a doctor is qualified to practice medicine should be a valid govt role. Protecting consumers from snake-oil salesman I feel falls under the 'common welfare' part of the constitution. If we feel strongly that the govt shouldn't be the single payer, in effect running and controlling health care, then what is the alternative? I'd propose these ideas.

1. Making a profit by those not directly involved in providing the service should be banned. (Insurance companies) Pay doctors, nurses, medical equipment inventors and suppliers and so on, a wage. We all should earn a living for our work and expertise. But the number one problem i feel is insurance companies making a profit. It's an incentive that promotes greed, not service. One big (and valid) argument against Obamacare and single payer is rationed care. For profit insurance has the exact same incentive.
2. Trained, experienced medical care providers are the experts. If it was as easy as blowing your nose you wouldn't need doctors and nurses. Put the skill and power of health care decisions back into the hands of doctors and patients. Like when you take your car to a mechanic. The decision is made by you and him in a give and take negotiation.
3. The role of the govt in all this is to license doctors, ensure that they are trained and competent. Basic consumer protection, no different than making sure our food isn't poison and products sold in stores don't kill people.
4. Have the medical industry as a whole do the current job of billing and collecting. A nationwide collective of professionals. Stick with me here cause this is going to be hard to swallow...

We all know the argument of states rights vs fed. That very much applies to things with different values, Alaska has different values than Alabama. Seems to me that if you break down healthcare to its core, and ask people what they want, we all pretty much want the same. The ability to see a doctor and get treated when needed. To consult with a professional about our health. From coast to coast people want essentially the same thing, putting aside all the rhetoric.
A uniform system of medicine, it seems, is a national issue not a state issue. A national system of health care, run by health care professionals without interference by insurance companies, drug companies and a dizzying array of state programs seems to make total sense and might deliver a safe service, at a much more reasonable price.

I just have a hard time equating health care availability with Ferraris, movie tickets or margarita machines. Those aren't basic human necessities.

 

I haven't seen anyone suggesting that taxes be eliminated completely, and if less than a third of your income is going to be taxed, you would still be free to contribute the difference to where ever you feel it should be spent, health care, education, etc. No one is trying to stop you from dispensing your income as you would like.

Well, nothing is government sponsored in reality, mandated maybe, but a basic education is intended to provide everyone with at least the minimal skills and knowledge to become capable of supporting themselves. That would include such things as food, clothing, shelter, and health care.

The irony of it all, the Department of Agriculture, is responsible for the food stamp program while the Park Service, also under the Department of Agriculture asks us to "Please don't feed the animals, because the animals may grow dependent and not learn to take care of themselves."

 

The right of "pursuit" does not guarantee success -- nor should it.

 

Very valid point... there is a big differance between the right to pursue, vs the.govt providing it.

Maybe a good thread to start would be , is health care a universal right, or a commodity like any other?

 

Voyage,


Like the Ferrari you brought up, all products and services produced by others are available, but what you are complaining about is the means to acquire them. No matter how great the needs of others are, it does not grant them or a government the right to confiscate from others to provide them. The people, as individuals, do have a right to help fill the needs of others as they see fit, which is the most efficient and effective way of providing assistance where needed.

The great disparity between the rich and the poor is only exacerbated by government who can create new money out of thin air, increasing the debt owed by the public, debasing our currency which as it is spent in increasingly greater amounts to purchase the same products and services only produces greater disparity, deficit spending, and National debt.

I don't feel that involving the Federal government is more capable than State government in solving any health care problems, and in my opinion it is primarily because of Federal government intrusion that many costs have risen. Although I do not think the Federal government has no duty, it should be confined only to simple clear and concise regulatory rules. Having spent a year in a hospital in my youth, paid for entirely by my father who had no insurance, and earned very low wages, I'm quite aware of the cost increases that have occurred over the last 6 or so decades.

I have no complaints about insurance companies, they are an option you can make use of if you so desire, but as with any contract you should read and understand what you are paying for before signing your name to the contract.

Health care, in my opinion, should involve the patient and the physician. Government should have minimal involvement, except for assuring that only those who are proven competent and licensed are allowed to practice medicine, and that drugs and procedures are safe before being marketed. However in the case of terminally ill patients and yet unproven drugs, I think it should be the patient who has the final say as to volunteering to have a new drug yet untested tried on him/her.

No matter how much of a necessity something is, its' existence alone does not make it a right to be provided. If you can prove to me that there is even 'one' human who could be shown as indispensable to the continued existence of society or the human species, then and only then might I be open to changing my view. In the meantime, I will, as always provide aid and assistance to those who I am able within the means I possess, without diminishing the ability to care for my self and family, and would suggest that if everyone did the same society would benefit much greater than allowing government to divide us against one another.

 

My thinking was more of the difference in government providing and protecting the right of pursuit vs. the government providing the results of such pursuit.

 

It never ceases to amaze me, how important it is that nothing subverts money from anything, regardless of who dies.

Individual, what is the basis for your assertation that there is nothing that gives anyone the right to take for their own good?

WHAT makes these things so sacred and untouchable?

WHAT good is anything without human life?

And as such, WHY should human life be put second to inanimate objects?

WHY is this construct of ownership so important to you, and WHY does it trump the natural construct of life?

 

Governments primary responsibility is to protect us collectively NOT to provide for us individually.

In my opinion, if anything is a universal right then it exists without having to take it from someone else to acquire it. You could probably justify describing it as an economic commodity as it is a product or service which requires the efforts of others to produce/provide, therefore they are entitled to compensation which is relative to both the supply and demand in a competitive market. We have a choice for example in purchasing expensive brand name drugs or cheaper generic copies which become available to meet a demand and reduce the price.

 

If you possess something, legally obtained, that I or someone else feels a need for, would you agree that I or another have a right to take it?

I don't think anyone has described anything as being sacred and untouchable, nor has anyone claimed human life is second to inanimate objects.

What the hell is it you wish to imply as being the natural construct of life?
Birth, a period of existence, and death? I pulled out a copy of my birth certificate, and found no guarantee or warranty on it anywhere.

 

Who gives a fuck if it's legally obtained? It frequently is clearly not, but even if it is, when you have enough money anything is legal, because you can pay to have it legal.

But beyond that, who gives a fuck if it's legal? That's another construct.

Don't get me wrong, everything's a construct, but they are still not absolute.

Besides, if it's legally obtained, then what's the big deal if it's legally taken by another?

If it's not sacred or untouchable, why do you believe that the construct of ownership deserves more respect than human life? If, to save a humans life, the sanctity of another's possessions, with no harm to that individual's health or future health, must be violated, I'd violate it without another thought. And I'd wish that they'd do the same to me.

It is true that, being physical beings, to be free one must have a right to untouchable possessions such that one can eat and meet basic hygene, health, shelter, etc, needs -- but where some have accumulated enough that these needs are met many times over, these concepts need to be adjusted to reflect that they may have more, but must also contribute more for the sake of others in need. (If you want to take issue with my use of the word "contribute", well sure, it is voluntary, they can get the fuck out, or give -- for most of history if everyone else starved, the rich guys head was on a pike -- if they want their money in switzerland they can join it.)

In summary, the fact that someone obtained something lawfully is totally unimportant, because we're talking about taking it away -- lawfully.

 

While a car is not the same as health care. I wouldnt call health care a basic necessity. I havnt been to a dr. In over 5 years and the last 5 times I went were for checkups(really just a reason to get out of work)
of course I think it is important for children to have some care being many things can go wrong as the body develops.
I havnt read the bill(like most if not all of congress) but I think there should be varrying levels of coverage and not a one size fits all. Maybe that makes no sense beggers cant be choosers and all but I will let yall get back to your conversation.

 

So essentially, you would like to legalize theft. Such animosity you and several others display. If those you so vehemently display hatred of were to leave to Switzerland with their money, you would then be directing your anger at Switzerland demanding it take responsibility for your needs, wouldn't you?

 

No, I don't care about switzerland, beyond it's effect on the rest of the world. If they go there, problem gone.

As far as theft, no, theft is a legal definition, and not theft, if it's legal. There are many ways that an individual can be deprived of possessions or money by the state as it is, and none of it's theft. It's taxes, or forfiture, or fines, or whatever.

It's theft if it's NOT legal. If you make it legal, it's fine, in your eyes. After all, mane very rich people have gotten their money by fucking others, but you don't think that's theft, because they did it legally.