PDA

View Full Version : Papa John's



murral stark
11-13-2012, 07:21 PM
Papa John's CEO says they are going to have to raise the price of their pizza by .15 because of Obamacare. Can't afford to offer healthcare benefits to their employees. My goodness they only made mid 40 million in net profit.:confused::confused:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2012/11/12/breaking-down-centi-millionaire-papa-john-schnatters-obamacare-math/

Larry Thompson1
11-13-2012, 08:26 PM
Papa John's CEO says they are going to have to raise the price of their pizza by .15 because of Obamacare. Can't afford to offer healthcare benefits to their employees. My goodness they only made mid 40 million in net profit.:confused::confused:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2012/11/12/breaking-down-centi-millionaire-papa-john-schnatters-obamacare-math/

Thier Pizza. Papa Johns

thebigcat
11-13-2012, 08:35 PM
Costs get passed to consumers without our knowledge all the time. If you've ever bought a gallon of gas you should know that you have no control over policy driven price changes. It's $0.15 though, we have bigger fish to fry.

murral stark
11-13-2012, 08:43 PM
I just found it humorous is all.

BonMallari
11-13-2012, 08:44 PM
very good pizza....but maybe they need to quit paying Peyton Manning to give away 2M pizzas or quit hosting a CFB Bowl game

luvmylabs23139
11-13-2012, 08:45 PM
Thing is you are looking at the profits of a corporation. Many of your local Papa John's are franchises owned by a small business owner not the big bad corporation.

murral stark
11-13-2012, 09:03 PM
very good pizza....but maybe they need to quit paying Peyton Manning to give away 2M pizzas or quit hosting a CFB Bowl game

Kinda what I was thinking Bon.

murral stark
11-13-2012, 09:08 PM
Thing is you are looking at the profits of a corporation. Many of your local Papa John's are franchises owned by a small business owner not the big bad corporation.


So what. It is publicly traded company and he has made the statement that it is going to increase the cost of pizza by .15 when actually if you read the forbes article, it only equates to roughly .04 per pie. As Bon said, quit spending obscene amounts of money on Peyton Manning and giving away 2million pizzas, plus not sponsoring a bowl game, they could probably afford to keep their cost down and provide their employees with benefits. blaming Obamacare for that is bull stuff.

Larry Thompson1
11-13-2012, 09:12 PM
Kinda what I was thinking Bon.

If you don't want to pay the extra .15 then don't. Atleast you have a choice to do so. But I suppose you want the gov to mandate cheaper pizza.

Henry V
11-13-2012, 09:41 PM
Well, at least they are passing this cost on to consumers rather than hurting their profit margin. You would hate to see that because then there would be less to trickle down.

murral stark
11-13-2012, 10:15 PM
If you don't want to pay the extra .15 then don't. Atleast you have a choice to do so. But I suppose you want the gov to mandate cheaper pizza.

No govt mandate. I happen to like their pizza and an extra .15 is not a deal breaker for me. Although with that frivolous spending they probably could afford to offer benefits to their employees and not raise their pizza prices. that's just me though.

murral stark
11-13-2012, 10:16 PM
Well, at least they are passing this cost on to consumers rather than hurting their profit margin. You would hate to see that because then there would be less to trickle down.

Oh we got the down, we just haven't seen the trickle. HA HA HA!!!

mngundog
11-13-2012, 10:22 PM
Well, at least they are passing this cost on to consumers rather than hurting their profit margin. You would hate to see that because then there would be less to trickle down.
Who needs Papa John's when you have a Zorbaz?

Buzz
11-13-2012, 11:06 PM
Who needs Papa John's when you have a Zorbaz?


You can say that again!

PamK
11-13-2012, 11:30 PM
I would think the increase has more to do with the $250M class action lawsuit. There stock is down 3%.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/13/technology/mobile/papa-johns/index.html?source=cnn_bin

thebigcat
11-13-2012, 11:38 PM
I would think the increase has more to do with the $250M class action lawsuit. There stock is down 3%.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/13/technology/mobile/papa-johns/index.html?source=cnn_bin

If I got $1500 for each unwanted and unsolicited text message I received I wouldn't have to work... What a joke these people are.

murral stark
11-14-2012, 12:12 AM
I would think the increase has more to do with the $250M class action lawsuit. There stock is down 3%.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/13/technology/mobile/papa-johns/index.html?source=cnn_bin


You might have a point there. what is Zorbaz? Never heard of them.

mngundog
11-14-2012, 12:25 AM
You might have a point there. what is Zorbaz? Never heard of them.
Only the best damn pizza franchise in the world. http://www.zorbaz.com/

M&K's Retrievers
11-14-2012, 01:47 AM
Only the best damn pizza franchise in the world. http://www.zorbaz.com/

What do you guys know? Campisis Egyptian Restaurant in Dallas is the best and it's not a franchise. Pizza, pasta, crab claws, garlic strip steak with potatoes in butter. Oh man! www.campisis.us

BonMallari
11-14-2012, 03:56 AM
What do you guys know? Campisis Egyptian Restaurant in Dallas is the best and it's not a franchise. Pizza, pasta, crab claws, garlic strip steak with potatoes in butter. Oh man! www.campisis.us


probably some of the best food of all time....been going there since the early 80's.....the granddaughter grew up to be a saucy little pin up girl (so I am told);)

DaveHare
11-14-2012, 07:49 AM
very good pizza....but maybe they need to quit paying Peyton Manning to give away 2M pizzas or quit hosting a CFB Bowl game

Bon, I was thinking the same thing.
Dave Hare

mngundog
11-14-2012, 01:03 PM
What do you guys know? Campisis Egyptian Restaurant in Dallas is the best and it's not a franchise. Pizza, pasta, crab claws, garlic strip steak with potatoes in butter. Oh man! www.campisis.us
Sorry been there, my description of Campisis would be a good Italian restaurant that also makes a bad pizza. When in Dallas, I would much rather go to the Hard Eight.

PamK
11-14-2012, 03:19 PM
I love hard eight and it is onlt 5 minutes from where I live.

helencalif
11-14-2012, 03:51 PM
Corect me iof I am wrong ... but I think I heard Peyton Manning say that he owns 60 Papa John's franchises.

(Yes, 60 franchises ... not 6.)

duk4me
11-14-2012, 04:05 PM
Corect me iof I am wrong ... but I think I heard Peyton Manning say that he owns 60 Papa John's franchises.

(Yes, 60 franchises ... not 6.)

Nice call Helen. BTW if you give away 2 million and half the recipients bought a pizza after liking the freebie and half of the half became regular customers how long would it take to earn back the money for the 2 million freebies? Too deep for me.

BonMallari
11-14-2012, 04:09 PM
Correct me if I am wrong ... but I think I heard Peyton Manning say that he owns 60 Papa John's franchises.

(Yes, 60 franchises ... not 6.)

so there is the connection....I got my free pizza last week...as well as he is playing he might be the MVP so he can afford it

Susie Royer
11-14-2012, 04:37 PM
Corect me iof I am wrong ... but I think I heard Peyton Manning say that he owns 60 Papa John's franchises.

(Yes, 60 franchises ... not 6.)

21 http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8553736/peyton-manning-invests-21-denver-papa-john-pizza-shops

mngundog
11-14-2012, 04:41 PM
I love hard eight and it is onlt 5 minutes from where I live.
What the heck do they call that smoked ham wrapped in a pepper and bacon?

thebigcat
11-14-2012, 04:46 PM
so there is the connection....I got my free pizza last week...as well as he is playing he might be the MVP so he can afford it

It was probably cheaper to give Peyton the franchises than to pay him for the 30 second commercial!

duk4me
11-14-2012, 05:02 PM
I love hard eight and it is onlt 5 minutes from where I live.

Oh Lord help me be good help me be good this tempation is almost too much.

M&K's Retrievers
11-14-2012, 05:36 PM
Sorry been there, my description of Campisis would be a good Italian restaurant that also makes a bad pizza. When in Dallas, I would much rather go to the Hard Eight.

Where is the Hard Eight? Never heard of it.

duk4me
11-14-2012, 05:38 PM
Where is the Hard Eight? Never heard of it.

It's a myth Mike just a myth.:-P

Henry V
11-16-2012, 10:26 PM
Some hope Papa John's would raise their prices even more http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/papa-johns-obamacare-ians-pizza_n_2133050.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Larry Thompson1
11-16-2012, 11:06 PM
Some hope Papa John's would raise their prices even more http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/papa-johns-obamacare-ians-pizza_n_2133050.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
2 things jumped out at me. workers over 30. and lowering wages. I'm over 30 and have not had a raise in almost 5 years. Will companies get rid of some workers over 30 for the younger no penalty ones. Or will they be lowering wages to cover the $2000.00 penalty? HMMMMM. I know I am going to take an additional 3.8% tax on the sale of my house already. Capitol gains tax is likley to go up. Why did I work so hard to get ahead? If they do nothing soon capitol gains will go to 39.6% plus 3.8% on the sale of the house. Ouch that is gonna put some hurt in my plans to train and run dogs.

Gerry Clinchy
11-17-2012, 09:48 AM
Mystifies me that anyone ever believes that a tax on a business doesn't become a tax on everyone else through an increase in the cost of the products that company provides. Owners of a business, whether corporate or individual, set a profit margin, and when costs increase they raise the price of their product or go out of business.

To put that in terms of the middle class, if your boss cuts your pay by 10% and that amount does not allow you to meet your costs of living, you take action. Either you cut your expenses or you look for a better-paying job. If the small business owner cannot lower his costs, then he has to raise his prices for his product.

Putting an additional tax on medical devices will not reduce the cost of health care, will it? Lowering reimbursement for such devices (Medicare reductions, for example) will not help either ... unless Medicare is currently reimbursing for those devices at an inflated rate (maybe it is?) At best, the two actions are offsetting, and the result is zero change.

Right now, many who get health care they can't pay for do so by those who can afford to pay (higher health insurance rates for those who can pay for it, or whose employer pays for it). This will not change, except now there will be more people receiving subsidies for their health insurance than before ... while those actually working & paying (due to unemployment levels) keep getting smaller.

Marvin S
11-17-2012, 10:19 AM
Mystifies me that anyone ever believes that a tax on a business doesn't become a tax on everyone else through an increase in the cost of the products that company provides. Owners of a business, whether corporate or individual, set a profit margin, and when costs increase they raise the price of their product or go out of business.

To put that in terms of the middle class, if your boss cuts your pay by 10% and that amount does not allow you to meet your costs of living, you take action. Either you cut your expenses or you look for a better-paying job. If the small business owner cannot lower his costs, then he has to raise his prices for his product.

Putting an additional tax on medical devices will not reduce the cost of health care, will it? Lowering reimbursement for such devices (Medicare reductions, for example) will not help either ... unless Medicare is currently reimbursing for those devices at an inflated rate (maybe it is?) At best, the two actions are offsetting, and the result is zero change.

Right now, many who get health care they can't pay for do so by those who can afford to pay (higher health insurance rates for those who can pay for it, or whose employer pays for it). This will not change, except now there will be more people receiving subsidies for their health insurance than before ... while those actually working & paying (due to unemployment levels) keep getting smaller.

Unfortunately, economic illiteracy is not confined to a small segment of the populace - it apparently begins with those who write these laws & trickles down :).

PamK
11-18-2012, 10:42 PM
Interesting take from Forbes about if the NFL should drop papa johns as a sponsor.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/11/17/peyton-manning-papa-johns-pizza-and-the-nfl-will-the-nfl-drop-papa-johns-as-an-official-sponsor-over-obamacare/

Henry V
11-19-2012, 10:35 AM
Mystifies me that anyone ever believes that a tax on a business doesn't become a tax on everyone else through an increase in the cost of the products that company provides. Owners of a business, whether corporate or individual, set a profit margin, and when costs increase they raise the price of their product or go out of business.

To put that in terms of the middle class, if your boss cuts your pay by 10% and that amount does not allow you to meet your costs of living, you take action. Either you cut your expenses or you look for a better-paying job. If the small business owner cannot lower his costs, then he has to raise his prices for his product.

Putting an additional tax on medical devices will not reduce the cost of health care, will it? Lowering reimbursement for such devices (Medicare reductions, for example) will not help either ... unless Medicare is currently reimbursing for those devices at an inflated rate (maybe it is?) At best, the two actions are offsetting, and the result is zero change.

Right now, many who get health care they can't pay for do so by those who can afford to pay (higher health insurance rates for those who can pay for it, or whose employer pays for it). This will not change, except now there will be more people receiving subsidies for their health insurance than before ... while those actually working & paying (due to unemployment levels) keep getting smaller.
I almost entirely agree Gerry, but would add that providing coverage for everyone should lower the cost per individual since more presumably will get preventative care and there will be fewer visits to the emergency room for basic care which is a large cost in the system. I agree that the actions should be offsetting. The increased sales of the products because more people have insurance should offset the tax. If medical devices lower long term costs to individuals there could be some savings in total health care costs too.

Regarding your first two sentences, the thing you are leaving out of the profit margin equation is the fact that government benefits like Medicare and food stamps are directly subsidizing the profit margins of many large and small businesses. A lot of the people on food stamp and medicaid work full and part time jobs at low wages. For example, do a search on "walmart medicaid" or "walmart food stamps". You find facts like:
- 20% of the employees at the nation's largest employer do not have health insurance
- Wal-Mart's employees rely on $2.66 billion in government help every year, or about $420,000 per store.
- In state after state, Wal-Mart employees are the top recipients of Medicaid.
- As many as 80 percent of workers in Wal-Mart stores use food stamps.
- Ironically, WalMart is the largest recipient of food stamp dollars. For example in OK over half of all food stamp dollars are spent at walmart.
- The costs to taxpayers is $202 million annually for medicaid coverage alone.
-Wal-Mart does increase Medicaid expenditures for the rest of us by roughly $898 per worker
- Walmart makes 15 billion in profit each year.

I guess that they have decided that 15 billion is their margin so that is a good justification to pass many of their employees health care and food costs on to the rest of us or else they will "go out of business". Great system. Especially when the right wing entertainment complex has most of the people around this board convinced that it is all the employees fault for being on food stamps.

I would bet that many employees at Papa John's follow this same pattern. The question to ask, is whether it is worth paying $0.07 more per pizza or losing that much in revenue so that the employees have some health coverage? The owner of Papa John's apparently does not think it is worth it. Actually, from what I have read, he has no intentions of providing coverage, he is outraged that he will have to pay the penalty.

So, are you concerned about these subsidize? and how do you propose that we stop subsidizing the profit margins of these companies by the government providing their employees with medical insurance and food stamps?

Marvin S
11-19-2012, 05:39 PM
I almost entirely agree Gerry, but would add that providing coverage for everyone should lower the cost per individual since more presumably will get preventative care and there will be fewer visits to the emergency room for basic care which is a large cost in the system. I agree that the actions should be offsetting. The increased sales of the products because more people have insurance should offset the tax. If medical devices lower long term costs to individuals there could be some savings in total health care costs too.

Regarding your first two sentences, the thing you are leaving out of the profit margin equation is the fact that government benefits like Medicare and food stamps are directly subsidizing the profit margins of many large and small businesses. A lot of the people on food stamp and medicaid work full and part time jobs at low wages. For example, do a search on "walmart medicaid" or "walmart food stamps". You find facts like:
- 20% of the employees at the nation's largest employer do not have health insurance
- Wal-Mart's employees rely on $2.66 billion in government help every year, or about $420,000 per store.
- In state after state, Wal-Mart employees are the top recipients of Medicaid.
- As many as 80 percent of workers in Wal-Mart stores use food stamps.
- Ironically, WalMart is the largest recipient of food stamp dollars. For example in OK over half of all food stamp dollars are spent at walmart.
- The costs to taxpayers is $202 million annually for medicaid coverage alone.
-Wal-Mart does increase Medicaid expenditures for the rest of us by roughly $898 per worker
- Walmart makes 15 billion in profit each year.

I guess that they have decided that 15 billion is their margin so that is a good justification to pass many of their employees health care and food costs on to the rest of us or else they will "go out of business". Great system. Especially when the right wing entertainment complex has most of the people around this board convinced that it is all the employees fault for being on food stamps.

I would bet that many employees at Papa John's follow this same pattern. The question to ask, is whether it is worth paying $0.07 more per pizza or losing that much in revenue so that the employees have some health coverage? The owner of Papa John's apparently does not think it is worth it. Actually, from what I have read, he has no intentions of providing coverage, he is outraged that he will have to pay the penalty.

So, are you concerned about these subsidize? and how do you propose that we stop subsidizing the profit margins of these companies by the government providing their employees with medical insurance and food stamps?

Henry = when I grew up there was none of these programs - maybe if you wanted to consider Relief as food related - but your name went in the paper if you applied = no one went hungry & few were obese, which might be a little hard for someone like your self to fathom :-P

Please explain to the forum how medicare entered into this conversation - the folks on it paid for it & additionally pay a monthly fee - or don't you know what you are addressing?

The owner of Papa John's has a right to run his business as he sees fit - most of his employees are in an age bracket where, if they were to enroll, they would be subsidizing some one else. Makes a lot of sense for a minimum wage person to be doing that :).

The OP was about Papa John's, how did Wally World get into this, but it is a topic worthy of it's own post - why don't you put it up.

IMO - the hardest constituency to wean from these programs will be those, such as yourself, who enjoy a very nice life style based on regulating & taxing other's hard work.

Henry V
11-19-2012, 08:01 PM
Henry = when I grew up there was none of these programs - maybe if you wanted to consider Relief as food related - but your name went in the paper if you applied = no one went hungry & few were obese, which might be a little hard for someone like your self to fathom :-P

Please explain to the forum how medicare entered into this conversation - the folks on it paid for it & additionally pay a monthly fee - or don't you know what you are addressing?

The owner of Papa John's has a right to run his business as he sees fit - most of his employees are in an age bracket where, if they were to enroll, they would be subsidizing some one else. Makes a lot of sense for a minimum wage person to be doing that :).

The OP was about Papa John's, how did Wally World get into this, but it is a topic worthy of it's own post - why don't you put it up.

IMO - the hardest constituency to wean from these programs will be those, such as yourself, who enjoy a very nice life style based on regulating & taxing other's hard work.

Marvin, should we talk about all the differences between today and yesteryear? Shall we go back to the 90% tax rate too? How about the facts that more than half the folks over 60 years old back in the 1960's had no insurance at all? Let's agree to deal with the realities of today and use past experiences to learn how to best move forward.

Medicare never did enter the conversation.

I interjected Wally World to illustrate the concept that businesses regularly externalize some of their costs on the public. Gerry brought up the need to achieve some sort of profit margin. I responded. If you do not think that we are subsidizing the profits of these companies by publicly financing their employees benefits, please show some evidence.

Yes, young people subsidize the old in an insurance program. As you know that's what the whole concept of pooling risk is about. If they did not, then no one could afford insurance when they were old. You also know that people without insurance still get medical care but those of us with insurance are covering the costs of their care and their bankruptcies.

I am not on any of these programs and never have been. Good to know they are there in when they are needed. I have no authority to regulate or tax anyone.

Gerry Clinchy
11-19-2012, 08:18 PM
I almost entirely agree Gerry, but would add that providing coverage for everyone should lower the cost per individual since more presumably will get preventative care and there will be fewer visits to the emergency room for basic care which is a large cost in the system.

It does not solve the problem of 12 million illegals who will still be visiting the emergency rooms, and will not be covered by Obamacare. We need to solve that problem with immigration reform.

I'm not entirely sure that the emergency room visits are at the core of the rising cost of health care. Have you found numbers on that Henry?

There will also be a lot of this coverage that is subsidized. As I recall, families of four, will be eligible for subsidy up to a substantial income limit.

I agree that the actions should be offsetting. The increased sales of the products because more people have insurance should offset the tax.

Yet, historically, tax on a product/service has been passed onto the consumer.

If medical devices lower long term costs to individuals there could be some savings in total health care costs too.

Not totally sure this works in all scenarios. In the UK, cheapest of all is to not replace an old person's hip at all ... and that often is the option that the old person is left with.

Regarding your first two sentences, the thing you are leaving out of the profit margin equation is the fact that government benefits like Medicare and food stamps are directly subsidizing the profit margins of many large and small businesses. A lot of the people on food stamp and medicaid work full and part time jobs at low wages. For example, do a search on "walmart medicaid" or "walmart food stamps". You find facts like:
- 20% of the employees at the nation's largest employer do not have health insurance
That would mean that 80% of them do have health insurance. If we consider that many of those employees may be part-time, then that doesn't appear to be too bad, on the face of it.

- Wal-Mart's employees rely on $2.66 billion in government help every year, or about $420,000 per store.
How would that compare to the amount Walmart pays in taxes each year? I don't know. Just wondering.

- In state after state, Wal-Mart employees are the top recipients of Medicaid.
That is not surprising since most of the jobs are probably low-skill, low-paying jobs ... but those may be the only jobs available to those employees.

- As many as 80 percent of workers in Wal-Mart stores use food stamps.
Could they get a better job somewhere else?

- Ironically, WalMart is the largest recipient of food stamp dollars. For example in OK over half of all food stamp dollars are spent at walmart.

Is there a reason for that?

- The costs to taxpayers is $202 million annually for medicaid coverage alone.
-Wal-Mart does increase Medicaid expenditures for the rest of us by roughly $898 per worker
- Walmart makes 15 billion in profit each year.

Do we know whether these people working for Walmart would be receiving benefits if they worked somewhere else in a job for which they are qualified? Would everyone be better off if Walmart didn't employ so many people? Would it cost more to provide benefits to these workers if they were not working for Walmart?

Is Walmart to blame for having available many low-skill jobs?

Why is it essentially wrong for Walmart to make a profit if they do so by providing a fair exchange of product and/or service for those who wish to purchase those products/services? Do other similar retailers provide better benefits and wages? There are probably some retired people that are benefiting from their early investments in Walmart stock, placing less burden on social services because they have such income from that investment.

Could these Walmart employees find better jobs elsewhere?

I guess that they have decided that 15 billion is their margin so that is a good justification to pass many of their employees health care and food costs on to the rest of us or else they will "go out of business". Great system. Especially when the right wing entertainment complex has most of the people around this board convinced that it is all the employees fault for being on food stamps.

Isn't Walmart free to earn as much as it can legally earn? If we don't approve of them, we can shop elsewhere.


I would bet that many employees at Papa John's follow this same pattern. The question to ask, is whether it is worth paying $0.07 more per pizza or losing that much in revenue so that the employees have some health coverage? The owner of Papa John's apparently does not think it is worth it. Actually, from what I have read, he has no intentions of providing coverage, he is outraged that he will have to pay the penalty.

The public can voice its disapproval by buying less pizza from Papa John, and more from Pizza Hut ... or others.

So, are you concerned about these subsidize? and how do you propose that we stop subsidizing the profit margins of these companies by the government providing their employees with medical insurance and food stamps?

We're going to be subsidizing everyone's employees through Obamacare ... except those who got waivers. Certain groups of people will continue to enjoy luxury benefits because they will not be fined for those luxury plans. Not knowing all that have received waivers, and for what reasons, it may be that some of those with waivers will be allowed to provide less than the benefits prescribed by Obamacare.

To me it seems ludicrous that people would be fined for paying their own pre-tax income for a better plan than the minimum plan. The govt should be delighted that those individuals will be making no demands on the overall system and are not in need of any subsidies. Aren't they already paying their fair share by paying for their own good coverage?

mngundog
11-19-2012, 10:40 PM
Where is the Hard Eight? Never heard of it.
Sorry I missed this.
http://www.hardeightbbq.com/locations/

BonMallari
11-19-2012, 11:01 PM
Sorry been there, my description of Campisis would be a good Italian restaurant that also makes a bad pizza. When in Dallas, I would much rather go to the Hard Eight.


Sorry I missed this.
http://www.hardeightbbq.com/locations/


No wonder Mike and I hadnt heard about it....Coppell isnt Dallas, and Roanoke is closer to Fort Worth....but I will check it out....Thanks

Marvin S
11-19-2012, 11:04 PM
is the fact that government benefits like Medicare and food stamps are directly subsidizing the profit margins of many large and small businesses.


Marvin, should we talk about all the differences between today and yesteryear? Shall we go back to the 90% tax rate too? How about the facts that more than half the folks over 60 years old back in the 1960's had no insurance at all? Let's agree to deal with the realities of today and use past experiences to learn how to best move forward. IMO, the good & the bad of any generation should be a history lesson - what will be the good points of todays world? I have some, what are yours?

Medicare never did enter the conversation. Please note above a direct quote from your post #37?

I interjected Wally World to illustrate the concept that businesses regularly externalize some of their costs on the public. Gerry brought up the need to achieve some sort of profit margin. I responded. If you do not think that we are subsidizing the profits of these companies by publicly financing their employees benefits, please show some evidence.

Yes, young people subsidize the old in an insurance program. As you know that's what the whole concept of pooling risk is about. If they did not, then no one could afford insurance when they were old. You also know that people without insurance still get medical care but those of us with insurance are covering the costs of their care and their bankruptcies.

I am not on any of these programs and never have been. Good to know they are there in when they are needed. I have no authority to regulate or tax anyone.

Have you ever shopped at Wally World - we do on occasion but do use their pharmacy - look at the people they employ - the majority would have a hard time finding employment elsewhere so they apparently like what they do. It is only the union who is eager for the dues that keeps fomenting this caricature of Wally World :(.

So you say it is OK for the young to subsidize others - they are already being asked to shoulder more than their share in the program that the politico's turned into a Ponzi scheme called SS.

& lastly - are you not involved in environmental programs? It is not the authority as much as the enabling that is equally to blame :).

mngundog
11-19-2012, 11:11 PM
No wonder Mike and I hadnt heard about it....Coppell isnt Dallas, and Roanoke is closer to Fort Worth....but I will check it out....Thanks

Sorry I was visiting a friend who lived somewhere in Dallas/Ft Worth, he drove. Its worth the trip IMO.

Henry V
11-20-2012, 12:16 AM
Have you ever shopped at Wally World - we do on occasion but do use their pharmacy - look at the people they employ - the majority would have a hard time finding employment elsewhere so they apparently like what they do. It is only the union who is eager for the dues that keeps fomenting this caricature of Wally World :(.

So you say it is OK for the young to subsidize others - they are already being asked to shoulder more than their share in the program that the politico's turned into a Ponzi scheme called SS.

& lastly - are you not involved in environmental programs? It is not the authority as much as the enabling that is equally to blame :).
Well Marvin, if you want to start a thread about what is good with this world today, please do so.

I concede that I did accidentally make one use of the term medicare. It should have said medicaid. I had no intent to bring up medicare which is a very popular program since the private sector could not afford to offer a similar product.

On the rest, we will have to disagree. I shop at WalMart as little as is possible. If you buy that unions are behind all the analysis and reports of the bad effects of walmart on wages and the job market then you have truly drunk the kool aid. Yes, I know, unions are evil and are one of the primary reasons we are going to hell in a handbasket even though they represent a small fraction of people employed and have less influence than ever before.

Yes, young subsidize the old, that is the system. The young who get old will be subsidized one way or another by the young in the future. That is exactly how private insurance works too. Those who do not need insurance subsidize those that do whether you are talking about cars, or homeowners, or health, or life insurance. Pooling risks is the idea.

Environmental issues, yes, I work on them. Seems that you are way more interested in my personal life than I am in yours. You clearly have bought into the right wing narrative that environmental regulations are bad for the economy and another part of the root of all evil. Please take a look at state economies or national economies and their environmental regulations. Guess what?, the states/nations with the strongest regulations have the best economies, imagine that. You also seem to have drunk the kool aid on the effects of regulations and also assume that the little old environmental organizations funded on relatively tiny budgets by donations have any power relative to various industries with many millions and a bunch of lobbyists. Shall I make a long list of issues where a failure to implement reasonable regulations has resulted in huge public costs to society while industries externalized their costs and increase their profits? You know, the american way, privatize the profits and socialize the true costs.

road kill
11-20-2012, 11:42 AM
Well, at least they are passing this cost on to consumers rather than hurting their profit margin. You would hate to see that because then there would be less to trickle down.

So, the owners of the businesses should be penalized due to a social experiment gone awry??
You do know that the reason business operates is to generate profit, unlike the Govt that answers to NO ONE about the bottom line.

If you don't like it, don't go there.


Then there is Denny's.................

M&K's Retrievers
11-20-2012, 12:07 PM
Sorry been there, my description of Campisis would be a good Italian restaurant that also makes a bad pizza. When in Dallas, I would much rather go to the Hard Eight.

Hell, that's a B que place. We were talking pizza. As far as BBQ goes, any BBQ place with more than one location can't be the best and that includes Dickey's. Give me the hole in the wall joint that's been there forever. Angelo's in Fort Worth, Sonny Bryan's in Dallas before Sonny died. There are a couple of places almost next door to each other in Taylor, TX that are damn good. Then there is that joint in Dripping Spring, TX that cooks on an open pit. Too many to name.

Hard Eight gimme a break regards (but I will check it out), ;)

charly_t
11-20-2012, 12:40 PM
Hell, that's a B que place. We were talking pizza. As far as BBQ goes, any BBQ place with more than one location can't be the best and that includes Dickey's. Give me the hole in the wall joint that's been there forever. Angelo's in Fort Worth, Sonny Bryan's in Dallas before Sonny died. There are a couple of places almost next door to each other in Taylor, TX that are damn good. Then there is that joint in Dripping Spring, TX that cooks on an open pit. Too many to name.

Hard Eight gimme a break regards (but I will check it out), ;)

We can't stay on topic very long on this forum. :-) Attention span you know :-) :-) :-)

duckheads
11-20-2012, 12:45 PM
So, the owners of the businesses should be penalized due to a social experiment gone awry??
You do know that the reason business operates is to generate profit, unlike the Govt that answers to NO ONE about the bottom line.

If you don't like it, don't go there.


Then there is Denny's.................

No doubt!
I like they way people have these grand ideas on how a company should run their business. Tell you what, why don't you go start a local pizza place. When you become very successful you can then franchise it across the country and when you have great success with that you can run the company any way you damn well please. Other wise like Stan said don't go there if you don't like it.

My guess is most of the people wanting to tell Papa John's or WalMart how they should run their business are similar to our president that hasn't started or ran a business in his life. Put in your 8 hours and go home is probably what a lot of you do. Try making decisions on a daily basis that may affect your business for years to come, good or bad!

If you do run or own a business obviously I'm not talking about you!

Henry V
11-20-2012, 11:19 PM
Interesting that a post in which I stated "I almost entirely agree Gerry" prompts such discussion. Here are my responses.


It does not solve the problem of 12 million illegals who will still be visiting the emergency rooms, and will not be covered by Obamacare. We need to solve that problem with immigration reform. Discussion of illegal immigrants is a diversion. Yes, they were subsidized 30 years ago, 5 years ago, this year, and will be next year next year with or without Obamacare. The border is more secure than it ever has been. Maybe there will be some real reform.


I'm not entirely sure that the emergency room visits are at the core of the rising cost of health care. Have you found numbers on that Henry? No, they are not a core cost. Only about 4%, which is about double the malpractice related costs.


There will also be a lot of this coverage that is subsidized. As I recall, families of four, will be eligible for subsidy up to a substantial income limit. Yep, it all depends on income level. $29,327 and under for a family of four.


Yet, historically, tax on a product/service has been passed onto the consumer. All costs get passed onto consumers. Not just taxes. In this case, the medical device industry, the drug companies, and the insurance industry will have new excise taxes. Only some in the medical device industry have mad a big deal out of this. Others realize that the potential losses would be offset by more sales to newly insured people.


Not totally sure this works in all scenarios. In the UK, cheapest of all is to not replace an old person's hip at all ... and that often is the option that the old person is left with. Never said it would. I’ll stand by my statement. You can play the rationing card all you want. I know it is part of the playbook. Someone has to pay for medical care bills, now and will have to in the future. We spend far more on it than any other country bar none. 17% of our GDP.


That would mean that 80% of them do have health insurance. If we consider that many of those employees may be part-time, then that doesn't appear to be too bad, on the face of it.
-How would that compare to the amount Walmart pays in taxes each year? I don't know. Just wondering.
-That is not surprising since most of the jobs are probably low-skill, low-paying jobs ... but those may be the only jobs available to those employees.
-Could they get a better job somewhere else?
-Is there a reason for that?
-Do we know whether these people working for Walmart would be receiving benefits if they worked somewhere else in a job for which they are qualified? Would everyone be better off if Walmart didn't employ so many people? Would it cost more to provide benefits to these workers if they were not working for Walmart?
-Is Walmart to blame for having available many low-skill jobs?
- Why is it essentially wrong for Walmart to make a profit if they do so by providing a fair exchange of product and/or service for those who wish to purchase those products/services? Do other similar retailers provide better benefits and wages? There are probably some retired people that are benefiting from their early investments in Walmart stock, placing less burden on social services because they have such income from that investment.
Could these Walmart employees find better jobs elsewhere? I appreciate the 20 questions routine. Clearly, we have different opinions about this issue. The fact remains that a very strong case can be made that the largest employer in the US run by the family that has a net worth equal to that of the bottom 30 percent of all Americans combined has a substantial number of employees dependent on the government. This externalizes a bunch of the companies costs to us. You apparently think it s all the fault of the workers. I suggest that the company has some responsibility too. In your previous post you also stated: ““Owners of a business, whether corporate or individual, set a profit margin, and when costs increase they raise the price of their product or go out of business.“ Never said there was anything wrong with profit but the fiscal conservative in me takes issue with the fact that the rest of us are subsidizing it. You clearly believe that there is a right to make a certain profit margin, but apparently think that there is no associated responsibility to employee compensation. You seem to advocate a race to the bottom for wages and benefits. I disagree with this approach and think it is bad for the middle class and the economy overall.


Isn't Walmart free to earn as much as it can legally earn? If we don't approve of them, we can shop elsewhere. Yes.


The public can voice its disapproval by buying less pizza from Papa John, and more from Pizza Hut ... or others. Yes again.


We're going to be subsidizing everyone's employees through Obamacare ... except those who got waivers. Certain groups of people will continue to enjoy luxury benefits because they will not be fined for those luxury plans. Not knowing all that have received waivers, and for what reasons, it may be that some of those with waivers will be allowed to provide less than the benefits prescribed by Obamacare.
To me it seems ludicrous that people would be fined for paying their own pre-tax income for a better plan than the minimum plan. The govt should be delighted that those individuals will be making no demands on the overall system and are not in need of any subsidies. Aren't they already paying their fair share by paying for their own good coverage? The number of people being subsidized is not going to change much. We all pay for the care of the uninsured now. The new system will require people to buy private health insurance, a republican idea. Search “obamacare waiver myth” to get a bit more balanced view on waiver situation. Fox news may have overplayed this one (hard to believe, I know). Yes, if you pay more than $27,500 for insurance premiums after 2018, there will be a tax. John Roberts approves.

Henry V
11-21-2012, 09:14 AM
From the CEO himself. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-h-schnatter/papa-johns-obamacare_b_2166209.html

Franco
11-21-2012, 10:07 AM
very good pizza....but maybe they need to quit paying Peyton Manning to give away 2M pizzas or quit hosting a CFB Bowl game

Actually, Papa Johns has gone from an "also ran" to #2 in the nation in Pizza sales since talking on Manning. In the pizza buisness, image is everything and sponsoring a Bowl Game zeros in on the college market which is thier most lucrative consumer segment. Exactly why Pizza Hut recently hired Aaron Rogers to be their spokesperson.

From National Restaurant News...


For the Sept. 23-ended quarter, Papa John’s reported an 18.2-percent increase in net income to $13.2 million, or 55 cents per share, from $11.1 million, or 44 cents per share, posted in the same quarter a year earlier


And Henry, I read that story yesterday. Funny how a reporter twisting the facts can set off so much hysteria.

Marvin S
11-22-2012, 01:25 PM
Well Marvin, if you want to start a thread about what is good with this world today, please do so.

I would but it might be beyond your ability to comprehend, that's why I asked you to start it :)


I concede that I did accidentally make one use of the term medicare. It should have said medicaid. I had no intent to bring up medicare which is a very popular program since the private sector could not afford to offer a similar product.

I disagree - had the money been properly cared for there would be ample funds - just like the govenment would make the private sector do if the private sector were offering that product. Why does the USPO lose money while their competitors do not have that issue. Why didn't you just concede that you pressed submit before you thought :mad:


On the rest, we will have to disagree. I shop at WalMart as little as is possible. If you buy that unions are behind all the analysis and reports of the bad effects of walmart on wages and the job market then you have truly drunk the kool aid. Yes, I know, unions are evil and are one of the primary reasons we are going to hell in a handbasket even though they represent a small fraction of people employed and have less influence than ever before.

When your talking points sound like the union script you've lost the argument. I don't believe anyone here believes union employees are evil but most of us do agree that FDR had that one right as far as government employees are concerned..


Yes, young subsidize the old, that is the system. The young who get old will be subsidized one way or another by the young in the future. That is exactly how private insurance works too. Those who do not need insurance subsidize those that do whether you are talking about cars, or homeowners, or health, or life insurance. Pooling risks is the idea.

Apparently you believe it fair to ask the young as they are starting their life to shoulder that additional burden as I've presented this to you twice.


Environmental issues, yes, I work on them. Seems that you are way more interested in my personal life than I am in yours. You clearly have bought into the right wing narrative that environmental regulations are bad for the economy and another part of the root of all evil. Please take a look at state economies or national economies and their environmental regulations. Guess what?, the states/nations with the strongest regulations have the best economies, imagine that. You also seem to have drunk the kool aid on the effects of regulations and also assume that the little old environmental organizations funded on relatively tiny budgets by donations have any power relative to various industries with many millions and a bunch of lobbyists. Shall I make a long list of issues where a failure to implement reasonable regulations has resulted in huge public costs to society while industries externalized their costs and increase their profits? You know, the american way, privatize the profits and socialize the true costs.

I have 0 interest in you, only in what you post. & your postings indicate you are someone who profits from the regulations being what they are, it's that simple. Those states/nations with the strictest regulations are the ones that enact those laws as the fat, dumb & happy philosophy of most of the regulated applies. They also enjoy geopolitical advantages other locations do not. Relatively few individuals or governments have the ability to see down the road to a potential rainy day. The key word is reasonable, I would imagine what you & I would see as reasonable would be entirely different. A good example would be the Clean Water Act, IMO - regular sampling at key interchanges would identify issues, + significant penalties for non compliance - the governments way of looking at this is a plan which requires approval, oversight by folks who are marginally (if at all) qualified in the discipline, & fines for not complying with their mismanagement &/or suits from the environmental wacko's. But that's how you make your money & you will defend that till the end.