Driver to drive?

On 9/15/2012 8:48 AM, Nico Coesel wrote:
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:14:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

The reality...

The International Franchise Association held a convention in
Washington this week where most of the Radio Shack, Dunkin Donuts,
Curves and other franchisers were grumbling about new federal
regulations, especially the impact of Obamacare.

Barr has 23 stores with 421 employees, 109 of whom are full-time. Of
those, he provides 30 with health insurance. Barr said he pays 81
percent of their Blue Cross Blue Shield policy, or $4,073 of $5,028
for individuals, more for families, for a total bill of $129,000 a
year. Employees pay $995.

Under Obamacare, however, he will have to provide health insurance for
all 109 full-time workers, a cost of $444,000, or two and half times
more than his current costs. That $315,000 increase is equal to just
over half his annual profit, after expenses, or 1.5 percent of sales.
As a result, he said, "I'm not paying $444,000."

So his profit margin is 3%? That doesn't sound like a healthy business
to begin with. That is more like a social employment facility. OTOH if
he raises the price of his product by 1.5% he already covered the
costs of the healthcare plane.
The company profit is 3%.

How much does "Mr Barr" take home ?

Opps sorry, I'm not suppose to ask that kind of question.

hamilton
 
On 9/15/2012 9:55 AM, Robert Macy wrote:
23 stores?! 421 employees? and he only makes $800k/yr !!! Is that
'pure' profit that NEVER has to be dipped into? ouch that's not much
money for a LOT of head aches.
Maybe he can ask his parents for some help.
 
hamilton wrote:
On 9/15/2012 9:55 AM, Robert Macy wrote:

23 stores?! 421 employees? and he only makes $800k/yr !!! Is that
'pure' profit that NEVER has to be dipped into? ouch that's not much
money for a LOT of head aches.


Maybe he can ask his parents for some help.

Envy may be tempting, but it's a remarkably bad basis for economic
decisions. If you make it economically unattractive for business owners
to provide health care, they won't. What percentage of your income do
you give away?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
 
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 12:48:53 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

hamilton wrote:

On 9/15/2012 9:55 AM, Robert Macy wrote:

23 stores?! 421 employees? and he only makes $800k/yr !!! Is that
'pure' profit that NEVER has to be dipped into? ouch that's not much
money for a LOT of head aches.


Maybe he can ask his parents for some help.


Envy may be tempting, but it's a remarkably bad basis for economic
decisions. If you make it economically unattractive for business owners
to provide health care, they won't. What percentage of your income do
you give away?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
In the big picture, if all employers had to provide health care, they
would all raise their prices about the same amount, which bottom-line
makes the public pay for health care. Sort of like a sales tax.

Some will lose business to offshore companies, and dump domestic jobs
one way or another. Things that are inherently local (restaurants,
services) don't have that problem.

Unfortunately, Obamacare did nothing to reduce the cost of health
care; it probably increased it a bit. Too many special interests had
to be bought off, and too many staffers snuck in provisions that
nobody got to read before the bill was passed into law.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
 
On 9/15/2012 2:56 AM, miso wrote:
"That $315,000 increase is equal to just over half his annual profit,
after expenses, or 1.5 percent of sales."

Ask me if I give a shit about someone making $630k a year. Ok, I don't.

Barr is an ignorant asshole. He doesn't deserve his franchises.

First of all, all his competitors are in the same boat. They have to
provide the same insurance. If he needs to raise prices to cover the
insurance, then they will too. If he is so fucking stupid that he
doesn't know this, then someone should buy his franchises and let him
retire. He can stand on the corner with a 3 corner hat and rant about
Ron Paul all day.

This shithead has 421 employees, but only provides 30 with insurance.
You know what that means? The rest are paid so poorly that they can't
afford insurance on the open market, so they just clog up the emergency
room when they are sick. The hospitals are required to treat everyone,
so the cost is then spread to those that do pay their bills. I PAY MY
HEALTHCARE INSURANCE. SO SHOULD EVERYONE ELSE!
I agree that it sucks that the pay for many jobs is so low that it
doesn't seem practical to provide workers with medical coverage. That
is what it comes down to. If people don't like the new plan, how about
coming up with another one that provides medical care for everyone?


Barr is a leach upon society. He can't go out of business fast enough in
my opinion. Let someone with a bit more business savvy take up the slack.
I don't feel that strongly about Barr. I do feel very strongly about
universal medical care.

Rick
 
On 9/15/2012 12:28 PM, hamilton wrote:
On 9/15/2012 9:55 AM, Robert Macy wrote:

23 stores?! 421 employees? and he only makes $800k/yr !!! Is that
'pure' profit that NEVER has to be dipped into? ouch that's not much
money for a LOT of head aches.


Maybe he can ask his parents for some help.
I had to snort when I read that one!

Rick
 
On 9/15/2012 10:48 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Envy may be tempting, but it's a remarkably bad basis for economic
decisions. If you make it economically unattractive for business owners
to provide health care, they won't. What percentage of your income do
you give away?
Taxes 28%
healthcare 15%

I have not made a claim on my health program in 3 years, but every year
is goes up.

I only see the president of Bluecross pay check going up.

So I give my money to Bluecross with no return

hamilton
 
On 9/15/2012 1:26 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 12:48:53 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

hamilton wrote:

On 9/15/2012 9:55 AM, Robert Macy wrote:

23 stores?! 421 employees? and he only makes $800k/yr !!! Is that
'pure' profit that NEVER has to be dipped into? ouch that's not much
money for a LOT of head aches.


Maybe he can ask his parents for some help.


Envy may be tempting, but it's a remarkably bad basis for economic
decisions. If you make it economically unattractive for business owners
to provide health care, they won't. What percentage of your income do
you give away?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

In the big picture, if all employers had to provide health care, they
would all raise their prices about the same amount, which bottom-line
makes the public pay for health care. Sort of like a sales tax.
You mean like when we find out that a name brand, especially ones
directly connected to a big name personality, is paying low wages in a
third world country and treating their workers like crap (even if they
are a good employer compared to the local economy)? Why should we pay
an extra $5 for iPhones just so the workers don't eat lunch next to the
board cleaning solvents?

The only difference is that here we are talking about people we see
every day in our restaurants and stores, we just don't seem to care much
about them.


Some will lose business to offshore companies, and dump domestic jobs
one way or another. Things that are inherently local (restaurants,
services) don't have that problem.

Unfortunately, Obamacare did nothing to reduce the cost of health
care; it probably increased it a bit. Too many special interests had
to be bought off, and too many staffers snuck in provisions that
nobody got to read before the bill was passed into law.
Yes, and that is the real problem, the cost of health care. But
universal coverage will result in the true cost of medical care being
exposed in the "public" market that is part of the new plan. I think
that once people see just how insanely expensive medical care has become
they will start to deal with the real problem, the costs. But that will
be 10 years down the road.

Rick
 
On 9/15/2012 1:41 PM, hamilton wrote:
On 9/15/2012 10:48 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:


Envy may be tempting, but it's a remarkably bad basis for economic
decisions. If you make it economically unattractive for business owners
to provide health care, they won't. What percentage of your income do
you give away?

Taxes 28%
healthcare 15%

I have not made a claim on my health program in 3 years, but every year
is goes up.

I only see the president of Bluecross pay check going up.

So I give my money to Bluecross with no return

hamilton
You don't understand insurance. You aren't buying health care, you are
buying *insurance*. This spreads the cost of health care among all the
members of the insurance pool. If you need it, it is there. If you
don't need it you are paying for those who did. But going in you did
not know if you would need it or not. The only thing you knew was that
*someone* in the pool would need it and that might have been you.

So you got what you paid for, the promise of health care *if* you needed
it.

Rick
 
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 11:41:58 -0600, hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com>
wrote:

On 9/15/2012 10:48 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:


Envy may be tempting, but it's a remarkably bad basis for economic
decisions. If you make it economically unattractive for business owners
to provide health care, they won't. What percentage of your income do
you give away?

Taxes 28%
healthcare 15%

I have not made a claim on my health program in 3 years, but every year
is goes up.

I only see the president of Bluecross pay check going up.

So I give my money to Bluecross with no return

hamilton
Well, it is insurance. It's like fire insurance, you pay for something
you hope will never be delivered.

But Bluecross is in the business of charging for something that they
fight to not deliver. I hated battling with them. Kaiser, for a fixed
fee, contracts to do whatever is needed, no hassles. They have a
strong incentive to keep their members healthy and to minimize
overhead.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
 
On Sep 14, 6:02 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:14:58 -0700, Jim Thompson

To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

The reality...

The International Franchise Association held a convention in
Washington this week where most of the Radio Shack, Dunkin Donuts,
Curves and other franchisers were grumbling about new federal
regulations, especially the impact of Obamacare.

Most, said Atlanta Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken franchiser
David Barr, presumed that the reports about how hard Obamacare will
hit them were overblown. "They had their head in the sand," he told
Secrets.

That is until he pulled out his powerpoint showing how funding
Obamacare will cut his--and likely their--profits in half overnight.
With simple math the small business folks understood, he spelled out
that their only choice is to slash employee hours so they aren't
eligible for company-paid health care or stop offering insurance and
pay the $2,000 per employee fine.

Barr has 23 stores with 421 employees, 109 of whom are full-time. Of
those, he provides 30 with health insurance. Barr said he pays 81
percent of their Blue Cross Blue Shield policy, or $4,073 of $5,028
for individuals, more for families, for a total bill of $129,000 a
year. Employees pay $995.

Under Obamacare, however, he will have to provide health insurance for
all 109 full-time workers, a cost of $444,000, or two and half times
more than his current costs. That $315,000 increase is equal to just
over half his annual profit, after expenses, or 1.5 percent of sales.
As a result, he said, "I'm not paying $444,000."

Providing no insurance would result in a federal fine of $158,000,
$29,000 more than he now spends but the lowest cost possible under the
Obamacare law. So he now views that as his cap and he'll either cut
worker hours or replace them with machines to get his costs down or
dump them on the public health exchange and pay the fine. "Every
business has a way to eliminate jobs," he said, "but that's not good
for them or me."

But that's not all. His experience tells him that most low-wage
workers he would have to cover under Obamacare won't take it because
their $995 share is too high, meaning those the program was set up for
won't see any benefit. And those who do will because they have major
health issues, likely resulting in higher premiums to him.

                                        ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com|    1962     |

I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.
23 stores?! 421 employees? and he only makes $800k/yr !!! Is that
'pure' profit that NEVER has to be dipped into? ouch that's not much
money for a LOT of head aches.
 
hamilton wrote:
On 9/15/2012 10:48 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:


Envy may be tempting, but it's a remarkably bad basis for economic
decisions. If you make it economically unattractive for business owners
to provide health care, they won't. What percentage of your income do
you give away?

Taxes 28%
healthcare 15%

I have not made a claim on my health program in 3 years, but every year
is goes up.

I only see the president of Bluecross pay check going up.

So I give my money to Bluecross with no return

hamilton
I asked about _giving_, i.e. you seem to expect other people to be
generous at the 50% level. Are you?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
 
On 9/15/2012 11:56 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:

I asked about _giving_, i.e. you seem to expect other people to be
generous at the 50% level. Are you?

This is an interesting interpretation.

I give my money voluntary to the insurance company to keep me from going
broke if I get sick or break something.

I also give my money to the local,state,federal government.
I do expect to have roads to drive on and emergency personal if I need
those.

The insurance company will fight me to give the services they promised
to give.
At least the local government will give me services with out question.
( even if I don't pay the highest tax rate )

There seems to be a problem with what insurance companies are in the
business of.

Yes, I know "to make a profit for its share holders"

But what about the promise of services I supposedly paid for ?

The insurance companies can _not_ pay after the fact ??

Give a lame excuses as to why they won't pay.

My only recourse is to sue, but that time I may be dead and they know
they they won't have to pay.

There is something wrong with this picture.

The politician were suppose to help the people in their home districts.

But politicians today are only interested in lining their own pockets.

I wish I know how to fix it.


Cheers

Phil Hobbs
 
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 12:27:04 -0600, hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com>
wrote:

On 9/15/2012 11:56 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:


I asked about _giving_, i.e. you seem to expect other people to be
generous at the 50% level. Are you?


This is an interesting interpretation.

I give my money voluntary to the insurance company to keep me from going
broke if I get sick or break something.

I also give my money to the local,state,federal government.
I do expect to have roads to drive on and emergency personal if I need
those.

The insurance company will fight me to give the services they promised
to give.
At least the local government will give me services with out question.
( even if I don't pay the highest tax rate )

There seems to be a problem with what insurance companies are in the
business of.

Yes, I know "to make a profit for its share holders"

But what about the promise of services I supposedly paid for ?

The insurance companies can _not_ pay after the fact ??

Give a lame excuses as to why they won't pay.

My only recourse is to sue, but that time I may be dead and they know
they they won't have to pay.

There is something wrong with this picture.

The politician were suppose to help the people in their home districts.

But politicians today are only interested in lining their own pockets.

I wish I know how to fix it.
Vote for a better class of people.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
 
On 9/15/2012 12:59 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 12:27:04 -0600, hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com
wrote:

On 9/15/2012 11:56 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:


I asked about _giving_, i.e. you seem to expect other people to be
generous at the 50% level. Are you?


This is an interesting interpretation.

I give my money voluntary to the insurance company to keep me from going
broke if I get sick or break something.

I also give my money to the local,state,federal government.
I do expect to have roads to drive on and emergency personal if I need
those.

The insurance company will fight me to give the services they promised
to give.
At least the local government will give me services with out question.
( even if I don't pay the highest tax rate )

There seems to be a problem with what insurance companies are in the
business of.

Yes, I know "to make a profit for its share holders"

But what about the promise of services I supposedly paid for ?

The insurance companies can _not_ pay after the fact ??

Give a lame excuses as to why they won't pay.

My only recourse is to sue, but that time I may be dead and they know
they they won't have to pay.

There is something wrong with this picture.

The politician were suppose to help the people in their home districts.

But politicians today are only interested in lining their own pockets.

I wish I know how to fix it.

Vote for a better class of people.


Nice idea, the crop of politicians on both sides of the isle today are
the same. :-(
 
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:04:44 -0600, hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com>
wrote:

On 9/15/2012 12:59 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 12:27:04 -0600, hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com
wrote:

On 9/15/2012 11:56 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:


I asked about _giving_, i.e. you seem to expect other people to be
generous at the 50% level. Are you?


This is an interesting interpretation.

I give my money voluntary to the insurance company to keep me from going
broke if I get sick or break something.

I also give my money to the local,state,federal government.
I do expect to have roads to drive on and emergency personal if I need
those.

The insurance company will fight me to give the services they promised
to give.
At least the local government will give me services with out question.
( even if I don't pay the highest tax rate )

There seems to be a problem with what insurance companies are in the
business of.

Yes, I know "to make a profit for its share holders"

But what about the promise of services I supposedly paid for ?

The insurance companies can _not_ pay after the fact ??

Give a lame excuses as to why they won't pay.

My only recourse is to sue, but that time I may be dead and they know
they they won't have to pay.

There is something wrong with this picture.

The politician were suppose to help the people in their home districts.

But politicians today are only interested in lining their own pockets.

I wish I know how to fix it.

Vote for a better class of people.


Nice idea, the crop of politicians on both sides of the isle today are
the same. :-(
First step, don't vote for tall, charismatic, lawyer, career
politicians with long heads.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
 
John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 12:27:04 -0600, hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com
wrote:

On 9/15/2012 11:56 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:


I asked about _giving_, i.e. you seem to expect other people to be
generous at the 50% level. Are you?


This is an interesting interpretation.

I give my money voluntary to the insurance company to keep me from going
broke if I get sick or break something.

I also give my money to the local,state,federal government.
I do expect to have roads to drive on and emergency personal if I need
those.

The insurance company will fight me to give the services they promised
to give.
At least the local government will give me services with out question.
( even if I don't pay the highest tax rate )

There seems to be a problem with what insurance companies are in the
business of.

Yes, I know "to make a profit for its share holders"

But what about the promise of services I supposedly paid for ?

The insurance companies can _not_ pay after the fact ??

Give a lame excuses as to why they won't pay.

My only recourse is to sue, but that time I may be dead and they know
they they won't have to pay.

There is something wrong with this picture.

The politician were suppose to help the people in their home districts.

But politicians today are only interested in lining their own pockets.

I wish I know how to fix it.

Vote for a better class of people.
Anybody trustworthy would not accept the job.

--
Les Cargill
 
hamilton wrote:
On 9/15/2012 11:56 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:


I asked about _giving_, i.e. you seem to expect other people to be
generous at the 50% level. Are you?

This is an interesting interpretation.

I give my money voluntary to the insurance company to keep me from going
broke if I get sick or break something.
No, you paid them for a service, i.e. protecting you from a financial
loss. Risk costs something.


I was asking about _giving_, i.e. voluntarily parting with some
proportion of your income just because it's the right thing to do, to
help someone else, with no return to you whatsoever. You and the soup
guy seem to think that the business owner quoted by the OP has some
obligation to give away half his income to help other people. It's a
nice idea, but sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Do you give away half your income without return, just because it's the
right thing to do?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
 
How much does "Mr Barr" take home ?

Opps sorry, I'm not suppose to ask that kind of question.

hamilton
He owns it all, so he is taking home $630k a year.
 
23 stores?! 421 employees? and he only makes $800k/yr !!! Is that
'pure' profit that NEVER has to be dipped into? ouch that's not much
money for a LOT of head aches.

When you get to a certain amount of critical mass, you pay people to
manage the business. Those are probably the 30 people he gives a shit
about and pays their healthcare.

It is like being a landlord. You own one building and you spend your
evenings plunging poop in clogged toilets. You own 20 buildings, then
you have "people."
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top