Driver to drive?

[Michael A. Terrell]

hamilton wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Like VA healthcare.

Yes, this is all true.

But, who is running those programs?

Democrats, appointed by Obama.

The fiefdoms that are created by those programs are run by people with
visions of grandeur that they will move up the Government (Corporate)
ladder to higher pay and better perks.

There are few who are truly interested in the people they serve.

A large part of VA health care is done by volunteers. There isn't
enough money in the budget to pay for the required personnel.

We are all just numbers.

Get use to it.

You get used to it. I've put up with it for almost a decade. It's
your turn, after Obamacare bankrupts the insurance companies.

 

[hamilton]

On 9/16/2012 2:39 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

hamilton wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Like VA healthcare.

Yes, this is all true.

But, who is running those programs?


Democrats, appointed by Obama.

DHS, Bush

Or should we forget about that, since it does not fit _your_ definition.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

hamilton wrote:

On 9/16/2012 2:39 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

hamilton wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Like VA healthcare.

Yes, this is all true.

But, who is running those programs?


Democrats, appointed by Obama.

DHS, Bush

Or should we forget about that, since it does not fit _your_ definition.

Idiot. Bush isn't in charge of anything.

 

[tm]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:KtSdndIs_diM08vNnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

hamilton wrote:

On 9/16/2012 2:39 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

hamilton wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Like VA healthcare.

Yes, this is all true.

But, who is running those programs?


Democrats, appointed by Obama.

DHS, Bush

Or should we forget about that, since it does not fit _your_ definition.


Idiot. Bush isn't in charge of anything.

Liberals are after all, very slow learners. It won't be until after Romney
takes over next January that they will finally realize Bush is no longer
controlling things.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

tm wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:KtSdndIs_diM08vNnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

hamilton wrote:

On 9/16/2012 2:39 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

hamilton wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Like VA healthcare.

Yes, this is all true.

But, who is running those programs?


Democrats, appointed by Obama.

DHS, Bush

Or should we forget about that, since it does not fit _your_ definition.


Idiot. Bush isn't in charge of anything.

Liberals are after all, very slow learners. It won't be until after Romney
takes over next January that they will finally realize Bush is no longer
controlling things.

Only the smartest. (1) The rest will need another 20 years or more,
as long as they get their welfare checks on time.

 

[flipper]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 10:26:01 -0600, hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com>
wrote:

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

The bigger question is why would you ask when it's none of your
business but the manner in which you did suggests you want to know if
he has 'enough to steal'.

 

[flipper]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 14:48:33 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (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.

And you base that on what business model?

Sales margin on high volume products is generally low and it's ROI
that matters most.

E.g. If I have a bakery then there was investment cost to pay for it
and if I sell only one loaf of bread it better have one hell of a
profit margin. But if I sell a million loaves of bread then not so
much.

OTOH if
he raises the price of his product by 1.5% he already covered the
costs of the healthcare plane.

So the President was lying when he said it wasn't going to cost 'you'
anything because prices on everything will go up.

And "1.5%" won't do it either because everyone 'Mr. Barr' does
business with has the same 'problem' he does. So his food costs are
going up, and transportation costs, and packaging costs, and
disposables cost, and maintenance, equipment, energy... literally
everything.

Well, energy is a special case because this Administration's policy is
to deliberately "skyrocket" them; the President's word, not mine.

 

On Sep 15, 1:39 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

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?

The main reason medical care costs so much to start with is that
Congress has been turning it into another sub-prime mortgage for
decades. All the incentives are perverted.

What our left-leaning friends don't understand is that fair markets
are self-organizing and self-optimizing. They drive down the cost of
everything the gov't /doesn't/ control. There doesn't have to be an
explicit plan, other than to allow it the freedom to do what it does.
And, the solutions invented are better than you expected, and usually
nothing like what you would have imagined, or imposed.

The assumption that order has to be imposed by morons like Obama is
about as efficient as Solyndra, with similar results except that gov't
programs never die, just grow in expense.

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.

Obamacare simply prices a huge number of low-income workers out of
jobs and onto the public dole; you do no man a favor by making his
labor cost more than the value of his work.

Wouldn't it be better if people had jobs? Then they could buy their
own. And if it cost half, that wouldn't hurt either.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Sep 16, 6:09 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

hamilton wrote:

On 9/16/2012 2:39 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

hamilton wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

  Like VA healthcare.

Yes, this is all true.

But, who is running those programs?

    Democrats, appointed by Obama.

DHS, Bush

Or should we forget about that, since it does not fit _your_ definition..

   Idiot.  Bush isn't in charge of anything.

I stubbed my toe the other day.

I blame Bush.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Sep 15, 9:13 pm, miso <m...@sushi.com> wrote:

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.

You hear the horror stories about Kaiser, but than again, they treat a
lot of people, so of course it is more likely that they will have the
occasional bad press. I know people that swear by Kaiser. Also, it is a
good union shop.

Kaiser varies by location. My mom used to work there.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Sep 16, 12:30 am, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 14, 2012 9:02:48 PM UTC-4, Jim Thompson 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  |             |

| Voice480)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.

That's a joke rationale that's been around for a while now. I think some jackass who owns a nationwide pizza chain came out with it first. Here's the deal on these low life scoundrels: the public is picking up their employees' health care  through the medicaid for which they qualify. The idea with Obamacare is to shift this burden away from the general tax payer and into the private sector. Which private sector is that you ask? It is the friggin customers of these cut-throat businesses screwing their employees and the American taxpayer by not providing health insurance just so they can make a price point for their customers. If their customers don't want to pay the nominal increase then let the market rule and put the business and its so-called services out to pasture.

Obamacare was designed by people with long experience and extreme expertise in the health industry economics sector. They know quite a bit more than some shmo hawking junk food, dontcha think?

They appear to be idiots, if you read the law, on sooo many fronts.
The notion that they know better is, um, fundamentally flawed.

Obamacare is a free-pass for free-riders--it makes gaming the system
profitable, and in one's rational self-interest.

Given that strong financial reality, what do you think people will do?

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Sep 16, 1:34 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 06:55:33 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy <robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

If people want a corporation to do something pass laws to MAKE them do
something, or pass taxes that make it economicall attractive to do
something. But, stop the stupid bitching about how corps are greedy!

Agreed. Make it cheaper to create jobs, cheaper to invest longterm,
easier to import foreign earnings. It makes sense to eliminate all
corporate taxation and go to a national sales tax to raise government
revenues. That way, people would have jobs and be able to pay the
taxes. That will never happen.

And tax financial transactions, like stock transfers, to shift
investment horizons from milliseconds to years. That won't happen
either. Wall Street owns Washington.

Anything Washington would control lobbies and controls Washington, or
ceases to exist. There are ever more and more of those interests in
0bama's America.

Eventually, there are so many more piglets than teats (A. Lincoln) it
gets mighty confusing, in an Atlas-shrugged kind of a way.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[tm]

<dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:443278bc-2c6d-4ad1-b2cf-895476681f17@z8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 16, 12:30 am, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 14, 2012 9:02:48 PM UTC-4, Jim Thompson 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 | |

| Voice480)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.

That's a joke rationale that's been around for a while now. I think some
jackass who owns a nationwide pizza chain came out with it first. Here's
the deal on these low life scoundrels: the public is picking up their
employees' health care through the medicaid for which they qualify. The
idea with Obamacare is to shift this burden away from the general tax
payer and into the private sector. Which private sector is that you ask?
It is the friggin customers of these cut-throat businesses screwing their
employees and the American taxpayer by not providing health insurance just
so they can make a price point for their customers. If their customers
don't want to pay the nominal increase then let the market rule and put
the business and its so-called services out to pasture.

Obamacare was designed by people with long experience and extreme
expertise in the health industry economics sector. They know quite a bit
more than some shmo hawking junk food, dontcha think?

They appear to be idiots, if you read the law, on sooo many fronts.
The notion that they know better is, um, fundamentally flawed.

Obamacare is a free-pass for free-riders--it makes gaming the system
profitable, and in one's rational self-interest.

Given that strong financial reality, what do you think people will do?

--
Cheers,
James Arthur
============================================

<libtard mode>

Ummm, game the system???

</libtard mode>

 

[hamilton]

On 9/16/2012 6:31 PM, flipper wrote:

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 10:26:01 -0600, hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com
wrote:

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

The bigger question is why would you ask when it's none of your
business but the manner in which you did suggests you want to know if
he has 'enough to steal'.

Opps, am I that transparent ?

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 16, 6:09 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
hamilton wrote:

On 9/16/2012 2:39 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

hamilton wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Like VA healthcare.

Yes, this is all true.

But, who is running those programs?

Democrats, appointed by Obama.

DHS, Bush

Or should we forget about that, since it does not fit _your_ definition.

Idiot. Bush isn't in charge of anything.

I stubbed my toe the other day.

I blame Bush.

You're right. He was supposed to outlaw toes...

 

On Sep 16, 12:11 am, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:

hamilton wrote:

On 9/15/2012 3:59 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:

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

This is the interpretation I was talking about.

The owner of a company can take what ever paycheck he wants to, I have
no problem with that.

But he still has a responsibility to pay the taxes and obey the laws
that are required.

If he wants to close his company so he does not have to pay X,Y, or Z
taxes, that is his prerogative.

However, cutting the pay and benefits of those who work for him is
another mater.

Mr. Barr is cutting the pay and benefits of those and not cutting his
own paycheck.

OK, fine.

Close the doors and walk away.

If the company does not survive is in not his fault ?

Mr Barr needs employees to make a company work.
Hes own paycheck is not guaranteed.

You build a company to survive to be profitable in the future, not to
milk it for all its worth until you can no longer get enough out of it.

What is business school teaching today.

No wonder Ponzi schemes are so rampant.

hamilton

In other words, you don't want to follow the rules you make for others.
That's called "tyranny".  Have a nice day, and I hope your side loses
big.

I had an epiphany on a multi-state drive back from a political thing
this weekend(*), and it was this:

Much of our brethern's prescriptions are based on the belief that
gov't has overunity gain, including transfer payments, a fundamental
error. Pelosi insists the gain is close to 2. Variation: a gentleman
last week insisted that reducing gov't spending would "take money out
of the economy," not realizing it's an /expense/.

If I had that that same belief, I'd come to their same conclusions.

The entirety of the difference in philosophies comes down to a few
premises, easily debunked (mostly).

(*) Oddly, I don't like politics. I'd much rather design electronics,
I just don't feel I can afford to. Not now.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Sep 16, 9:48 pm, "tm" <No_one_h...@white-house.gov> wrote:

dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:443278bc-2c6d-4ad1-b2cf-895476681f17@z8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 16, 12:30 am, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:

That's a joke rationale that's been around for a while now. I think some
jackass who owns a nationwide pizza chain came out with it first. Here's
the deal on these low life scoundrels: the public is picking up their
employees' health care through the medicaid for which they qualify. The
idea with Obamacare is to shift this burden away from the general tax
payer and into the private sector. Which private sector is that you ask?
It is the friggin customers of these cut-throat businesses screwing their
employees and the American taxpayer by not providing health insurance just
so they can make a price point for their customers. If their customers
don't want to pay the nominal increase then let the market rule and put
the business and its so-called services out to pasture.
Obamacare was designed by people with long experience and extreme
expertise in the health industry economics sector. They know quite a bit
more than some shmo hawking junk food, dontcha think?

They appear to be idiots, if you read the law, on sooo many fronts.
The notion that they know better is, um, fundamentally flawed.

Obamacare is a free-pass for free-riders--it makes gaming the system
profitable, and in one's rational self-interest.

Given that strong financial reality, what do you think people will do?

libtard mode

Ummm, game the system???

/libtard mode

We have a winner!

Yes, of course that's what real people will do. They'll have to.

Obamacare's designers assumed people would gladly line up to pay more
and buy their brass-plated monkey, with gov't "vouchers,"
effectively. Obamacare depends on it.

Insurance companies thought Obamacare would force everyone to buy
their product, and a bigger, more expensive version (partly with the
insured's own earnings, the rest with gov't vouchers in hand. Cha-
ching.). Insurance companies liked that.

The reality is that it's far cheaper to skip insurance until you need
it. IOW, Obamacare defeats the whole principle of insurance: paying
for protection against something you hope won't happen, so that you're
covered if it does.

People with insurance are now the suckers whose premiums support
everyone. They have to pay the (higher and higher) freight for those
who don't. So, many with insurance will, rationally, jump off that
train onto the gaming bandwagon--there's nothing to stop them. The
law encourages it. Companies too.

That quickly leads to a cascade failure.

Just a few people gaming the system (rationally not paying subsidized
premiums) will bankrupt the insurers, and impose their costs on the
insured in the mean time. Brilliant.

It's a zero-payer plan.

Obamacrats mouth virtue, but what they promote is dog-eat-dog--
everyone trying to foist their cost on everyone else.

I think it's great. Let's game Obamacare! If you're going to force
your plan, you pay for it. And, we'll teach others likewise, from sea
to shining sea.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Sep 16, 8:54 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 14:48:33 GMT, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
wrote:









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.

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.

And you base that on what business model?

Sales margin on high volume products is generally low and it's ROI
that matters most.

E.g. If I have a bakery then there was investment cost to pay for it
and if I sell only one loaf of bread it better have one hell of a
profit margin. But if I sell a million loaves of bread then not so
much.

OTOH if
he raises the price of his product by 1.5% he already covered the
costs of the healthcare plane.

So the President was lying when he said it wasn't going to cost 'you'
anything because prices on everything will go up.

And "1.5%" won't do it either because everyone 'Mr. Barr' does
business with has the same 'problem' he does. So his food costs are
going up, and transportation costs, and packaging costs, and
disposables cost, and maintenance, equipment, energy... literally
everything.

Yep. "d.," below.

Well, energy is a special case because this Administration's policy is
to deliberately "skyrocket" them; the President's word, not mine.

Don't forget the higher order effects:
a. If the price of everything immediately jumps 1.5%, they've
expropriated 1.5% of your wealth--it now buys 1.5% less.
b. It won't stop at 1.5% as there's a Keynesian multiplier effect
that ripples through, but applied to all the harms. Inflation.
c. The cost will rise still more, as they've institutionalized a non-
market system with perverse incentives.
d. That's 1.5% more of your life and everything you do, *forever.*
Ironic, for a system that was advertised as costing less. That was 95%
of the rationale.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur