LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

[DelPen]

So what's the solution?

Should we turn the clock back to 2008 and encourage people to use the ER, every time they get a sore throat or boil?

Conceptually, I don't support the AHCA, because I want to see a single payer system.

I never hear any solutions from those who wanted to retain the previous status quo.

Start with tort reform and other areas to reduce costs. Reform insurance to actually be for catostrophic events. I shouldn't need insurance for a wellness check. Of course some of this is also ties to rising costs of education.

[mac5155]

thg, how are you figuring that? Under that formula of 15% divided by 12, my repayment would be almost higher than my current standard repayment?

Repayment = 15% * (AGI -(150% * poverty level)) / 12

poverty level in 2012 I believe was 11,170 for a single person

I dont believe you are taking into account the amount you earned above the poverty level.

Over the 25 year term are you paying significantly more than you would if you paid in 10 years?

[tifosi77]

His blatant lies on healthcare, pre primaries, during primaries, his run for office and then while in office has been one of the most overlooked and under reported lies and scams in political history.

How did that many people vote for a guy who changed his stance to smash Hilary, destroy her on her ideas for plans on mandating individuals, run on a mild corporate based profit system, and then pass a law that has cpmpmay size based care and exactly what he trumped Clinton on?

What lies on healthcare are you talking about? That he originally wanted single-player? I think he still does, but it doesn't have a chance of passing at the moment, so I think he had to lower his expectations.

I think calling that a 'lie' is way off the mark, because it presumes that Obama believed all along that he did not want single-payer and instead favored the mandate approach. I could see calling it a broken campaign promise, but even that's a stretch.

Obama and Congressional Democrats read the lay of the land. They took the position of offering up a reform package that was centered around long-standing Republican proposals that had bi-partisan support for 15 years, including up to the year Obama was elected. Obviously, that was a big mis-read, because now that it had Obama's name on it, the principle of personal responsibility espoused by the Heritage Foundation when they first suggested the idea of a health insurance mandate was now clearly socialism. (Pardon..... I meant to say SOCIALISM!!!!)

While it sounds like sour grapes, and it probably is, I don't really disagree with the general premise of what he is saying.

Unemployment is ~8%, the debt is $16 trillion, we're running a $1 trillion deficit, the housing mess still hasn't been sorted out.................. there's no way in hell Obama should have been reelected. That he was had precious little to do with 'gifts' and more to do with the echo chamber in which Republican politics are played out these days. The Republican message did not resonate with enough voters. Period. Failure to acknowledge that will lead to ever shrinking GOP representation in the political discourse of this country.

For example, about illegal immigration you state "Democrats are thinking about the millions of voters they will gain if they are the ones to push it through. Not recognizing that is naive." Fair play, but I assert that the greater naivety is expressed by Republicans who threaten to deport 13 million people in this country and then wonder why they lose the Latino vote 3:1. "Vote for me and I'll deport your grandparents!" is not a winning message.

[Kaizer]

So what's the solution?

Should we turn the clock back to 2008 and encourage people to use the ER, every time they get a sore throat or boil?

Conceptually, I don't support the AHCA, because I want to see a single payer system.

I never hear any solutions from those who wanted to retain the previous status quo.

Start with tort reform and other areas to reduce costs. Reform insurance to actually be for catostrophic events. I shouldn't need insurance for a wellness check. Of course some of this is also ties to rising costs of education.

i think this is what he meant by not hearing any solutions.

[Hockeynut!]

Start with tort reform and other areas to reduce costs. Reform insurance to actually be for catostrophic events. I shouldn't need insurance for a wellness check. Of course some of this is also ties to rising costs of education.

Something needs to be done to bring medical costs back in line. I mentioned a few weeks ago my dad's case. He has a brain tumor and was supposed to have surgery in late August. He got sick in the OR before the surgery started and the hospital billed his insurance over $7000 for OR use and he was in there maybe 20 minutes. That is ridiculous.

Another example of what I feel is "fraud" in the industry. I received my flu shot at Walgreens. It was $30. My dad had his flu shot at Walgreens and it was covered under his insurance. They charged his insurance $30 for the flu shot and another $28 for administering the flu shot.

[thehockeyguru]

thg, how are you figuring that? Under that formula of 15% divided by 12, my repayment would be almost higher than my current standard repayment?

Repayment = 15% * (AGI -(150% * poverty level)) / 12

poverty level in 2012 I believe was 11,170 for a single person

I dont believe you are taking into account the amount you earned above the poverty level.

Over the 25 year term are you paying significantly more than you would if you paid in 10 years?

You could estimate, but it really is an unknown based on your AGI. You have to submit your AGI each year and they determine your payment based on the previous years tax return. At the end of 25 years the remaining amount is considered "income earned" and you pay taxes on that.

This option is good for me because I have no interest in a 10-15 year plan after consolidating my undergrad and graduate loans.

[npv708]

So what's the solution?

Should we turn the clock back to 2008 and encourage people to use the ER, every time they get a sore throat or boil?

Conceptually, I don't support the AHCA, because I want to see a single payer system.

I never hear any solutions from those who wanted to retain the previous status quo.

Start with tort reform and other areas to reduce costs. Reform insurance to actually be for catostrophic events. I shouldn't need insurance for a wellness check. Of course some of this is also ties to rising costs of education.

Good interview from 2009 on why Tort reform isn't all its cracked up to be:
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... are-costs/

[shafnutz05]

http://www.dolekemp96.org/main.htm

[npv708]

http://www.dolekemp96.org/main.htm

As President, he will:

Seek ways to make health care more accessible and affordable for all Americans.
Ensure that individuals who change jobs do not lose their coverage or face pre-existing condition limitations.
Give self-employed individuals the same tax deductions that large corporations have to buy health insurance.
Make Medical Savings Accounts a real option available to all Americans.
Support efforts to make community and home based care more readily available.

I swear I've heard this somewhere before....

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

His blatant lies on healthcare, pre primaries, during primaries, his run for office and then while in office has been one of the most overlooked and under reported lies and scams in political history.

How did that many people vote for a guy who changed his stance to smash Hilary, destroy her on her ideas for plans on mandating individuals, run on a mild corporate based profit system, and then pass a law that has cpmpmay size based care and exactly what he trumped Clinton on?

What lies on healthcare are you talking about? That he originally wanted single-player? I think he still does, but it doesn't have a chance of passing at the moment, so I think he had to lower his expectations.

I think calling that a 'lie' is way off the mark, because it presumes that Obama believed all along that he did not want single-payer and instead favored the mandate approach. I could see calling it a broken campaign promise, but even that's a stretch.

Obama and Congressional Democrats read the lay of the land. They took the position of offering up a reform package that was centered around long-standing Republican proposals that had bi-partisan support for 15 years, including up to the year Obama was elected. Obviously, that was a big mis-read, because now that it had Obama's name on it, the principle of personal responsibility espoused by the Heritage Foundation when they first suggested the idea of a health insurance mandate was now clearly socialism. (Pardon..... I meant to say SOCIALISM!!!!)

While it sounds like sour grapes, and it probably is, I don't really disagree with the general premise of what he is saying.

Unemployment is ~8%, the debt is $16 trillion, we're running a $1 trillion deficit, the housing mess still hasn't been sorted out.................. there's no way in hell Obama should have been reelected. That he was had precious little to do with 'gifts' and more to do with the echo chamber in which Republican politics are played out these days. The Republican message did not resonate with enough voters. Period. Failure to acknowledge that will lead to ever shrinking GOP representation in the political discourse of this country.

For example, about illegal immigration you state "Democrats are thinking about the millions of voters they will gain if they are the ones to push it through. Not recognizing that is naive." Fair play, but I assert that the greater naivety is expressed by Republicans who threaten to deport 13 million people in this country and then wonder why they lose the Latino vote 3:1. "Vote for me and I'll deport your grandparents!" is not a winning message.

I disagree. He specifically said he was for certain things in the past and argued in the primaries againtst his exact words for the sole purpose of ousting Clinton. The irony is of course that the voters turned on Bill in 1994 (aprroval rating) and Hilary in 2008 and then by some miracle backed Obama in 2009 for a similar plan. Bill crawled out of his negative standing by cutting spending and straying from these socialist ideas. Ashort time later we all love them?

once Barry won the primary he turned his focus to the profitable company healthcare plan with a minimum profit pay or play system that in my estimation was a solid start to his entire class warfare campaign that has been so effective. The healthcare reform he ran against McCain on had a probability of zero percent chance of passing as it was probably the dumbest, least realistic and most open ended idea in recent memory. How do you even judge profit of a business state to state, city to city or been industries. A profit number is arbitrary.
Yet everyone jumped on it and forgot about it.

[MWB]

^^^^ Exactly what I'm talking about. Over the last few months the PDT has turned from a discussion thread into a circlejerk of who can come up with the snarkiest, wittiest, and most sarcastic one-liner. Knock yourselves out.

Or people looking to correct grammatical errors.

[MWB]

If someone agrees with the ACA, that is your opinion but idiots like John Stewart spouting factless rhetoric as if this CEO is making this all up or it's not a big issue in general is a huge part of the problem.

What was he factually inaccurate about?

[columbia]

http://www.dolekemp96.org/main.htm

Unabashed snark.

[npv708]

http://www.dolekemp96.org/main.htm

Unabashed snark.

Hey girl, its Bob Dole!

[Tico Rick]

At least one journalist gets it. David Simon rails against the prurient media:

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/15/david_simon_medias_sex_obsession_is_dangerous_destructive/

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

If someone agrees with the ACA, that is your opinion but idiots like John Stewart spouting factless rhetoric as if this CEO is making this all up or it's not a big issue in general is a huge part of the problem.

What was he factually inaccurate about?

My point is he is not presenting an unbiased overall look at the effects of the ACA and people constantly refer to Stewart. He has come up multiple times just on the last several pages of this thread. He bashes folks in similar fashion as if "common sense, rich guys just wants to get richer how can he think we are all this stupid".

In reality these are business leaders managing franchises. Similar to sports leagues, Papa Johns might be profitable overall but each franchiser is running on small enough margins store by store that this is a concern.

but he plays quotes and makes a weird quizzical face and everyone laughs and we hate "insert rich guys name here".

Sometimes people get swept up in large numbers without looking at them realistically. Let's say a Papa Johns franchise owner made $150,000 profit off of one store. And the average order is $25. That means that if his business even slides 15 less orders per day he might break even. Think about that, 15 orders per day costs you your profit.

I know that's not exact and just a flimsy example but at the least shows how quickly and easily a business can turn.

[npv708]

B+DS, I have a few points I'd like to make directly for you, regarding the fast food industry and ACA.

1) Papa John's founder/CEO John Schnatter has been one of the most prominent voices against the ACA regarding the fast food industry, specifically pizza chains, but why haven't the other the top 2 Pizza Restaurants (by volume), Pizza Hut and Domino's, and the 4th place, Little Caesar's (owned by an NHL owner currently perceived as one greedy sob in the labor negotiations) have similar complaints? Is it purely coincidence that John Schnatter is trying to publicize something that most of the pizza restaurant industry isn't and hosted multiple campaign events for Romney at his mansion?

2) If ACA is as big as a problem as John Schnatter has made it out to be, then how is it possible that he will be opening 1,500 more stores worldwide, including 300 in North America. Doesn't it seem if profits are so endangered by the ACA, that growth wouldn't really be the best option? Same goes for Darden group, who plans to open another 500 restaurants over the next five years.

3) If the ACA is as evil as Papa John's, the Darden Group, McDonald's, Subway, and the NCCR claim, then why are they the only ones that seem to be leading the charge, when there are so many more restaurant chains in the industry?

[mac5155]

thg, how are you figuring that? Under that formula of 15% divided by 12, my repayment would be almost higher than my current standard repayment?

Repayment = 15% * (AGI -(150% * poverty level)) / 12

poverty level in 2012 I believe was 11,170 for a single person

I dont believe you are taking into account the amount you earned above the poverty level.

Over the 25 year term are you paying significantly more than you would if you paid in 10 years?

You could estimate, but it really is an unknown based on your AGI. You have to submit your AGI each year and they determine your payment based on the previous years tax return. At the end of 25 years the remaining amount considered "income earned" and you pay taxes on that.

This option is good for me because I have no interest in a 10-15 year plan after consolidating my undergrad and graduate loans.

Someone should create an analysis of the break even AGI where you end up paying more in interest. If my AGI stayed at current levels, I would save $22k by paying the IBR amount.

[npv708]

and just to add some humor to this thread...

[MWB]

If someone agrees with the ACA, that is your opinion but idiots like John Stewart spouting factless rhetoric as if this CEO is making this all up or it's not a big issue in general is a huge part of the problem.

What was he factually inaccurate about?

My point is he is not presenting an unbiased overall look at the effects of the ACA and people constantly refer to Stewart. He has come up multiple times just on the last several pages of this thread. He bashes folks in similar fashion as if "common sense, rich guys just wants to get richer how can he think we are all this stupid".

So he's not actually spouting factless rhetoric, he's just stating his opinion. And people who agree with his opinion use it as a way of bringing that angle up.

[npv708]

On a side note about John Schnatter:

Seeing pictures of his house....


...reminds me of this clip from South Park about Napster/copyright infringement

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/1 ... a-big-deal

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

B+DS, I have a few points I'd like to make directly for you, regarding the fast food industry and ACA.

1) Papa John's founder/CEO John Schnatter has been one of the most prominent voices against the ACA regarding the fast food industry, specifically pizza chains, but why haven't the other the top 2 Pizza Restaurants (by volume), Pizza Hut and Domino's, and the 4th place, Little Caesar's (owned by an NHL owner currently perceived as one greedy sob in the labor negotiations) have similar complaints? Is it purely coincidence that John Schnatter is trying to publicize something that most of the pizza restaurant industry isn't and hosted multiple campaign events for Romney at his mansion?

2) If ACA is as big as a problem as John Schnatter has made it out to be, then how is it possible that he will be opening 1,500 more stores worldwide, including 300 in North America. Doesn't it seem if profits are so endangered by the ACA, that growth wouldn't really be the best option? Same goes for Darden group, who plans to open another 500 restaurants over the next five years.

3) If the ACA is as evil as Papa John's, the Darden Group, McDonald's, Subway, and the NCCR claim, then why are they the only ones that seem to be leading the charge, when there are so many more restaurant chains in the industry?

1. How do you know they are not. Many franchises are worried and are on record as saying so. We don't need a petition signed by each single one. Maybe they aren't saying anything so they dont get blasted on national tv by hosts confused by the public viewers as knowledgable? Of course his connection to Romney might have lead to his making what amounted to a bad PR move. What are other company would come out now. Their concerns turn them into lepers.

2. Their concerns where clearly over having to raise costs and cut back on employee hours to keep up with a rising costs. I don't want to go down this road too many times getting into business decisions but there is a correlation between rising costs and new non exempt hours rules compared to corporate growth. Nobody exoects business to stop but everyone expects their businesses to be effected. You seem to focus on these issues that make sense to you as bull crap but have 100% valid busness reasoning.

Just because they are ticked that their costs are artificially rising and that they will have to alter the workforce as well as cut back on hours probably of their better employees does not mean they are going to sit back. They still have businesses to run.

Number 2 just seems so forced. And btw - franchise expansion is nothing near as comparable to a standard business expanded so it's not really valid anyways.

3. Pretty sure 3 is the same exact question as number 1. These seem like robotic responses by those who live outside the realm of Busienss and especially PR. My company hates the law but hasn't said anything. Who cares?

[thehockeyguru]

On a side note about John Schnatter:

Seeing pictures of his house....


...reminds me of this clip from South Park about Napster/copyright infringement

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/1 ... a-big-deal

Is that house in the back the servants quarters?

[columbia]

My company hates the law but hasn't said anything. Who cares?

Why do they hate it?

What percentage of your coworkers do not have health insurance and how do you feel about that?

[npv708]

B+DS, I have a few points I'd like to make directly for you, regarding the fast food industry and ACA.

1) Papa John's founder/CEO John Schnatter has been one of the most prominent voices against the ACA regarding the fast food industry, specifically pizza chains, but why haven't the other the top 2 Pizza Restaurants (by volume), Pizza Hut and Domino's, and the 4th place, Little Caesar's (owned by an NHL owner currently perceived as one greedy sob in the labor negotiations) have similar complaints? Is it purely coincidence that John Schnatter is trying to publicize something that most of the pizza restaurant industry isn't and hosted multiple campaign events for Romney at his mansion?

2) If ACA is as big as a problem as John Schnatter has made it out to be, then how is it possible that he will be opening 1,500 more stores worldwide, including 300 in North America. Doesn't it seem if profits are so endangered by the ACA, that growth wouldn't really be the best option? Same goes for Darden group, who plans to open another 500 restaurants over the next five years.

3) If the ACA is as evil as Papa John's, the Darden Group, McDonald's, Subway, and the NCCR claim, then why are they the only ones that seem to be leading the charge, when there are so many more restaurant chains in the industry?

1. How do you know they are not. Many franchises are worried and are on record as saying so. We don't need a petition signed by each single one. Maybe they aren't saying anything so they dont get blasted on national tv by hosts confused by the public viewers as knowledgable? Of course his connection to Romney might have lead to his making what amounted to a bad PR move. What are other company would come out now. Their concerns turn them into lepers.

2. Their concerns where clearly over having to raise costs and cut back on employee hours to keep up with a rising costs. I don't want to go down this road too many times getting into business decisions but there is a correlation between rising costs and new non exempt hours rules compared to corporate growth. Nobody exoects business to stop but everyone expects their businesses to be effected. You seem to focus on these issues that make sense to you as bull crap but have 100% valid busness reasoning. (I mean you posted about companies making changes to a work force 12 month out as some sort of evil corporate excuse - while in the same post stated that these new rules will track in 12 month increments).

Just because they are ticked that their costs are artificially rising and that they will have to alter the workforce as well as cut back on hours probably of their better employees does not mean they are going to sit back. They still have businesses to run.

Number 2 just seems so forced. And btw - franchise expansion is nothing near as comparable to a standard business expanded so it's not really valid anyways.

3. Pretty sure 3 is the same exact question as number 1. These seem like robotic responses by those who live outside the realm of Busienss and especially PR. My company hates the law but hasn't said anything. Who cares?

1) I don't think people who would host Obama fundraisers would have much negative to say about the ACA...interesting how that works, eh? Ilitch family hosted Obama fundraiser and Denise Ilitch is a pretty well know Democrat fundraiser...also owner of Little Caesars, making less profit than Papa John's...

2) I suggest if you believe exactly what John Schnatter is saying verbatim, you take a look at this article from a clearly liberal rag on the costs that Papa John's would incur per pie as a result of Obamacare...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/ ... care-math/

So how much would prices go up, under these 50/50 conditions, if they were to fairly reflect the increased cost of doing business onset by Obamacare? Roughly 3.4 to 4.6 cents a pie.

3) Or maybe its mostly partisan rhetoric coming out of companies with clearly partisan CEOs. Happens both ways. Just a thoughts.