How to Protect Yourself From Obamacare

[we vs us]

He found the GIF and had the shakes he wanted to use it so bad.

I envision a folder on his desktop labelled DILDO GIFS.  Sitting next to a folder labelled DILDO JPGS.  Sitting next to a folder labelled DILDO DOCS, and DILDO PDFS.  

[Conan71]

I will look up some talking points and get back to you, since you also seem to be content with pithy talking points.

Pithy talking points?  How about how Buffett is incredibly disingenuous when he talks about paying too little in taxes, yet spends millions a year in tax avoidance schemes for himself and all of his varied companies.  What's pithy about adding a box to the 1040 for those who want to add to their tax remittance to help reduce the debt. 

What's the matter Nate?  Make too much sense?

[Breadburner]

He found the GIF and had the shakes he wanted to use it so bad.

You shake it more than twice dont you.....?

[Townsend]

You shake it more than twice dont you.....?

Wrong tree if you're looking for this kind of back and forth.

[Breadburner]

Wrong tree if you're looking for this kind of back and forth.

Giving up so soon...I thought you liked getting the wood laid to you.....

[Townsend]

Giving up so soon...I thought you liked getting the wood laid to you.....

Bad touch bad touch

[nathanm]

Pithy talking points?  How about how Buffett is incredibly disingenuous when he talks about paying too little in taxes, yet spends millions a year in tax avoidance schemes for himself and all of his varied companies.  What's pithy about adding a box to the 1040 for those who want to add to their tax remittance to help reduce the debt. 

What's the matter Nate?  Make too much sense?

You think that "people who want to pay for their government should volunteer to pay more while everybody else skates by" makes sense. If you want to reduce the size of government, that's fine, but we can't continue on the path we're on. Tax policy and spending policy should be unrelated. Tax policy is secondary. We should decide what we're going to spend money on, then we raise the money to pay for it, whatever those spending choices may have been. Clearly, there should be discussion about how much we should spend, but raising money to pay for programs we've already enacted should not be controversial.

There may be reasons to temporarily run a deficit, but we should not be in this deficit as far as the eyes can see situation.

Even if we eliminate much of government as Rick Perry would like to do, we still have to pay for what we've already used.

[Red Arrow]

We should decide what we're going to spend money on, then we raise the money to pay for it, whatever those spending choices may have been. Clearly, there should be discussion about how much we should spend, but raising money to pay for programs we've already enacted should not be controversial.

Paying for what we are already doing and have done but not paid for is going to get a lot lower on the income ladder than many would like to admit.

[nathanm]

Paying for what we are already doing and have done but not paid for is going to get a lot lower on the income ladder than many would like to admit.

Were we not in the midst of an epically stagnant and broken economy, that wouldn't really present any big problems. As it stands, deficit spending is necessary to get us out of the hole, but going forward we're simply going to have to reduce the size of the deficit unless we'd like a repeat of the 70s. What we need to do now is not what we need to be doing when the economy begins to recover. What we need to be doing when the economy recovers is not what we will need to do for the next bump in the road.

Unlike the Congressional Republicans, I think tax cuts have to be paid for, just like spending increases. I don't think either needs to be paid for now, but they do need to have future offsets tied to some measure of performance. We need stimulus? Ok, borrow for now, but when the economy improves to some defined point, we raise taxes to pay for it. We need a tax cut? Ok, provide offsetting spending cuts or revenue increases elsewhere.

The irony is that reducing the deficit or paying off existing debt right now is counterproductive. We're presently in a very deflationary environment. Deficit spending is offsetting that to some degree. Conversely, were we inhabiting an inflationary environment deficit spending would be counterproductive.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Bad touch bad touch

But soooo typical.

[Gaspar]

Interesting article today in Bloomberg by the CEO of CKE Restaurants:

Our company, CKE Restaurants Inc., employs about 21,000 people (our franchisees employ 49,000 more) in Carl's Jr. and Hardee's restaurants. For months, we have been working with Mercer Health & Benefits LLC, our health-care consultant, to identify Obamacare's potential financial impact on CKE. Mercer estimated that when the law is fully implemented our health-care costs will increase about $18 million a year. That would put our total health-care costs at $29.8 million, a 150 percent increase from the roughly $12 million we spent last year.

The money to cover our increased expenses will have to come from somewhere. We are a profitable company and, after paying our obligations, we reinvest our earnings in the business. Reinvesting in the business is how we grow, create jobs and opportunity. This is true for most U.S. businesses.

Cutting Spending
To offset higher health-care expenses, we will have to cut spending on new restaurant construction, one of our largest discretionary spending areas. But building new restaurants is how we create jobs. An $18 million increase in our costs would more than consume the $8.8 million we spent on new restaurant construction last year, leaving nothing for growth. We will also need to reduce our general capital spending, which also creates jobs and allows us to improve our infrastructure and maintain our business. In summary, our ability to create new jobs could vanish.

To reduce the financial impact of Obamacare, many businesses, including ours, will have to consider increasing the number of part-time employees (those who work less than 30 hours a week as defined under the health-care law) and reducing the number of full-time employees. So, some individuals seeking full-time work will need to find two jobs.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-27/job-creation-is-price-for-new-u-s-health-law-commentary-by-andrew-puzder.html

[heironymouspasparagus]

The money to cover our increased expenses will have to come from somewhere. We are a profitable company and, after paying our obligations, we reinvest our earnings in the business. Reinvesting in the business is how we grow, create jobs and opportunity. This is true for most U.S. businesses.

To offset higher health-care expenses, we will have to cut spending on new restaurant construction, one of our largest discretionary spending areas. But building new restaurants is how we create jobs. An $18 million increase in our costs would more than consume the $8.8 million we spent on new restaurant construction last year, leaving nothing for growth. We will also need to reduce our general capital spending, which also creates jobs and allows us to improve our infrastructure and maintain our business. In summary, our ability to create new jobs could vanish.

They say they have 3,000+ stores.  And in 1995 they had 3,500 (second link).  So, I'm thinking that maybe the inability to spend $8 million on a very small handful of new stores is not REALLY related that much to any new health care initiatives.  They have struggled for a long, long time - way before this came along.  And as mediocre as they are, I suspect they will continue the struggle.

One thing this does say is that on revenue of $1.59 billion (2007 - before being taken private), they are not serious about anything other than milking that cash cow as hard as possible.  0.55% "new product" investment - in this case restaurants - is a joke.  They are kidding you.


http://investor.ckr.com/investor_faq

http://kelley_keith.tripod.com/mgmnt5313.html

http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/CKE_Restaurants_%28CKR%29

[Townsend]

Federal Agency Denies Okla. Request on Premiums

http://www.ktul.com/story/16445691/federal-agency-denies-okla-request-on-premiums?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - A federal agency is denying Oklahoma's request for additional time to meet federal standards related to how much health insurance companies spend on medical costs.

The U.S. Office of Health and Human Services on Wednesday notified Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner John Doak that the state's request had been denied.

A provision in the new federal health care law requires insurers in the individual market to spend at least 80 percent of the premiums they collect on health care.

Doak had sought an adjustment to the so-called "medical loss ratio" standard, allowing companies to gradually meet the ratio over the next few years.

Doak claimed the new 80 percent threshold could threaten smaller carriers and "disrupt the individual health insurance market in Oklahoma." But HHS says they saw no evidence of that

[Teatownclown]

Federal Agency Denies Okla. Request on Premiums

http://www.ktul.com/story/16445691/federal-agency-denies-okla-request-on-premiums?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Ha!

[Gaspar]

That should sew things up for United and BCBS.