11-15-2012, 09:33 PM #61
This is newer data so it might not be as good, 260 billion a year is lost due to illiness in this country. I do not know the data for Papa John's but it might hurt him in the long run. Also, wouldn't most of the cost be placed on franchisees? Not quite understanding it all?
Since his workers are not skilled it might not be beneficial to his business to supply health coverage.
11-15-2012, 09:53 PM #62
11-15-2012, 10:32 PM #63
workmans comp and health insurance are two different things, they are covered if anything happens at work, they are also covered if the shop closes because they have to pay UE taxes.
the real issue here is people want an unskilled worker to have the coverage of a skilled worker, and want someone else to pay for it. when you have a skill that people need, pay and benefits are great, my company pays 14K a year in benefits for me, I pay nothing out of pocket. but my job requires continuous education, and I have 20 years in my field of work.
most mcdonalds employees should be teens and seniors, sure there are a few decent positions, and corporate is great, but the common worker does not supply the demand to earn those benefits, because they are low skilled.
I am all for everyone, even low and no skilled people to have health coverage, but this is not the way to go about it. equality has to do with potential not skills, myself and taxman do not have the same skill sets and thus will have different benefits and job potential otherwise how will we have skilled workers, if someone unskilled can land a job with the same pay and benefits?
the simple fact is these type of jobs are not designed to give benefits to all its employees, what we may see coming in the next few years is closing of franchises and opening of smaller mom and pop shops, who will not have to give benefits. when this happens how will these people afford healthcare without it being state issued, which means more tax money paying for it, with no new tax revenue.
11-15-2012, 11:07 PM #64
11-16-2012, 12:17 AM #65
I am all for everyone, even low and no skilled people to have health coverage, but this is not the way to go about it.
if you take mcdonalds, make them supply health coverage to all workers 30 hours and over, the franchise fee will rise to make up for the cost, thus making franchise owners making less than they would at a job that does not require the headaches of a franchise ownership, to buy into a franchise is a huge investment to begin with, they are not free. in fact not too long ago i was seriously considering a Sonic franchise, i am glad i did not.
the simple fact is you cannot rob Peter to pay Paul, or soon they both will have nothing.
i would say cut back government employee pays and benefits, this will free up some tax money to help pay for others, the next step would be to have large tax cuts for business who do provide health care coverage, making it more feasable for business owners to afford it.
this is just a poor solution created by people who have no real life involvement with how a business runs, if any business ran like the government they would be bankrupt and closed within a year.
11-16-2012, 12:42 AM #66
Jay that is the issue with health care at baseline. Robbing Peter to pay Paul. As technology increases, costs increase. If someone does not take care of themselves all will end up paying in higher costs.
While I admit I am not happy about paying for someone else's healthcare, I look at it as more self-serving need. I do not want someone with flu getting me sick, so I think everyone should get a flu shot. I do not want someone with TB getting me sick, so the government should and has forced people to get treatment.
If someone has heart disease, it better to find early and treat aggressively so no surgery is done.
While I can somewhat understand how the owner of PJs feels, someone needs to pay for these people so they do not hurt me or my family.
Also, some personal responsibility needs to be instituted. My biggest problem with the healthcare mandate is that patients have no responsibility in their care. They are allow to do whatever they want without consequence.
11-16-2012, 09:41 AM #67
11-16-2012, 10:01 AM #68
Same goes for taxes. If you make everyone pay income taxes, even just a little, they will have a greater appreciation of the system and realization of the costs.
Like Milton Friedman said, there are four ways to spend money...
11-16-2012, 10:30 AM #69
Jay and Brandon your points are mute. The Mass laws has not been what you can say an burden on business. It has not put hundreds of restaurants out of business. Although the law was enacted at the worst time, however the state and such as well as the people have survived this mandate. Is it prefect? far from it! Rates have gone up but the burden to the state for medicals costs has gone down. Until you both can prove your points then your argument cannot be sold.
11-16-2012, 10:33 AM #70
Exactly. That's why I am a huge proponent of eliminating the IRS and having taxes taking out of our paychecks and switching to a flat fair tax. Also I look at health care just like car insurance. No one likes to pay it but it is a neccessary evil. Just think if car insurance was optional people would simply do without and when they get in an accident who has to pay? The taxpayers. By making some type of manditory insurance this shifts the burden off the taxpayer back to the individual.