questionsdid you hear what the ceo of papa john's said?


old news. Duh.

patiently waiting for first moron to say "It's worth 15 cents to me for everyone to get healthcare"


I think the health care reform act is going to be good for many people, neutral for nearly all the rest. Perhaps Papa John needs to get a different business model.


Meh... 14 cents so that people can have health insurance doesn't strike me as a serious problem.

Here's my logic:

I've never gotten an order from Papa John's that cost me less than $20 wih tax, tip, delivery charges, etc. and it is usually more like $25. So a 14 cent increase works out to at most a 0.7% additional tax, which is still much much less than what people pay in many places with "universal healthcare." (eg. Canada)

(Yes, I realize that my paying an extra 14 cents for the pizza guy to get some form of health insurance does not provide universal healthcare, but I honestly doesn't see that this is something worth harping on. Also, it would be much less expensive for Papa John's to just pay the penalty rather than do what they should have been doing all along, which is providing healthcare for their employees.)


I don't think I have ever ate a Papa Johns pizza, but I feel like everyone should have access to healthcare. That being said, I don't feel like Obamacare is the correct way to go about it, I feel like the same people who pay so much in taxes now, will be the ones hurting in the end. I guess we just wait and see.


I actually will sort of enjoy the surreal commercials that they'll have to sign off on now. "Get a large unlimited topping for $10.64!" Or do you think he'll round up and donate the extra to charity?


That would actually be great PR. Put it on the pizza box: "15 cents from every pizza order helps us give all of our employees health care!" I honestly wouldn't even notice if my pizza cost 15 cents more and would be happy to pay it if I knew it was going to give Papa John's low wage owners health care.


Problem 1: Healthcare costs are outrageous.

Problem 2: Insurance costs are outrageous. Notably so when provided by some employers, but prohibitively so when purchased personally.

Result: When your heart stops, the ambulance, 3 week hospital stay, emergency procedures, mind-boggling amount of tests, insertion of an ICD, and so on will run you about $300,000 without insurance.

You can't pay it. EVER. You likely can't even return to work for some time, since the stopped heart cut off air to the brain, causing damage.

You go bankrupt. You go into foreclosure. Perhaps you inadvertently wipe out the savings of some family members along the way. All said and done, that bill still won't get paid.

Wouldn't it be beneficial for everyone to avoid this?

I don't understand the bill well enough to comment for it or against it. All I know is that the ship is sinking, and some someone has got to do something or we're all going down.


He just said out loud what every company will end up doing. Corporations are not in business to lose money so if their expenses go up, their prices go up.


@kamikazeken: It's worth 15 cents to me for everyone to get healthcare.

Didn't want to disappoint. :)


@ohcheri: very true. However, as @tgentry stated very eloquently, it isn't really going to be a significant impact on the average pizza customer on any individual order. Because the perceived cost to the public in this case is so low, it is likely to have the opposite effect than the one he intended.


@okham , @mkdr: I think the cost of pizza is the least of our concerns, I can survive without it, especially Papa John's. If the cost of Pizza will rise, I'm sure almost everything else will follow. I guess all we can do now is hope the money we're saving on our health insurance premiums will help balance it out... As a middle class American who pays way too much taxes as it is, I'm sure the tax hike, and the rising costs of goods will be a bit more than the money I save from my insurance costs going. I guess we'll just have to wait and see!


Considering how mismanaged to many things are these days, I doubt .15 is all it's going to go up.


No more chick fil-a
No more papa johns

Stop blamming everyone else and take some ownership and responsibilities for your employees and customers....


@eraten: I hear ya! I don't anticipate saving anything on healthcare anytime soon - unless I change jobs. I have good coverage and reasonable out of pocket expenses - I expect them to go up over time to be more in line with the national averages (higher I believe) as other prices rise. I'm in the "wait and see" mode, only if I'm feeling particularly optimistic. I generally don't delve into the political discussions here and try to remain as neutral as possible, which often makes my position on issues come across incorrect.


I'd be willing to pay even more than an extra 14 cents if they could figure out how to make good pizza.


That makes no sense whatsoever. Isn't pizza considered a vegetable? Why would a healthcare bill raise the price of vegetables?


@ohcheri: Yes, now the companies will start having to pay for health care that they should have to begin with. Many companies like Bank of America in the past kept their employees work hours below the threshold of getting health benefits.

The story of Nichols and the Papa John's franchise makes no sense at all. She already offers health insurance where the employee kicks in $90/month and she kicks in another $90 so it's basically costing her $90/month per employee. But now she's comparing that to not covering her employees at all and paying $2,000/person? And the breakdown of her numbers don't seem to make sense at all.

The cost of rising oil and gas and wheat has a bigger impact on pizza prices. Give me a break.


No company is going to absorb their increased healthcare costs. They will all pass the increase on the the consumers of their products so from you coffee, to your tires, to your haircut everything will go up. Or companies will decide to pay the penalty and dump their employees into the healthcare exchanges. They exist to make money for their stockholders. Companies that are currently at 60ish employees will lay off workers to get below the magic 50 count to not have to offer insurance too. Companies do not exist to be workers benevolent providers.


@magic cave: Change their business model to what? Not passing along the costs imposed on them by the government to the customer? Lose money because the government mandates cost them more money?

What people don't understand, is that it won't end up being just your pizza. It will be everything. Just as when fuel prices rise, and you end up paying more for food/clothes/services because they pass along the cost to you, the same thing will be happening with Obamacare.

Nobody will eat their extra, mandated, costs. Free health coverage is very expensive.


Oh noes! They'll have to give their overworked employees benefits now? Quick, where is my tiny violin? This is an emergency!

Honestly, I have no pity for this corporations who are acting like babies just because they're going to have to treat their employees somewhat decently. The guy delivering your pizzas for minimum wage deserves to be able to see a doctor when he's sick, just like the higher ups get to. If that means an extra 14 cents tacked onto your pizza, then so be it. I'd rather pay for that than a new company jet for the executives.


@ohcheri: You're right on this one. I think that @tgentry has an excellent idea as well. Our health care has to improve, we just need to figure out who is going to pay for it. :)


@kmeltzer: "Nobody will eat their extra, mandated, costs. Free health coverage is very expensive."

Do you actually think it's free now? Who do you think is paying for all that indigent care? You are. I am. My husband is, my son is, and my daughter-in-law is. People should be responsible for their own health care costs whenever it's possibble, and this law will make it much more possible for many more people to buy and pay for their own health insurance.

If that costs me a few pennies here and there, so be it. I'm ready to pay it, and it sure as hell beats people dying from lack of prompt care. Besides, if it worked for Mitt's state, how bad can it be?


Our health care providers - and I am referring mostly to redundant procedures and specialists who make a huge amount of money (not the internal medicine, general practitioner) compared with other places in the world where they make good money but not the obscene amount they make here. Too many physicians own their own testing labs or equipment (especially cardiologists and gastroenterologists) and keep patients returning year after year for stress testing and endoscopies/colonoscopies when there was no problem to begin with. Same goes for any specialist who has their own testing, therapy, whatever facility. At least this is my observation and experience from being a caretaker for my dad and husband.


Who are you or the government to decide how much doctors should be paid? Hollywood actors and athletes make obscene amounts of money too and don't have 1/3 of the same educations or put in the same tough hours. Should we start dictating what they make too since tickets to concerts and sporting events are expensive?

A medical specialist goes to college for 8 years and then will intern and do at least one residency and sometimes more. They get paid pennies for the hours they put in during those years. When a doctors graduates they are likely a least $100K plus in debt. Put caps on their pay and see how many current doctors bolt and how many students who might go into medicine chose something else.

If you think that there are too many tests, procedures and facilities already, then you won't mind if there are long waits for those tests and procedures in the future under Obamacare since you are certain that all of those tests are unnecessary anyway based on your experience.


If that GI doc doesn't order that endoscopy or colonoscopy and two years later advanced colon cancer is found the same person saying there are too many tests would be suing for malpractice. The fear of malpractice lawsuits likely drive some of the "unnecessary" testing and procedures.


@kmeltzer: The cost of having people w/o health care is even more expensive like it is now. We have over 35 million people w/o coverage so when they get sick, they go the the ER which costs much more than if they just went to see a Dr. The ER can't turn people away so they have to treat them. About 49% of those costs are covered by MedicAid. The remainder are absorbed by the hospitals which then pass those losses to people and the insurance companies by way of higher costs and insurance premiums.

Preventative medicine is cheaper than when it gets worse. Allowing the sick to see a dr. instead of the ER is cheaper.


it's also going to add to the cost of a gallon of gas. It's going to add to the cost of your new computer or tablet or phone. It's going to add to the cost of a new car or even a USED car.

If you have a business with less than 50 employees, and you're thinking of expanding, that's another factor against expanding, and thereby new potential jobs are lost.

If you're running a manufacturing plant or a call center, this is simply another cost that will make it that much harder to keep the jobs in the US.


@kamikazeken: If you own a business and can't/won't offer a "living wage" to your employees, including some option for medical insurance, then maybe you shouldn't own a business? A large part (not all, but a lot) of the problem of people needing government assistance isn't because they're lazy and don't want to work. A good number of them have jobs, those jobs just refuse to pay anything above minimum wage and offer them no health insurance. Quite a few of these lower paying jobs purposely keep employees at part time because a part time employee is cheaper than a full time employee.

If a company can't afford to treat the >50 employees they already have decently, what business do they have trying to expand? Clearly if they can't offer basic medial coverage, their business is not doing well enough to justify expansion.


"Besides, if it worked for Mitt's state, how bad can it be?"

@magic cave: It didn't.. Unless having the highest premiums ANYWHERE is what you call working..

And it is rather shocking to me that PJs didn't apply for a waiver like 1,800 companies have.


@magic cave: "Do you actually think it's free now?"

No. I pay for minet, and my employer pays for mine. For the rest, we pitch in for the CARE, not COVERAGE. Obamacare is paying for COVERAGE. We aren't paying to make people more healthy, or even use the coverage they have.

" it sure as hell beats people dying from lack of prompt care"

We have prompt care in this country, no matter who you are. We have excellent CARE.

It's not the governments job to mandate health coverage. Health insurance isn't a right in this country, and I have no business paying for/being taxed to pay for anyone's coverage.


@magic cave: And, you said "they should change their business model". And I asked "to what?" So... why don't you answer the question about your statement.

What do you propose Papa John's "change their business model" to?


@tucnguyen: First, you're assuming people who don't get any preventative medicine now, will suddenly start getting it. There's nothing showing that the unhealthy will suddenly get healthy with Obamacare, or that they won't smoke, eat fatty food, do drugs an have genetic/hereditary diseases. Nothing says people won't go to the hospital, and not a personal doctor for, anything. There's no mandate (that I know of, who knows what's really in there) that people MUST go get an annual physical, or do anything with their COVERAGE to be preventative. There are no mandated lifestyle changes.

And, you're talking about the cost of CARE absorbed by hospitals, not COVERAGE. Obamacare is COVERAGE not CARE. The CARE will not go down in cost, the cost of COVERAGE will just increase with every birth.


@kmeltzer: Your reality and mine are so different that I don't think further discussion will be productive.


@magic cave: Agreed. When you visit the reality of how things actually are, let me know.

And, in the future, don't make a statement you're not willing to answer a question about.


Do ya'll think people are all going to get sicker once the health care plan takes effect? Because we, the taxpayers, are already paying for medically indigent people to receive care. The health care plan just shifts some of those costs up front to provide medical insurance instead of just paying directly for the care. In theory, with access to more preventive care, people will get less sick, and end up costing less to care for than in our current environment, where medically indigent people can only get care when they have become quite ill or badly injured. That is the theory behind health insurance, it's why those businesses that do not regard their employees as disposable resources help to pay for health insurance. Whether we, the taxpayers, will ever see any benefit from those cost reductions or whether the money will simply be absorbed into the corporate-government machine is for time to tell.


@kmeltzer: I spent a large part of my adult life as a registered lobbyist; I recognize a closed mind and a distorted view of facts when I see them. I'm not really into trying to pry open your world view; it's too much like trying to teach a pig to sing.


@magic cave: Ahh.. so you were an "open minded" lobbyist? Oxymoron.


Let me ask an honest question. No sarcasm, no personal attacks on anyone.

What is your solution to this problem? It seems the conservatives don't want a government mandated health care program, they don't want government funded health care such as Medicaid, and they don't want employers to provide their employees with any source of affordable health care. What do you want? For the poor to just quietly die out of sight? That's what it sounds like, because so far no one who's opposing health care reform seems to have any better ideas.

For anyone who complains about "freeloaders" who're on government assistance. THIS is why they need those food stamps and the medicaid and the housing vouchers. They work, but their employers are such greedy bastards that no amount of hard work on their part will ever improve their situation. The story of the guy who worked his way up from mopping floors to CEO is about as likely to happen as getting struck by lightning during a shark attack.


@purplefeather: As long as the no insults extends to not insulting me, because frankly I get so sick of ad hominem attacks, here goes:

Everyone approaches debates with presuppositions, so let's just get those out of the way right here: I believe people are at their core scumbuckets. Every single person, including myself. Based on looking through history on how various societies worked/didn't work, in general I find that people don't want to cooperate or contribute if they can get away with it (USSR/factory quotas, Rep. of Venice/post loss of Cyprus, fall of Western Roman Empire).

(cont, this'll be a long one.)


Really I don't think people are that different. So how does this play in? Because I think the scumbucketry will pervade throughout whatever we do. And I think the ACA is just another example of that. Think about it: the responsible thing for people to do is to have their own coverage, have yearly checkups, and nip problems in the bud wherever possible. They should use prescription drugs only when applicable and sustain their coverage in good and bad health. But obviously people don't do that right now for a variety of reasons, and the ACA proposes rectifying this by mandating responsibility. And I don't think that'll work.



Think about it: mandating responsibility never really ends up working. What about your child responsible for cleaning his/her room? What about mandatory car insurance (and my uninsured driver fees)? Sure to some extent things may improve, but not ever completely. So I find that the ACA ultimately is the wrong approach to a problem that can't be legislated out of existence. And, I won't be surprised if costs are driven up due to various parts of the bill, especially the mandated coverage for those with preexisting conditions. I don't see why I should bother carrying coverage if I know I can get it after being sick anyway, so why should I sustain coverage and carry that other bum that just thought the same thing? It's a poor financial decision based on people acting like scumbuckets, which is the overall prevalent modus operandi.



Whatever we may think the problem is, I think the issue here is that we're trying to fix something that goes against the basic human condition. That's not to say I want poor people dying in the streets or some such nonsense, so I'm 100% ok with ERs having to treat people regardless of the ability to pay. I'm protestant, but I'm a huge fan of Catholic hospitals treating anyone, and the various other faiths with the same things. These small glimmerings of selflessness and virtue are a beacon to the world.



As for trying to make things better, ultimately I think that there is no reason that the health insurance market needs to be treated differently from the life insurance or car insurance markets, since they're basically just risk transfer markets at their core. As a first crack I'd want for health insurance to be divorced from employer tax incentives, and allow for insurance companies to more effectively compete across state lines. Once we're there, we'll need to see how things level out to figure out the most effective next small step, but at least that better allows people whose jobs do not offer health insurance to better find a policy that fits within their budgets, and would incentivize insurance companies to more effectively compete on their premiums and offerings.



@kmeltzer: Actually, there is evidence that providing people who are uninsured with Medicaid increased preventative care visits and lowers rates of both mortality and morbidity. One study by public health researchers compares three states that expanded Medicaid coverage with four neighboring states that did not. The other study, conducted in Oregon, compared two groups of people: those who applied for Medicaid and were selected in a random lottery with those who applied and were not selected; that's as gold-standard as you can get for this type of study. I had a difficult time finding an article that summarized the recently-released results of the Oregon study, which found the lower morbidity rates, but here's an article from a year ago that summarizes the initial findings.


@neuropsychosocial: I'll look at the studies when I have some time. Not the NYT and NPR stories on the studies :-) If there were every two biased organizations to non questions something that helped Obamacare...


I think this is just a ploy to raise prices anyways and he wants something to blame it on. I doubt that he will have to offer healthcare to all his employees since I am sure that several are still covered by their parents' insurance and will not require that benefit from him. That being said, what he is saying now is that his employees are left on their own, despite the fact that he is a national pizza chain and could qualify for health insurance discounts from doing a company buy.

So let's say his employees do not have insurance. So if they go to the hospital, the tax payer is the one picking up the bill so we are already paying the cost and not getting to eat a pizza with it. It is the social programs that are causing the nation to extend the debt and one of those programs help pay for those that cannot afford their hospital bills. If everyone has insurance, there is no need to have the extra supplemental.


every company shifts their increased costs onto consumers of their product/service whether it's trucking companies adding fuel surcharges or a mechanic upcharging for a part. The new or increased health insurance costs that many companies will see as a result of the ACA will be passed on to consumers. Companies will not eat the additional cost. So it might be 11 cents more for your pizza, $150 more for your new car, $10 more per month for your electric bill, $5 more on your cable bill, $2 more on your cellphone bill, etc. It will add up and those in the middle class who are too rich to get subsidies for their health insurance but too poor to have enough extra in their budget to absorb the increased costs of goods and services that will get screwed. Obama promised no new taxes on the middle class. ACA is a direct tax and due to the rising costs of goods and services will be a defacto indirect tax.


@hessem: Car manufacturers and the power companies most likely already offer employees basic health coverage, and are unlikely to change a thing because of the health care bill. So you've been paying extra for their health insurance for years without complaint, why not your pizza guy?


@purplefeather: because people working at power companies and auto manufacturers are most likely experienced, more educated, and likely to stay with that company for the long term. Fast food and other minimum wage jobs are supposed to be ENTRY-LEVEL jobs where younger people who are usually single without families gain valuable work experience. The vast majority of younger un-married people have no need for expensive, full coverage health insurance. A simple & cheap catastrophic plan to cover major injuries and serious illnesses like cancer are what most people under 25 should have.

Too many of the uninsured are so by CHOICE. They have smartphones, big screen tv's, expensive cars, take expensive trips, spend $5 a day at starbucks, etc.