If all of these companies who are whining about how they “have” to cut hours and raise pricees because of Obamacare would instead simply raise their prices by 50 cents without saying a word about it, I doubt anyone would notice.
And I’m sure they know it too. But there they are, crying away about how Obama is ruining their businesses on national television and issuing press releases and the like. And it’s all to make Obama the bad guy, like no company has ever cheated their employees out of hours, pay, and benefits before just to pad their profits. Hell, there was a CSI episode a whole eight years ago about a supermarket cashier who was only given 38 hours a week so her employer wouldn’t have to give her benefits, so she decided to plan a robbery. This shit isn’t new, whatever Papa John would like you to think.
“Papa” John Schnatter, Papa John’s founder and CEO, is back in the headlines once more for his assertion that there’s no way on God’s green Earth he can afford to provide health care for a portion of his employees, as mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Now, Schnatter hasn’t been hurting for cash. As Brian Warner writes:
When Papa John Schnatter hosted a fundraiser for Mitt Romney earlier this year, the Republican candidate began his remarks by saying: “Who would’ve imagined pizza could build this? This is really something. Don’t you love this country? What a home this is, what grounds these are, the pool, the golf course…. This is a real tribute to America, to entrepreneurship.” If your house impresses Mitt Romney, the ultimate one percenter, you know it must be pretty awesome. To start, John Schnatter’s 40,000 square foot castle is located in a wealthy country club suburb of Louisville, Kentucky. The property is spread out over a 16 acre estate and as Romney mentioned, features several swimming pools, a private lake and a golf course.
But who knows what’s going to happen now that the health care mandate could supposedly cost him $0.15 a pizza?! Schnatter claims the costs will be $5-8 million per year — though he had no trouble with giving away two million free pizzas this September that cost the company 24 to 32 million dollars.
Maybe he was counting on Mitt Romney winning.
Papa John Schnatter
1904 Stone Gate Rd. <— (address listed for political fundraisers)
Louisville, KY 40223
Or you can send it to Papa John’s Corporate:
2002 Papa John’s Boulevard
Louisville, KY 40299 or
Papa John’s International, Inc.
P.O. Box 99900
Louisville, KY 40269-9990
My letter [click to zoom]:
As I wrote, I may not be able to afford their overpriced pizza, but I can afford a nickel, a dime, and a stamp. I encourage folks to help save the rich and send Papa John some nickels and dimes to offset this gigantic burden, especially since it’s not financially feasible for him to survive without the extra few million. Apparently.
It’s the least we can do for folks working under such a selfish bastard.
Let’s do this!!!
Hey guys. I know times are tough and money is tight for everyone, but if you could spare a few dollars to help out a friend of mine, I’d be forever grateful. The following is copied from my friend Junior’s facebook:
My family is coming together to raise money for my aunt Griselda Lopez’s medical expenses, treatments and related costs due to her Systemic Lupus that she was diagnosed with back in 1997. Unfortunately she has been uable to work as of late because of this (and other complications with her illness) and now we are holding a fundraiser Saturday, July 28th from 6pm-2am at Viv’s tap Room in Crystal Lake, IL. There is a $5 dontation at the door, raffels and all the proceeds of this event are going to the Griselda Lopez Medical Fund.
Please check out www.griseldalopez.com for more information about Gris and how you can make a dontation! Also there is a facebook event that was created so if you are interested in coming please let me know and I will be more then happy to give you all the info!
Again, if you could spare a few dollars I (and Junior) would greatly appreciate it. If you can’t (completely understandable) could you please give this a signal boost?
Please correct me if my interpretations are wrong, but I’m pretty damn sure that those with mental illness will rejoice—especially if they are without insurance.
The Affordable Care Act takes steps to change that:
- Right now, if you haven’t been able to find health insurance due to a pre-existing mental health condition, you may be able to access the new Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan. Be sure to check out this section on this site; plans may vary depending on where you live.
- The first time you renew or purchase health coverage after September of this year, plans that offer coverage for dependents are required to extend that coverage until a young adult turns 26. Some plans are making this coverage available now, so you should check with your insurance company or employer.
- Starting in 2014, substance abuse or mental illness can no longer be used by insurers to deny coverage as a “pre-existing condition” – and insurers also won’t be able to use those conditions to raise your premiums.
- Also in 2014, mental health and substance use disorder services will be part of the essential benefits package, a set of health care service categories that must be covered by certain plans, including all insurance policies that will be offered through the Exchanges, and Medicaid.
Note bene: this article was written in in 19 August 2010.
But the point is, mental illness will definitely be covered. It will no longer be classified as a pre-existing condition, which can be the basis for the denial of insurance. Also note that this WILL cover addiction, which has officially been added to/revised in the DSM-V.
- Small employers (companies with 50 or less employees) are exempt from the mental health parity of the Act.
- You are legally allowed to receive the insurance company’s ENTIRE criteria for denial,not just the reason that applies to the individual.
- A plan document outlines what is medically necessary. It is a “an agreement between the plan sponsor and GHP that explains how the plan will be administered.” Treatments depend on the plan, whether you get it from a company or the state.
- That said, all treatments and procedures cannot be more restricted than those for physical illness and ailments. They cannot be subject to separate cost-sharing requirements that would only apply to MH.
- Increase Cost Exemption for the win! If any changes are made to comply with the AHCA, there will be no cost increases if the cost increase would have been a 2% increase or 1% for every subsequent year. Currently, there are no guidelines for implementing this section of the act.Hopefully, I gave an accurate interpretation of how AHC affects mental health parity. It great expands upon Clinton’s 1996 MHPA, which left insurance caps to be determined by the insurance company and did not cover substance abuse. Clinton’s bill, although a step in the right direction, did not mandate mental health parity; instead, it applied only to those who already offered it. The offering was up to the employer/company. For more on Clinton’s handy work, see: http://www.nami.org/Content/ContentGroups/E-News/1996/The_Mental_Health_Parity_Act_of_1996.htm
As we wait for a Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act this week, there is one urgent, overriding moral question at the heart of the health-care fight. Paradoxically, and maddeningly, there has not been any open moral debate over it. That question is whether access to basic medical care ought to be considered a right or something that is earned.
Several reporters have recently filed dispatches showing in human terms what sort of conditions we would be perpetuating in the event that five Republican Supreme Court Justices, or a potential Republican-run government next year, partially or completely nullify the Affordable Care Act. A man will watch the tumor in his leg grow to the size of a melon, and his wife will sew special pants to fit the growing bulge, because he has no insurance. A woman will hobble around for four years on an untreated broken ankle she can’t have repaired. People will line up in their cars and spend the night in a parking lot queuing for a rare free health clinic.
Maybe these stories sound like cheap emotional manipulation. They are actually a clarifying tool to cut through the rhetorical fog surrounding the health-care debate and define the question in the most precise terms.
Opponents of the law have endlessly invoked “socialism.” Nothing in the Affordable Care Act or any part of President Obama’s challenges the basic dynamics of market capitalism. All sides accept that some of us should continue to enjoy vastly greater comforts and pleasures than others. If you don’t work as hard as Mitt Romney has, or were born less smart, or to worse parents, or enjoyed worse schools, or invested your skills in an industry that collapsed, or suffered any other misfortune, then you will be punished for this. Your television may be low-definition, or you might not be able to heat or cool your home as comfortably as you would like; you may clothe your children in discarded garments from the Salvation Army.
This is not in dispute. What is being disputed is whether the punishments to the losers in the market system should include, in addition to these other things, a denial of access to non-emergency medical treatment. The Republican position is that it should. They may not want a woman to have to suffer an untreated broken ankle for lack of affordable treatment. Likewise, I don’t want people to be denied nice televisions or other luxuries. I just don’t think high-definition television or nice clothing are goods that society owes to one and all. That is how Republicans think about health care.
This is why it’s vital to bring yourself face-to face with the implications of mass uninsurance — not as emotional manipulation, but to force you to decide what forms of material deprivation ought to be morally acceptable.