Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Papa John's and Obamacare

Page 6 of 14 [ 218 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 14  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Will you boycott Papa Johns?
Sure! Their pizza sucks anyway... 72%  72%  [ 21 ]
NO! Pizza pushers don't deserve healthcare! 7%  7%  [ 2 ]
Oh look! SHEEP! (with extra cheese) 21%  21%  [ 6 ]
Total votes : 29

GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

20 Nov 2012, 4:24 pm

eric76 wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
eric76 wrote:
marshall wrote:
The Fed doesn't just "give out free money" to banks. The money is loaned out. They are still expected to pay it back. Plus, even without the Fed, banks can expand credit entirely on their own through the multiplier effect. They only loan from the Fed after the fact when they need reserves.


I tend to gloss over the fact that it is a loan because it just doesn't matter.

The loans were extremely low interest and the banks needed to invest the money somewhere that paid higher interest. They naturally wanted to find investments so that they could maximize the interest earn.

If the government were to give you hundreds of billions of dollars at very low interest, wouldn't you try to invest it somewhere safe that will pay more than the interest you have to pay?


But they did not do that, now did they?


Are you suggesting that they gave/loaned the money to the banks and the banks did not invest it?


I'm suggesting that they did not invest wisely or safely thanks to questionable business practices like putting loan officers on commission and using mortgage derivatives to sell off bad loans.

It's that whole moral hazard thing again. You know, the people taking the risks are also shifting the consequences elsewhere. I guess it was safe for them, just not for us.


:roll:


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

20 Nov 2012, 4:28 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
eric76 wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
eric76 wrote:
marshall wrote:
The Fed doesn't just "give out free money" to banks. The money is loaned out. They are still expected to pay it back. Plus, even without the Fed, banks can expand credit entirely on their own through the multiplier effect. They only loan from the Fed after the fact when they need reserves.


I tend to gloss over the fact that it is a loan because it just doesn't matter.

The loans were extremely low interest and the banks needed to invest the money somewhere that paid higher interest. They naturally wanted to find investments so that they could maximize the interest earn.

If the government were to give you hundreds of billions of dollars at very low interest, wouldn't you try to invest it somewhere safe that will pay more than the interest you have to pay?


But they did not do that, now did they?


Are you suggesting that they gave/loaned the money to the banks and the banks did not invest it?


I'm suggesting that they did not invest wisely or safely thanks to questionable business practices like putting loan officers on commission and using mortgage derivatives to sell off bad loans.

It's that whole moral hazard thing again. You know, the people taking the risks are also shifting the consequences elsewhere. I guess it was safe for them, just not for us.


How many mortgage loans do the big Wall Street banks that got the money make? I wouldn't be surprised if the number is precisely zero, but I can see that they might make some really large mortgages to a very select few.

The big banks were buying packages of mortgages made by various lenders or investing in funds that did the same. They were not making the loans themselves.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

20 Nov 2012, 4:57 pm

eric76 wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
eric76 wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
eric76 wrote:
marshall wrote:
The Fed doesn't just "give out free money" to banks. The money is loaned out. They are still expected to pay it back. Plus, even without the Fed, banks can expand credit entirely on their own through the multiplier effect. They only loan from the Fed after the fact when they need reserves.


I tend to gloss over the fact that it is a loan because it just doesn't matter.

The loans were extremely low interest and the banks needed to invest the money somewhere that paid higher interest. They naturally wanted to find investments so that they could maximize the interest earn.

If the government were to give you hundreds of billions of dollars at very low interest, wouldn't you try to invest it somewhere safe that will pay more than the interest you have to pay?


But they did not do that, now did they?


Are you suggesting that they gave/loaned the money to the banks and the banks did not invest it?


I'm suggesting that they did not invest wisely or safely thanks to questionable business practices like putting loan officers on commission and using mortgage derivatives to sell off bad loans.

It's that whole moral hazard thing again. You know, the people taking the risks are also shifting the consequences elsewhere. I guess it was safe for them, just not for us.


How many mortgage loans do the big Wall Street banks that got the money make? I wouldn't be surprised if the number is precisely zero, but I can see that they might make some really large mortgages to a very sel few.

The big banks were buying packages of mortgages made by various lenders or investing in funds that did the same. They were not making the loans themselves.


Thanks to deregulation and the blurring of commercial banking and investment banking they were all either making loans or trading them.

I don't really see your point. Are you saying the Wall Street Banks were being swindled by lenders?

You think those guys did not know what was going on? Sure they did. They set up the system so that at least individually, they could make money whether the bank itself or their clients/customers did.

You think those guys could not recognize the bubble? Sure they could! They did not care, because the game of musical chairs was rigged and they knew they would get the seats.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

20 Nov 2012, 5:07 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
eric76 wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
eric76 wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
eric76 wrote:
marshall wrote:
The Fed doesn't just "give out free money" to banks. The money is loaned out. They are still expected to pay it back. Plus, even without the Fed, banks can expand credit entirely on their own through the multiplier effect. They only loan from the Fed after the fact when they need reserves.


I tend to gloss over the fact that it is a loan because it just doesn't matter.

The loans were extremely low interest and the banks needed to invest the money somewhere that paid higher interest. They naturally wanted to find investments so that they could maximize the interest earn.

If the government were to give you hundreds of billions of dollars at very low interest, wouldn't you try to invest it somewhere safe that will pay more than the interest you have to pay?


But they did not do that, now did they?


Are you suggesting that they gave/loaned the money to the banks and the banks did not invest it?


I'm suggesting that they did not invest wisely or safely thanks to questionable business practices like putting loan officers on commission and using mortgage derivatives to sell off bad loans.

It's that whole moral hazard thing again. You know, the people taking the risks are also shifting the consequences elsewhere. I guess it was safe for them, just not for us.


How many mortgage loans do the big Wall Street banks that got the money make? I wouldn't be surprised if the number is precisely zero, but I can see that they might make some really large mortgages to a very sel few.

The big banks were buying packages of mortgages made by various lenders or investing in funds that did the same. They were not making the loans themselves.


Thanks to deregulation and the blurring of commercial banking and investment banking they were all either making loans or trading them.

I don't really see your point. Are you saying the Wall Street Banks were being swindled by lenders?

You think those guys did not know what was going on? Sure they did. They set up the system so that at least individually, they could make money whether the bank itself or their clients/customers did.

You think those guys could not recognize the bubble? Sure they could! They did not care, because the game of musical chairs was rigged and they knew they would get the seats.


There was plenty of fraud going on, but that wasn't the big factor. They didn't recognize what was going on -- they were too busy making fortunes with what was essentially free money. They had plenty of rationalizations for why housing prices were going to keep going up and up and up and up. The reality is that they didn't understand the complexities and consequences of their own systems.

There were a few people who picked up on the bubble a couple of years into it. The early stages of bubbles can be awfully hard to recognize.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

20 Nov 2012, 8:27 pm

eric76 wrote:
marshall wrote:
The Fed doesn't just "give out free money" to banks. The money is loaned out. They are still expected to pay it back. Plus, even without the Fed, banks can expand credit entirely on their own through the multiplier effect. They only loan from the Fed after the fact when they need reserves.


I tend to gloss over the fact that it is a loan because it just doesn't matter.

The loans were extremely low interest and the banks needed to invest the money somewhere that paid higher interest. They naturally wanted to find investments so that they could maximize the interest earn.

If the government were to give you hundreds of billions of dollars at very low interest, wouldn't you try to invest it somewhere safe that will pay more than the interest you have to pay?


The Federal Reserve set interest rates low when the internet bubble collapsed to prevent economic collapse. The housing bubble delayed it by 10 years. Get rid of the federal reserve or raise interest rates and the US will go into into a depression worse than the Great Depression. What we need is investment in things we can sell to the rest of the world. The problem is corporate America is not interested because they make more money producing cheap s**t for low wages in third world countries. However, if we don't figure out something we are Totally f****d (TM). Your right wing ideas of fixing the currency, kissing corporate ass through tax cuts, austerity, and generally letting people starve in the streets is not going to "bounce back" the economy. Right wing policies are not working in Britain or anywhere in Europe. They didn't work in the 1930s either.

There is also big difference between pre-existing poverty you have in the third world where people are not yet totally dependent on the modern world and still have some ability to live off the land, and an economic crisis that forces people who have no ability to cope into crushing poverty. At some point people like you are going to have to wake up and face the moral consequences of your ideology and it won't be pretty. There has never been a "Free Market (TM)" economy without crisis and governments have always had to find ways to deal with the fallout or face disastrous political consequences. Telling people to starve on the street is not the answer. That kind of policy will be the end of people like you in power.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

20 Nov 2012, 8:33 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
I like what Bill Buckley said about Rand, Atlas Shrugged, and her impact on economics...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KmPLkiqnO8[/youtube]


I finally had a few minutes to listen to it. That was very nice.

The review of Atlas Shrugged mentioned in the clip can be found at http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you/flashback?pg=1.

I would love to have a collection of all of William F Buckley's Firing Line. I remember listening to it regularly on Saturdays on PBS back in the 1970s and 1980s. Even though I didn't always agree with Buckley, I always found what he had to say interesting. Conservatism today really needs someone like him as a spokesman instead of the buffoons that are so common.



CyborgUprising
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,963
Location: auf der Fahrt durch Niemandsland

21 Nov 2012, 8:34 am

GoonSquad wrote:
eric76 wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
eric76 wrote:
What do you bet that is the cost of paying the penalty, not the cost of providing insurance.


I'm more willing to bet that, faced with reality, you cannot cope. :P

The penalty is not designed to be cheaper.

I'm paying for an "Obamacare" insurance plan out of pocket right now and it costs me less than $100.00/month.

And my premium would be cheaper if I did not have to carry deadbeats like Papa John! :evil:


Where do you get insurance for less than $100 a month? I'm looking at $804.30 a month just for myself.


I'm buying it through my student's association (United HC). I have a fairly high deductable $2500.00, but I get free office visits and stuff at the med school. I get cheap meds too.

Just wait 'til the Federal exchange is set up. You should get much cheaper rates.


The plan our university had was so horrible, they ended up cancelling it. I had over $12,000 in medical expenses and the university medical insurance only paid $1.00. That's right: one dollar. I ended up paying for the rest out of pocket.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Nov 2012, 9:45 am

eric76 wrote:

I would love to have a collection of all of William F Buckley's Firing Line. I remember listening to it regularly on Saturdays on PBS back in the 1970s and 1980s. Even though I didn't always agree with Buckley, I always found what he had to say interesting. Conservatism today really needs someone like him as a spokesman instead of the buffoons that are so common.


I miss Buckley. While I did not share his political, ethical or religious outlook, I was in awe and astonishment over his mastery of the English Language. He is so fluent and sophisticated in his speech and writing. People like Bill do not come along very often, unfortunately. If the Republicans has a -mind- such as W.F.B possessed they would not be in the fix they are in now. The Republicans are in the thrall of the yokels and the ignoramuses.

ruveyn



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 122
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

21 Nov 2012, 10:29 am

ruveyn wrote:
eric76 wrote:

I would love to have a collection of all of William F Buckley's Firing Line. I remember listening to it regularly on Saturdays on PBS back in the 1970s and 1980s. Even though I didn't always agree with Buckley, I always found what he had to say interesting. Conservatism today really needs someone like him as a spokesman instead of the buffoons that are so common.


I miss Buckley. While I did not share his political, ethical or religious outlook, I was in awe and astonishment over his mastery of the English Language. He is so fluent and sophisticated in his speech and writing. People like Bill do not come along very often, unfortunately. If the Republicans has a -mind- such as W.F.B possessed they would not be in the fix they are in now. The Republicans are in the thrall of the yokels and the ignoramuses.

ruveyn


One would typically have to go to England to find someone this sophisticated.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,217
Location: the island of defective toy santas

21 Nov 2012, 10:04 pm

CyborgUprising wrote:
The plan our university had was so horrible, they ended up cancelling it. I had over $12,000 in medical expenses and the university medical insurance only paid $1.00. That's right: one dollar. I ended up paying for the rest out of pocket.

there is a lot of outright fraud in the american health insurance industry. to borrow a page from henry kissenger, "90% of [the american insurance companies] give the other 10% a bad reputation."



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,217
Location: the island of defective toy santas

21 Nov 2012, 10:05 pm

ruveyn wrote:
I miss Buckley. While I did not share his political, ethical or religious outlook, I was in awe and astonishment over his mastery of the English Language. He is so fluent and sophisticated in his speech and writing. People like Bill do not come along very often, unfortunately. If the Republicans has a -mind- such as W.F.B possessed they would not be in the fix they are in now. The Republicans are in the thrall of the yokels and the ignoramuses.

if he was still a power in the GOP, he would have given the cold shoulder to the tea partiers in a similar manner as he gave the cold shoulder to the birchers back in the 60s.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

22 Nov 2012, 12:20 am

auntblabby wrote:
CyborgUprising wrote:
The plan our university had was so horrible, they ended up cancelling it. I had over $12,000 in medical expenses and the university medical insurance only paid $1.00. That's right: one dollar. I ended up paying for the rest out of pocket.

there is a lot of outright fraud in the american health insurance industry. to borrow a page from henry kissenger, "90% of [the american insurance companies] give the other 10% a bad reputation."


There are two things that medical insurance companies do that I absolutely detest.

The first is that if you are being treated for something that is going to be very expensive, once you leave the hospital they are very likely to remove your insurance really quick.

For example, the father of an acquaintance was in the hospital shortly after being diagnosed with cancer. The hospital finished the initial work and so his father wanted to go home. The doctor told him that if he left his insurance company would decline to cover him from then on. The father went ahead and went home and within something like four or five days he received a letter from the insurance company informing him that he was no longer insured.

The second is that if you are being treated for something that is going to be very expensive, the insurance company has people who are going to go over your paperwork looking for any minor error you might have made that they can use to claim fraud. For example, a recent insurance form I filled out (but never went so far as to lead to me being insured) asked a question that was like "Is there anything else that we should know about your past medical history?" If you answer no because you forgot about something or didn't think it was significant, they can use that against you and cancel the policy back to when it was bought. They can cancel the policy even if what you didn't mention had absolutely nothing to do with the condition from which you are suffering.

As I understand it, Obamacare stops the first of these problems by requiring the insurance company to continue to cover the insured person. I'm not sure about the second.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,217
Location: the island of defective toy santas

22 Nov 2012, 12:55 am

eric76 wrote:
As I understand it, Obamacare stops the first of these problems by requiring the insurance company to continue to cover the insured person. I'm not sure about the second.

i believe the second is tied in with the first "no pre-existing conditions" clause.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Nov 2012, 2:19 am

I've gotta think that the Papa John's guy holds average Americans in the same contempt that Romney does. Deep down, he doesn't believe the average person deserves healthcare. Seriously, charging his customers an extra fifteen cents is supposed to be break his company? I doubt he even believes that.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

22 Nov 2012, 2:23 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
I've gotta think that the Papa John's guy holds average Americans in the same contempt that Romney does. Deep down, he doesn't believe the average person deserves healthcare. Seriously, charging his customers an extra fifteen cents is supposed to be break his company? I doubt he even believes that.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


You did see, I assume, that the extra fifteen cents wasn't to provide health care to the employees. That's what it would cost in penalties not to provide health care. Providing health care was reported to be approximately eight times as much. That means that every pizza sold would cost about $1 more than what his competitors charge.

The result wouldn't be employees with health care -- it would be former employees because the competition would run the company out of business.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,217
Location: the island of defective toy santas

22 Nov 2012, 2:26 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
I've gotta think that the Papa John's guy holds average Americans in the same contempt that Romney does. Deep down, he doesn't believe the average person deserves healthcare. Seriously, charging his customers an extra fifteen cents is supposed to be break his company? I doubt he even believes that.

i'm glad that so many capitalist bloodsuckers are opening their gobs to demonstrate how much they despise their customers and employees, it makes my job of not giving their companies my business [and their candidates my vote] that much easier. plus, i will end up losing weight from not eating any of their gutbombs.