The amount of money he will make by charging 5% on each order is astronomical. On a $10 order he will make.50 cents. IF a server serves 6 meals an hour at an average of $10, he will make $3 (and that's a very conservative estimate). Now multiply that by the number of servers and the 24 hours a day he is open, and he has cleared enough in one day to pay health insurance for all the employees for at least a month! What a rip-off and a very cheap way to blame President Obama for something he will profit from!

Edie clearly does not understand how expensive employee healthcare is already for businesses. Good for these business owners, who will hopefully be able to avoid closing down because of the cose of ever increasing government regulation.

And to those who voted for Obama - this is what you asked for. Enjoy it.

yes!!!!

well said, thank you

OMG get off high horse

although we can address the unintended consequences of public health care through democratic processes whereas the unintended consequences of the decisions of private health insurance are most often unrecognized by the public and must just be accepted.

Jeff, give me an example of an unitended consequence arising from individuals making decisions to purchase insurance (or not)? Your comment makes no sense to me.

H.R. The issue is not that there are unintended consequences from people "deciding" not to purchase health insurance--the few people that are deliberately making that decision should have to live with the consequences. The real issue is that most people who do not have health insurance simply can't afford it (or are unable to obtain it) and so the consequences, intended or not, are that these people do not get care until their situation becomes so dire that they die from preventable diseases, or must use emergency rooms that we, the taxpayers, must pay for, or go to work sick, handle your food, and infect you. Every other civilized country in the world has recognized that health care is a necessity for a productive society. The people who already have health care partially paid for by employers, people who scrimp and save to pay their own healthcare, people in the medical profession who are worried about how their profession will be affected--all of these people are rightly worried about change. I am not crazy about a lot of what is in this new law, but most rational people agree that something had to change with our system. Hopefully the law will evolve and we will adapt, and we will end up with a better system, that works for everyone, not just some.

Kathy- how many new doctors does Obamacare add? There are three desirable characteristics of healthcare: cheap, quick and good. You can only have two at a time. Obamacare will not change that fundamental contraint. We'll be paying with time waiting instead of dollars.

I would prefer my healthcare to be ..reasonable, efficient and excellent...

If I have to give up one, I would give up "quick." The many people without healthcare would be happy to wait, as long as they eventually get it. BTW, I was once hit by a car in Great Britain, and my care was all three--in fact, they apologized for having to charge me because I was not on the healthcare system, and my total bill was less than my deductible here in the US. If I was uninsured and got a broken leg, I would drag myself to the airport and book a first class fare to England to get it taken care of.

Well, lucky for you Kathy, giving up "quick" is the decision that Obama has made for all of us.

Also, Kathy, it's easy to sing the praises of a healthcare system like England's that you don't fully understand. I'm sure uninsured immigrants come to the USA and say "wow, healthcare here is so great. I went to the ER with my broken leg and they treated me and didn't charge me anything."

Buck--you are right about the "dancing room". One of the jokes about this whole Papa John thing is that companies are only required to "offer" healthcare--not required to force employees to take it. How many of his minimum wage employees (even the small percentage that DO work over 30 hours a week) are going to be able to take advantage of the plan offered? The penalty for not obtaining healthcare is far less than the cost of the healthcare premiums. And my understanding is that there will be no penalty imposed below a certain income level, which should exempt most pizza delivery people.

Corruption seems to prevail at many levels Dave..

The reason the USPS is in the red is that the surplus money was shifted out of the USPS under the Bush Administration.

Ah, but what is happening is that they are arbitrarily raising the cost and blaming it on Obamacare. Most of Obamacare doesn't go into effect until 2014, meanwhile they rake in the profits...not a new or uncommon business practice, raise the price and shift the blame.....

Mary, if every business detailed every single item that went into the price it charges the consumer, you'd most likely be shocked beyond comprehension. Have you every really, I mean really, looked at your phone bill? Do you really understand every single tax and fee listed on it? Do you really want to see that each and every time you pay for a meal, a movie ticket, clothing, etc., etc., etc.?

EXACTLY! It is not a new or uncommon business practice, raise the price and shift the blame.....

Not a tantrum...it is the American way of non-violently protesting something that one feels is wrong or unjust. Ever heard of the Boston Tea Party? (Do NOT confuse that with the Tea Party of today).

Then start your own restaurant brah

Bartering needs to be properly re introduced to society...just to add another very real option...

Kathy, how many new doctors does Obamacare add? I have a hard time believing that existing doctors have the time and resources to treat everyone, but would rather charge "too much" so that only those with health insurance can afford their services. You live in a very simplified dream world, sweetheart. Must be nice!

H.R-- So "sweetheart" your answer to the problem is, if people have enough money, they're okay--otherwise, too bad? I still haven't heard one constructive suggestion from you on how to improve the system. Yes there are not enough doctors--the numbers are kept artificially low by the AMA to increase doctor compensation. But don't figure out how to increase their numbers, just criticize and complain. Obamacare not perfect? We shouldn't enact any laws that protect people unless there are absolutely no downsides or ill effects. Don't work to improve it, criticize and complain. Of course, presumably YOU already have healthcare. Must be nice.

Buck--bartering would be a good start. I have tried it, but unfortunately no one ever seems to want what I have! A couple of times I have approached contractors who needed my services at the same time I needed work done on my house, but they declined my offer to offset some of their labor costs with mine. (But I kind of like the idea of being a small town lawyer who accepts chickens and crops in exchange for a will--like Atticus Finch. )

Well said Kathy

Kathy, here's my constructive suggestion: get rid of the AMA and FDA. It's absurd and a waste of a doctor's time that they would have to examine every case of poison ivy (for example) that any nurse could diagnose and treat rather than deal with important problems like cancer. We're trying to give everyone Cadillac healthcare when Honda Civic care is more than adequate in most cases. It's also absurd that the government has to approve medicine that pharma is willing to sell and be on the hook for legal liability for any bad results. Those would make big diffs, Obamacare does none of that.

HR...nothing simple about it. Kathy has very much put the ball in your court...come up with a better solution other than whining and complaining. You comments indicate that you believe that healthcare should be doled out based on income and ability to get good insurance. You better hope your company doesn't change to an insurance company that chooses not cover a medicine or procedure...don't think it can't happen. Don't think because you have the "top coverage" it will now. Let's see, maybe we should decide how organs are assigned by who has the best credit.....let's see my company has a bigger and better medical plan than your so I am should get treated first in the ER. There is a reason medicine is not practiced that way in this country. We all want the best for our families in a time of need....would it be fair to give liver or heart to a person who still smokes over someone who doesn't just because he can afford to pay for it? It is no different when you suggest that there aren't enough doctors to treat everyone, so we should give to those who can afford insurance.

Jackie, are you reading my comments? I did respond to Kathy with solutions.

To respond to your comment: "We all want the best for our families in a time of need....would it be fair to give liver or heart to a person who still smokes over someone who doesn't just because he can afford to pay for it?"

YES! Of course it's fair for the person who can afford the transplant to get it. Otherwise how do we or who would make those decisions? What is wrong with you?

Let me know when you need some work done.... maybe we could create a legal barter brokerage...

Waves do tend to crash on your head now and then though...

It is not "free" healthcare, it was never touted as "free." It is healthcare--or really healthcare insurance-- we all have to pay for. The bill requires employers to pick up some of the tab, but each individual employee has to pay half (or some proportion). If someone elects not to have healthcare insurance, they must pay a penalty, because (1) if there is no penalty, there is no incentive and (2) people who do not have insurance will go to public hospital emergency rooms and WE the taxpayers will pay for their care anyway--the penalty offsets this. I agree that linking our healthcare insurance to employment is not a good system, but we have already shown that, as a country, we do not want a single payer system.

It all comes down to two different philosophies: people on one side believing that we have an obligation to ensure that all Americans, even the poor, have access to certain basic necessities, including healthcare--people on the other side believing that America means self-sufficiency, that everyone has the ability to "make it" if they only work hard enough, and that all people have an obligation to take care of their own needs. These two philosophies dominate our political discourse right now.

Good point, must mean that we are at the place of seeking a way to balance the differences....maybe if more focus were placed on solutions rather than politics, things would begin to move along.... People have to step up with solutions that might make a positive difference....it's the best we can do at this point... screw the massive differences..

Time for a third philosophy to enter the arena..

Hmmm......I have family working in the healthcare system in Boston, you know Romneycare, the model for Obamacare.....I haven't heard of a mass layoff from there. Also, my daughter attends college in MA, if we don't show proof of insurance, we get assessed for it in her college fees....it isn't free....

I would tend to agree that the government does not have a very good track record of running it's own systems....or managing other peoples money for that matter...

Reality check....by corporate standards Obama isn't rich, he will be in time, after he is out of office and starts charging for speaking etc. The salaries of our government officials are pocket change for corporate CEO, Wall Street brokers, etc.... Yes, by middle class standard Obama is wealthy, he admits its...so what? It is all relative....at the moment, he is closer in income to you and I than he is to Romney and his corporate backers.

And you are clueless.....while I may not agree with the Republican platform, I am educated enough to know that they all don't think alike... I know plenty of Republicans who are embarrassed by the Tea Party...should we lump you all into one group...

And we live in a Republic..

Buck, I don't know if it is "tyranny" but it is definitely an insidious paternal and patronizing attitude on the part of government that says "You can't be trusted to save for your own retirement, to purchase healthcare insurance, to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle, to stop smoking and eating bad foods, etc., so we have to force you to do so." The alternative is to let people live with the consequences of their actions, which I suppose is just, unless we as a society have to pay for those consequences. .Do we have the heart to say, for example "If you want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, that is your business, but don't ask for government benefits if you become disabled."? Or "You don't have to get health insurance, but we won't treat you if you can't self-pay." Do we let people opt out of social security, and then let them starve when they are old if they have not saved any money? Actually, before Roosevelt and the 1930s, this pretty much was the theory, but I am not sure that we, as a country, are prepared to go back to those days. Granted, it is hard for those who are responsible, who do save for retirement, who do pay their mortgages and health insurance, and watch their health, and try to live "green" to have to pick up the tab for those who don't.

It reminds me of the Bob Dylan line "to live outside the law, you must be honest." Well, to live outside the government, you must be self-sufficient. In both cases, not everyone is.

Considering the unbelievable speed at which technology as been developed, I'd have to say that perhaps our current world condition would indicate a need to slow down, take a step back, and re create some of the important things that have been misplaced by greed at every level...healthcare included..

But Kathy, look closely at Social Security. People are relying on it and it is a broke ponzi scheme. The greedy older voters who supported this ponzi all their lives don't want to give it up, and they have no problem having my generation pay into it KNOWING that we will never see a penny from it. That's what happens when you put the goverment in charge of Social Welfare.

Holy disconnected from reality, batman! It's a numbers game, Kathy. SS is broke of cash already. That's partly why Obama needed the debt ceiling raised so bad, to make SS payments. SS makes life for my generation harder, not easier! We have to pay for these greedy old people and will get nothing in return for it.

HR....how young are you? I have been hearing them say the same thing about SS for years....I heard it won't be gone long ago....I don't disagree there will are issues that need to be addressed, but it still there. As Kathy stated, I thought and felt the same way too....there has been talk for years about privatizing it and having us invest it ourselves...well we saw what happened to the stock market. I know many people who have the bulk of their saving in a 401k and cannot retire now because they had planned for it to continue to grow....they are still recovering. I can tell you my late husband had his money in it when the stock crashed the 15 or so years ago...he never recovered all of it before it crashed again....I haven't touched a dime of it and it still isn't what it once was....the last I checked it is a little more than it was when he died almost 7 years ago....he would be 60 and if he were alive, he would not be able to even begin to consider retiring on it.

And any older person...a generation beyond mine, will tell you that they saved as much as they could based on what they made....it is just things have gone up so much that over time, they fell behind....bank dividends do not keep up with inflation.
What are you going to do? let them starve?

Any good investor would tell you to divest....so, SS with a 401k is a much better plan than just one or the other.....

Kathy, don't be arrogant. If I was voluntarily making SS payments, that would be one thing. But retirees, you and other supporters of the SS ponzi are stealing the money from me. If old people are too dumb to save adequately for their retirement, health care, food or whatever, that's not my problem. They can have welfare and food stamps if they need it, but the SS ponzi is a terrible idea that will screw lots of people when it goes belly up.

No, past 20s and making enough where I don't appreciate subsidizing greedy older people who should have private savings. Again Kathy, try and comprehend this: SS is not welfare or food stamps. It is a theft from one generation to give to another. I don't understand why you are struggling so hard to grasp that fact.

There are MANY variables associated with the cost of healthcare...all of them tend to drive the cost up for everyone, no matter how it's paid for.
We need to focus on healthcare options that will actually reduce some of the out of control...greed driven costs. Americans seem to blindly follow government run programs for some reason, public apathy perhaps, but I am of the belief that each individual has to become more dependent and responsible for their own financial life and less dependent on government run programs of any sort...the system seems to just move human beings through without concern for quality of life at any age...like herding cattle from pasture to pasture...we need to be the creators of our own life quality...no amount of government managed money will ever do that for you.

We already do...why do you think hospital care, etc. cost so much? We already underwrite those costs. With affordable healthcare, people will be able to get the care they need before it becomes critical and necessary to go to the ER or be hospitalized, thus costing less. If a person gets preventative healthcare, or early intervention it is much less expensive. Basically it is pay now, or PAY LATER!

But luckily Kathy, Obamacare magically creates a bunch of new doctors to treat the poor. Oh, wait....

Your worldview is alarmingly simplistic.

.... I had just started working and I had great insurance.....how is that a fair system?

Last comes my reality....my late husband and I always carried the top insurance that we could get....I still do. I pay top premiums to have choices of doctors etc. When he was ill and receiving his first radiation treatment, the nurse informed me that they were still waiting to get clearance for a drug that would help him better tolerate the radiation. I wasn't worried, I had top BC/BS....she then told me it didn't matter, some of the best policies don't always cover things. My heart sunk. I then said, well we will have to pay for it out of pocket and I asked how much it would cost. She said it was $1000 per shot and he needed two shots per treatment. I was stunned, he required 35 treatments....I wasn't sure if it would be $35k or $70, but I knew we couldn't afford it. I would have been willing to mortgage the house to the limit etc, but I couldn't. I had a 14 year old daughter to raise, and more than likely alone. He has stage 3B lung cancer. On the drive home, I had to tell him about it....he said we can't afford that...I said I know. I literally (in the true meaning of the word) felt like I would vomit. I was devastated, we had paid for the best...how could I be faced with these choices? When we received word that BC/BS would cover it, while relieved for the moment, I was still very upset that there were others who weren't as lucky as us....how could that be?

Thanks for sharing Jackie...there is no illusion to reality..

Agreed. I have felt the same...I did years ago when all of this was an issue under Reagan. The major difference between then and now was the Republicans were saying the deficit was not a big deal and the Dems were yelling that we were leaving our children in too much debt.

That's internet shorthand for "too long, didn't read." In a world where everything is supposed to be in quick, simple sound bites, some people use that for anything longer than a tweet. :-)

Of course you didn't, it takes effort to educated yourself and to form an informed opinion. That is the problem, everyone wants short, quick answers and sound bites that can fit on a computer screen. The computer is a double edge sword when it comes to communication....we now can communicate with thousands of people instantly but our attention spans have diminished which limits our greater understanding of things.

Jackie, I'm happy to have a discussion using logic and reason. I don't have all day to read your anecdotal stories and emotional pleas.

For goodness sakes you can't even google "tldr" to find out what it means.