Saturday, November 24, 2012

Obama’s Federal Government Behind Schedule Implementing Health Care Law


For a law of nearly 3,000 pages, the Affordable Care Act was poorly written.  Since the law was thrown together in a manner aimed at appeasing special interests, the Health Care law itself has been an obstacle in its own implementation. With the avalanche of new regulations on the horizon, conveniently hidden from the American People (remember, Pelosi said we had to pass it to know what was in it), the stifling impact of the regulations coming that will kill jobs, plunge our economy into turmoil, and turn this nation into a totalitarian state is eclipsed only by the absolute chaos that accompanies the attempt by the federal government to implement this monstrosity.
As a result of the complexity of the bill, the inconsistencies of the bill, and the massive onslaught of mandates and regulations, the Obama administration is well behind their own self-imposed schedule of implementing the law.  This failure is yet another clear indicator that the federal government is willing to push through as quickly as possible, regardless of how inept, Obamacare, not because they believe in the law so much, but because it is their intention to destroy the privatemarket health care system.
The regulations coming in January of 2013 will influence every single business in America. The destructive nature of these regulations has businesses scrambling for cover, to change their workforce from full-time to part-time to minimize the impact of Obamacare on their businesses.  In the law there is even 18-pages designated to define what a full-time employee is. What this tells us is that Obamacare is not so much about health care as it is about instituting a collective controlling mechanism that will enable the federal government to control individual decisions across the board.
The regulations and mandates are akin to similar big government plans in history in other governments, and each time they equaled totalitarianism once fully in place.
To move towards the golden calf of single-payer, a system where the government is the sole funding agent of health care, all competing payers must be eliminated.  Therefore, the first goal of Obamacare is to destroy the private sector, and then re-engineer the health care system.  The thousands of pages of regulations dictate to the private system rules that they possibly can’t survive under, and as the maze of new regulations forces their hand, pushing them to operate in a manner damaging to business, one by one the insurance companies will fall, leaving alone as the only option for health care the Affordable Care Act.
The programs are set to begin in 2014, while the taxes and regulations go into effect this January.  The goal is to initiate the private industry’s destruction for a year before the Obamacare programs actually go into action.  However, the complexity of Obamacare has the administration way behind schedule.
The delay was also largely affected by the election, because the administration wanted to wait until after the election before the early vestiges of the damaging onslaught of regulations went into play.  If launched too early, the rules that would surely be considered controversial, and possibly negatively influence the President’s chances for re-election.
As employers scramble with a team of lawyers to survive the implementation of Obamacare, instituting plans to cut hours, and let a number of employees go, between the loss of employee hours and the cost of the fines imposed by the federal government, some companies will go out of business altogether with their profit margins wiped out by the intrusive law.
An obstacle to the federal government implementing the health care law is the creation of the exchanges that are required by Obamacare, which will be used to begin enrolling members on October 1, 2013.  The States are required to set up the exchanges, but if they don’t, the responsibility falls upon the federal government in each of those States.  However, the way the law is written, there is no funding mechanism which enables the federal government to follow through with the creation of exchanges. Also, there is not enough information regarding the framework of these exchanges, so many States are hesitating simply due to the lack of information.  The Republican Governors Association even went so far as writing a letter to the Obama administration last July, which stated, “As the exchange issue is currently interpreted, states are essentially being tasked with shouldering all the responsibility without any authority.”  The letter posed a number of questions on how the exchanges were supposed to be designed, and the governors were hesitant in implementing exchanges in their States without having the “full and complete knowledge of all the implications of our decision.”
The governors, so far, have received no reply.
With the re-election of Barack Obama into the White House, however, there is no doubt that the implementation of the law, despite the failing time clock, and the obtrusive nature of the law, is forthcoming.  The republicans in the House of Representatives may be able to delay the move with defunding strategies, but we stand at the doorstep of the ultimate destruction of the private health care industry, and the creation of a single-payer system in America where the federal government is the sole funding agent for health care, and in turn the sole controlling entity over any and all actions and activities by individuals considered by the government an influence on their health.
Hope, however, is not lost.  Not only is it possible for Obamacare to collapse under the weight of its own complexity as it attempts to re-engineer one-sixth of our economy into a totalitarian system of health care, but also the States have not fired their final round.  Though Barack Obama won the presidential election, in local elections around the country the republicans were the landslide winners.  As these local governments continue to turn red, and the number of republican governors increases, the likelihood that the States will exercise their constitutional authority to nullify the unconstitutional Obamacare law increases.  And if more than half of the States refuse to fully implement the Affordable Care Act, it will neutralize the powers of the federal government through the health care law, while emboldening the States to continue to take charge, and take control, of their rightful place as sovereign States, and the final arbiters of the United States Constitution.

Friday, November 23, 2012

The States Fight in the Last Ditch Against Obamacare


Last July, I wrote that the states still had the power to kill Obamacare, despite the Supreme Court's gross dereliction of duty in Florida v. HHS. My point was that the insurance exchanges required by PPACA are the key to its success or failure, and that the law grants the states enormous power in the way they are set up. The ostensible purpose of these exchanges is to provide “marketplaces” where people without health insurance can acquire subsidized coverage. Ironically, the law doesn’t actually require states to set up these bureaucracies. Yet, as Sally Pipes and Hal Scherz note, “only state-based exchanges … may distribute credits and subsidies.”
In other words, if the states refuse to set up exchanges, they cut off the subsidies and tax credits that are the lifeblood of Obamacare. Moreover, states that decline to set up these enabling bureaucracies will also be protecting their business communities from job-killing federal penalties -- even if the federal government comes in and sets up its own exchanges in those states. The Cato Institute's Michael Cannon explains, "defaulting to a federal exchange exempts a state's employers from the employer mandate -- a tax of $2,000 per worker per year." This is why more than half of the 50 have opted not to set up state-run exchanges.
Last Friday, three more governors officially announced their refusal to set up state-run Obamacare exchanges. Ohio's John Kasich, Wisconsin's Scott Walker, and Maine's Paul LePage all released statements indicating that they would not assist the Obama administration in its effort to socialize health care in their states. All three governors made their decisions based on the knowledge that, even if they cooperate on the exchanges, they would have little control over how the exchanges are operated. As Cato's Cannon puts it, "[A] state-created exchange is not a state-controlled exchange. All exchanges will be controlled by Washington."
In fact, the grim reality is that Washington won't be content to merely control the exchanges. Federal bureaucrats have already begun rewriting the law when the provisions of the actual statute prove inconvenient. When it became obvious that many states would refuse to create exchanges, the Obama administration decided to funnel tax credits and subsidies through federally-created exchanges, ignoring clear language in the law indicating that such premium-assistance was restricted to state-run exchanges. The IRS recently finalized a regulation signaling its intention to illegally provide premium assistance through federal exchanges.
This outrage prompted the state of Oklahoma to file an amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The state points out that "The State of Oklahoma has exercised its right not to establish an Exchange" and that the provisions of ObamaCare "not only permit the State of Oklahoma to make this policy choice, but also created a mechanism … by which the State of Oklahoma can put its decision into effect." It goes on to show that "The [IRS] Final Rule renders the mechanism inoperative." In other words, Oklahoma complied with the provisions of the law and now the IRS has illegally ignored those provisions.
Will the Oklahoma lawsuit go anywhere? The June Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, regardless of its surreal aspects, actually offers some hope here. Although the majority in that ruling disappointed many where the individual mandate was concerned, it nonetheless ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on the Medicaid mandate, which the plaintiffs said "commandeered" state authority. This, as it happens, is precisely the reasoning used by Oklahoma regarding the IRS Rule: "[It] commandeers state governmental authority with respect to State Exchanges, permits HHS to exercise a State's legislative and/or executive power."
Meanwhile, HHS has decided to extend the deadline for state governments to declare whether or not they will set up state-based exchanges. The original deadline by which states were to declare their intentions was November 16. Now Kathleen the Terrible has condescended to give them until December 14. The HHS secretary says the extension was prompted by a desire to provide the states with "the flexibility, resources, and technical assistance necessary to help you achieve successful implementation of your state's Exchange." More likely, she wants more time for the arm-twisting and legal skullduggery for which she is justly notorious.
Inside the Beltway, Republicans seem prepared to wave the white flag on Obamacare. Shortly following the election debacle, House Speaker John Boehner declared that "Obamacare is the law of the land." The tsunami of criticism he received pursuant to that ill-considered remark is probably behind the effusive praise he heaped on John Kasich for his decision to opt out of a state-run exchange for Ohio: "I'm proud of my governor for taking a stand and resisting the federal takeover of healthcare in Ohio." And, regardless of Boehner's sincerity or lack thereof, the states are probably our last hope of getting rid of this big-government boondoggle.
So, the long twilight struggle continues. Without its insurance exchanges, the Obamacare scheme simply will not work, but the states are fighting in the last ditch against an increasingly powerful and lawless federal government determined to foist them on us. If the states are bullied into setting up their own exchanges or the IRS gets away with its extralegal rule to fund federal exchanges, we're probably stuck with it. Speaker Boehner's bleak post-election assessment will have been correct after all. 

Saturday, November 17, 2012

West wins request for recount of some ballots


FOLLOW US ON
facebookFACEBOOK
QUESTION OF THE DAY

Is the U.S. Postal Service headed for a fiscal collapse?

Rep. Allen West won a full recount of early voting in St. Lucie County when the county’s canvassing board voted late Friday to grant his request.
Local news accounts said the decision came in a 2-1 vote.
After last weeks’ election Mr. West, a one-term congressman and tea party favorite, trails Democratic challenger Patrick Murphy by about 1,900 votes, or just outside the margin needed for an automatic recount.
But problems tabulating early voting ballots in St. Lucie — one of three counties with precincts in the 18th congressional district — left Mr. West and other candidates in the region fearing that some votes are being ignored.
County elections supervisor Gertrude Walker initially called for a full recount of all eight days of early voting, but ended up only recounting three days which she said had problems.
Mr. West, a one-term tea party favorite, argued that state law required any recount to cover all eight days of early voting.
He went to court to try to win the full recount, but a judge rejected his petition earlier Friday. Hours later, however, the canvassing board granted his request.
Mr. Murphy’s lawyer had told the judge he would try to block the full recount should the canvassing board approve one. It was unclear early Saturday whether Mr. Murphy would follow through on that threat.
The county has until Sunday to certify its results and send them to the state, where a final commission will certify them and send them to Washington.
Florida law still allows 10 days after that second certification for a candidate to challenge a vote.
Mr. Murphy, in an email to supporters Friday, said he expects a drawn-out fight — though he said he’s already in Washington beginning orientation.
“We all continue to be concerned about the expensive legal bills we are incurring each day West continues this fight,” Mr. Murphy said in the email, begging supporters to donate to him.


Read more: West wins request for recount of some ballots - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/17/west-wins-request-recount-some-ballots/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS#ixzz2CTyhaRJu
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Friday, November 16, 2012

Election Official: Mistakes Have Been Made in Allen West Race


Allen West isn't giving up his Congressional seat until every vote is counted properly and for good reason. West has described his refusal to concede a matter of preserving the democratic process and believes many mistakes have been made in counting ballots cast in his race against Democrat Patrick Murphy. Now, Florida Election Supervisor Gertrude Walker agrees with him and his supporters.
But West’s supporters aren’t the only ones frustrated with the St. Lucie County elections board and its supervisor, Gertrude Walker. The Florida secretary of state’s office announced this week that it is launching an audit of the county’s vote-tabulating process, saying that it was “concerned” about the results. A report was expected to be completed as soon as Friday.

And even Walker has confessed her department made errors. In a news conference, she said officials had shown “too much haste” in trying to get complete results to the public on election night and that “mistakes were made.”She also acknowledged there was an initial problem in feeding voting machine memory cards though the office’s tabulating system.

The next legal step will come Friday, when a court was expected to hear a motion from West’s lawyers asking that St. Lucie County, where Murphy has built a sizable lead, be prevented from certifying its results. The congressman’s lawyers have asked for six days of early balloting to be retallied.

Tim Edson, West’s campaign manager, said the congressman was prepared to wage an extensive fight. Should the motion fail, Murphy could be certified as the winner as soon as Sunday — leaving West with little choice but to file a lawsuit contesting the election.

“We’re prepared to do what it takes to make sure the votes are counted fairly and accurately,” Edson said.
You don't say? There was "too must haste" in calling a race for Democrat Patrick Murphy when Republican Allen West was the number one target in the House by the left this election cycle? Fasten your seatbelts folks.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

ABC News: Hey, This Doctor Shortage Could "Crash" Obamacare


Just in case the unaffordable price tag and rising costs don't quite do the trick, America's spiraling dearth of doctors will contribute heavily to the collapse of our re-engineered health care system, according to a new study:
 
The United States will require at least 52,000 more family doctors in the year 2025 to keep up with the growing and increasingly older U.S. population, a new study found. The predictions also reflect the passage of the Affordable Care Act -- a change that will expand health insurance coverage to an additional 38 million Americans. "The health care consumer that values the relationship with a personal physician, particularly in areas already struggling with access to primary care physicians should be aware of potential access challenges that they may face in the future if the production of primary care physicians does not increase," said Dr. Andrew Bazemore, director of the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies in Primary Care and co-author of the study published Monday in the Annals of Family Medicine. Stephen Petterson, senior health policy researcher at the Robert Graham Center, said the government should take steps -- and quickly -- to address the problem before it gets out of hand. "There needs to be more primary care incentive programs that give a bonus to physicians who treat Medicaid patients in effort to reduce the compensation gap between specialists and primary care physicians," said Petterson, who co-authored the study with Bazemore.
But such changes may be more easily said than done. The problem does not appear to be one of too few doctors in general; in fact, in 2011 a total of 17,364 new doctors emerged from the country's medical schools, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Too few of these doctors, however, choose primary care as a career -- an issue that may be worsening. In a 2008 census by the AAMC and the American Medical Association, researchers found that the number of medical graduates choosing a career in family medicine dropped from 5,746 in 2002 to 4,210 in 2007 -- a drop of nearly 27 percent. "It's pretty tough to convince medical students to go into primary care," said Dr. Lee Green, chair of Family Medicine at the University of Alberta, who was not involved with the study. Green added that he believes this is because currently primary care specialties are not well paid, well treated or respected as compared to subspecialists. "They have to think about their debt," he said. "There are also issues of how physicians are respected and how we portray primary care to medical students." These problems loom even larger considering the aim of the Affordable Care Act to provide all Americans with health insurance -- and with it, more regular contact with a primary care doctor.

A maddening pattern: When the government exacerbates problems, many frustrated observers reflexively call for even more federal intervention to mop up the federally-caused mess.  The solution to big government run amok is more government involvement, apparently.  And before you object to the premise that Obamacare is responsible for the deterioration of our doctor shortage ("this was already becoming a problem before the law was passed," etc), examine the data, including surveys of American doctors.  Come to think of it, beyond the obvious and laudable humanitarian reasons, why would an ambitious young college student pursue a career in medicine when he or she could go to law school and make a fine living suing the daylights out of doctors?
 Meaningful tort reform was conspicuously omitted from Obamacare, thanks to the efforts of the trial lawyers' lobby -- a deep-pocketed Democratic constituency.  This ABC News story, authored by a medical doctor, also describes why Romneycare (yeah, remember that?) is a microcosm of brewing larger-scale problems:
 
Perhaps the best known example of this approach has been Massachusetts, which since 2006 has mandated that every resident obtain health insurance and those that are below the federal poverty level gain free access to health care. But although the state has the second-highest ratio of primary care physicians to population of any state, they are struggling with access to primary care physicians. Dr. Randy Wexler of The John Glenn Institute of Public Service and Policy said he has concerns that this trend could be reflected nationwide. "Who is going to care for these people?" he said. "We are going to have problems just like Massachusetts. [They] are struggling with access problems; it takes one year to get into a primary care physician. Coverage does not equal access." Some have already proposed solutions to this looming problem. One suggestion is that non-physician medical professionals, such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants, can pick up the slack. Doctors, however, said his may not be enough to fill the gap.  

The distinction between nominal "coverage" and actual care was a central argument against Obamacare during the battles of 2009 and 2010.  And as we know all too well, Romneycare is essentially a pilot program for the entire nation.  It has spiked costs, failed to reduce uncompensated care, and resulted in tax increases.  Plus, Massachusetts is plagued by this exact doctor shortage issue -- despite being one of the wealthiest states in the country. In places like Canada, citizens are entitled to universal, "free" coverage, but people languish on waiting lists for care, and sometimes resort to lotteries for the chance sign up with a primary care physician.
 Now that Obamacare is more or less here to stay, Americans had better get accustomed to rationing and waiting.  More cracks in Obamacare's facade will appear as the law is fully implemented over the next two years, ultimately culminting in the program's implosion.  Liberals are already making pre-emptive excuses for the White House, asking questions such as, "gosh, is this enterprise just too big for the administration to handle?"
 
By the end of this week, states must decide whether they will build a health-insurance exchange or leave the task to the federal government. The question is, with as many as 17 states expected to leave it to the feds, can the Obama administration handle the workload. “These are systems that typically take two or three years to build,” says Kevin Walsh, managing director of insurance exchange services at Xerox. “The last time I looked at the calendar, that’s not what we’re working with.” When Walsh meets with state officials deciding whether to build a health exchange, he brings a chart. It outlines how to build the insurance marketplace required under the Affordable Care Act. To call it complex would probably be an understatement...A health exchange’s first task is ensuring that those who are eligible for benefits know about them — right now, research suggests three-quarters have no idea. That suggests a huge outreach challenge — and one the federal government may not be ideally suited to completing. Evidence suggests that it works better when it caters to local markets.  

The federal government passed a massive piece of legislation that included a voluminous labyrinth of new regulations -- and they might not get it up and running on schedule?  Knock me over with a feather.  Perhaps the administration should have considered whether its governing apparatus was "ideally suited" to complete core tasks before locking them into place with a law that personally affects tens of millions of Americans.  Basic competence should be a key initial threshold question, no?  (For more on federal ineptitude and priorities, read this).  Meanwhile, the population remains opposed to Obamacare.  While ABC's new poll indicates that public opposition may be slackening a bit, the latest Rasmussen national poll of registered voters (their major polling flaw this fall was their likely voter party ID weighting) continues to show majority support for repeal -- an outcome that even most of last Tuesday's D+6 electorate said they would support.
 The, er, "good" news is that if and when Obamacare's unsustainability proves to be undeniable, liberals will swoop in with the Statist fix they've been angling for all along:

Denny's to charge 5% 'Obamacare surcharge' and cut employee hours to deal with cost of legislation


President Obama's election victory ensured his Affordable Care Act would remain the centerpiece of his first term in power - but that has left some business owners baulking at the extra cost Obamcare will bring.
Florida based restaurant boss John Metz, who runs approximately 40 Denny's and owns the Hurricane Grill & Wings franchise has decided to offset that by adding a five percent surcharge to customers' bills and will reduce his employees' hours.
With Obamacare due to be fully implemented in January 2014, Metz has justified his move by claiming it is 'the only alternative. I've got to pass on the cost to the customer.'
A Florida restaurant owner who runs 40 franchises of the Denny's restaurant chain has threatened to add a five percent surcharge to customers bills in an effort to combat Obamacare
A Florida restaurant owner who runs 40 franchises of the Denny's restaurant chain has threatened to add a five percent surcharge to customers bills in an effort to combat Obamacare
The fast-food business owner is set to hold meetings at his restaurants in December where he will tell employees, 'that because of Obamacare, we are going to be cutting front-of-the-house employees to under 30 hours, effective immediately.'
 
Claiming that he is not anti-insurance Metz has said that he understands the problems this will cause for his employees.
John Metz also owns Hurricane Grill & Wings which has 48 franchises around the country and falls under the umbrella of his firm RREMC Restaurants
John Metz also owns Hurricane Grill & Wings which has 48 franchises around the country and falls under the umbrella of his firm RREMC Restaurants
'I think it's a terrible thing. It's ridiculous that the maximum hours we can give people is 28 hours a week instead of 40,' said Metz to the Huffington Post.
'It's going to force my employees to go out and get a second job.'
Obamacare requires businesses or franchises with more than 50 workers must offer an approved insurance plan or pay a penalty of $2,000 for each full-time worker over 30 workers.
The program mandates that only employees working more than 30 hours a week are covered under their employers health insurance plan, chains like Olive Garden and Red Lobster are already considering reduced worker hours.
'Obviously, I'd love to cover all our employees under that insurance,' said Metz.
'But to pay $5,000 per employee would cost us $175,000 per restaurant and unfortunately, most of our restaurants don't make $175,000 a year. I can't afford it.'
Obamacare supporters and protesters gather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to find out the ruling on the Affordable Health Act June 28, 2012 - the Court upheld the controversial legislation
Obamacare supporters and protesters gather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to find out the ruling on the Affordable Health Act June 28, 2012 - the Court upheld the controversial legislation
Several other restaurants including Papa John's, Apple Metro and Jimmy John's have announced plans to skirt Obamacare by reducing employees hours to make them part-time.
Indeed, Metz is adding the surcharge because he believes that eventually firms will be fined for not covering staff who complete over 30-hours in a week,
In November, a poll for Kaiser Health Tracking found that 43 percent of the United States had a favourable opinion of Obamcare, while 39-percent had an unfavourable one.
'Instead of indirectly charging customers by raising prices, he is directly charging and making a political statement,' said Paul Fronstin, director of the health research program at the Employee Benefit Research Institute in Washington. 
Here to stay: President Barack Obama's landmark health care legislation has been cemented into law by his re-election
Here to stay: President Barack Obama's landmark health care legislation has been cemented into law by his re-election
'Potentially 43 percent of this person's customers may find the explicit charge a turnoff, and vote with their feet and their money and choose not to eat there.'
Despite this, Metz has admitted he is willing to take the heat should the decision backfire on him.
'We're trying to get more restaurant operators rallied around the concept of adding a 5 percent surcharge to their bill to cover the costs of Obamacare as opposed to raising prices,' he said.
Earlier this week Papa John's CEO John Schnatter told shareholders in a conference call this week that Obamacare would cost the company 11 to 14 cents per pizza, a cost that would be passed on to customers.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233221/Dennys-charge-5-Obamacare-surcharge-cut-employee-hours-deal-cost-legislation.html#ixzz2CIgeLfmf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Papa John’s and the Whiny Weasels of Socialism by Craig Andresen


A word of warning to the Whiny Weasels of Socialism.
Be careful what you vote for…You may just get it and WHEN you get exactly that for which you voted…DON’T START WHINING ABOUT IT!!!
9 days ago, socialists voted for the Emperor and now, they’re starting to realize the fruits of their labors.
Layoffs.
Lots of them.
Socialists now want to boycott Papa John’s and Applebees because they are cutting work hours of their employees. They say such a move is…Un-American.
Really?
Socialists think something is Un-American???
Let me explain this in a way that anyone with a working brain cell can understand it.
Let’s use Papa John’s as our example.
Here is a company which started when somebody decided there was a better way to make pizza. Fresh instead of frozen ingredients, a great sauce a great crust and a great price.
A classic AMERICAN idea.
It grew because people who like pizza liked the complete Papa John’s recipe.
It grew and grew. People wanted to own their OWN Papa Johns and franchises were sold.
Very American.
After the expenses, ingredients, building and real estate costs, insurance, equipment, EMPLOYEES, taxes etc…The typical franchisee had…HAD a profit margin of around 10%.
Now, because of increased regulations, hikes in the minimum wage, rising insurance costs and the clamping down on business loans, higher costs due to rising gas prices for delivery of goods and delivery of pizzas…Over the last 4 years…The average franchisee NOW has a profit margin of…2%.
Along comes Obamacare.
If you have more than 50 full-time employees…YOU GET PENALIZED!!!
THAT is UN-American.
There are 21 new taxes in Obamacare and some of those hit companies like Papa John’s and their franchisees.
NOW…You have the Emperor wanting to HIKE TAXES on those making $250,000.00 and up and THAT will hit Papa John’s small business owners.
Penalizing success with higher taxes is…UN-American.
Here’s where Papa John’s is standing tall.
They realize that the same vise THEY’RE in is also squeezing ALL Americans. High unemployment, high gas prices, shrinking incomes, uncertainty, rising food prices, rising insurance costs…ALL Americans are getting hit.
This is why Papa John’s doesn’t just simply jack up the price of a pie. If they did THAT…LESS people would be BUYING their pizza for dinner.
Papa John’s had a choice to make and cutting workers HOURS made a whole lot more sense to this family oriented company than cutting jobs all together!!!
THAT is VERY AMERICAN.
Socialists…YOUR anger is misplaced.
Boycott Papa John’s???
Papa John’s didn’t create this situation.
YOU did. YOU VOTED FOR IT. TWICE!!! YOU GOT EXACTLY WHAT YOU VOTED FOR!!!
You were also warned.
Before the election, Papa John himself told you what was likely to happen if you voted for the Emperor.
To expect a company, ANY company to swallow these forced increases in the cost of doing business…FORCED BY THE VERY GOVERNMENT YOU VOTED FOR…is UN-AMERICAN.
No business is IN business to break even or lose money regardless of what YOU might think and Papa John’s, as a company, is doing EVERYTHING they can to keep people employed and keep their prices to their customers affordable.
That IS American.
And now, Alinsky’s marching minions want to BOYCOTT???
Are they going to boycott NBC too?
NBC is currently laying off hundreds of employees. Their slew of broadcast  outlets are hurting. NBC, Syfy, Bravo, USA, Oxygen, E! and Style are all in the process of layoffs. No more “Attack of the Show”  no more “X Play” and other shows are also on the chopping block.
NBC…Obama’s seat cushion and top promoter can’t handle the effects of…Obama.
If socialists are going to boycott Papa John’s, they must also boycott all NBC outlets as well.
And then there’s Stryker.
Stryker is a company which manufactures hospital beds, medical cameras, artificial joints and medical software and other various equipment used in the medical field.
Remember those 21 new taxes in Obamacare?
Well…One of those hits HARD at companies that manufacture MEDICAL EQUIPMENT and another, the one that imposes penalties against ANY company employing more than 50 full-timers ALSO comes into effect.
Stryker is laying off 1,700 employees because they simply can’t afford to do business as usual any longer.
Are socialists also going to boycott anything made by Stryker?
If they’re going to boycott papa John’s they should ALSO find a way to do without hospital beds, medical cameras, artificial joints and medical software REGARDLESS of their afflictions or the health afflictions of their loved ones.
Yes…Jon Stryker of the Stryker company is the EXACT same Jon Stryker who was Obama 5th largest campaign donor.
Not only did Jon Stryker VOTE for these layoffs…HE PAID FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF LAYING 1,700 EMPLOYEES OFF and the very same people who want to boycott Papa Johns APPLAUDED the massive campaign donations Stryker made to the Emperor.
Okay, back to Papa John’s.
The whiny little socialists pushing this absurd boycott ALSO have their little girl panties in a wad because Papa John’s is giving away 2 million free pizzas and, according to the socialist plague, if they can afford that they shouldn’t be cutting worker’s hours.
Ummm…Really?
The same ilk that demands free cell phones, free birth control, free healthcare and any number of entitlements is against free pizzas?
Listen up socialist twirps.
The free Papa John’s pizza thing is called marketing. Papa John’s is gambling that by giving away 2 million pizzas, a big enough number to get people’s attention, will bring in MORE business and MORE profits than the cost OF those 2 million pizzas.
What’s more, they’re making this gamble WITH THEIR OWN MONEY so it is nothing like the Obama gamble on companies like Solyndra, Abound, Beacon and so many more where HE used OUR money and THOSE companies went BANKRUPT.
Allow me to put this in the glaring light of TRUTH…
You socialist weasels…What exactly do you think Obama is doing with “free” cell phones, “free” birth control, “free” healthcare and Amnesty by decree…The “Dream Act?”
HE’S MARKETING FREE STUFF USING TAXPAYER’S MONEY AND IN RETURN…HE GETS MORE VOTES!!!
Papa John’s gives away 2 million free pizzas and in return, HE hopes to get more business.
And Here’s the difference…
GROWING YOUR BUSINESS IS 100% AMERICAN.
BRIBING PEOPLE BY GIVING THEM FREE CRAP FOR VOTES IS 100% ILLEGAL.
And the socialists support the illegal activity and want to boycott a company trying to live the REAL American Dream.
YOU PATHETIC OCCUPIERS OF SOCIALISM DON’T HAVE A WORKING BRAIN CELL AMONGST YOUR FESTERING MASSES!!!
Here is just a PARTIAL list of companies for socialists to boycott because THESE companies are laying off workers due to Obamacare, Obama taxes and Obama’s reelection:
• US Cellular -
• Rocketdyne -
• Brake Parts -
• Husqvarna -
The Following is a PARTIAL list of companies that socialists CAN’T boycott because…THEY ARE CLOSING COMPLETELY due to the reelection of the Emperor:
Socialists say this is all in revenge for the Emperor’s reelection.
REVENGE???
This isn’t REVENGE…
This is the RESULT of the SOCIALIST VOTE!!!
I can guarantee you that these lists will grow and grow and grow and what should hit socialists over the head like a hammer is that the list of growing businesses is SHRINKING while the lists of CLOSING and DOWNSIZING businesses  are the lists that are GROWING.
THAT is what is UN-American.
If boycotts are the socialists response to the BEGINNING of the plunge, what are they gonna do when that for which they voted RUNS OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY???
The answer to THAT can be found in Greece, Poland and Spain.
Tomorrow is Papa John’s appreciation day and while socialists cry over spilled free birth control pills, boycotting the results of exactly that for which they voted, I suggest that we, the conservatives who warned them, make it Papa John’s for dinner!!!
Let the whiny weasels of socialism eat crow.
Share on TwitterSubmit to StumbleUponShare via email