Denny's owner plans 'Obamacare surcharge'

[Ontarkie 13,918]

One post removed as requested from poster.

[Danno 1,228]

Your analogy to looting only works if you have the mind-set that the store is owned by someone ELSE. We on the left believe that we are all co-owners of this 'store' called the United States of America. We decide democratically how it will be run and how its benefits are to be divided. If it sounds like socialism, well, in many ways it is. And most Americans, whether they call it that or not, like it that way! We recognize the value and necessity of certain capitalistic principles but we also recognize that unbridled capitalism is at least as ugly as extreme socialism. A moderate blend of the two works best. Not what those of you who like to think in black and white prefer. Like GWB, you don't do 'nuance'!

NO, the Gov't isn't like a store at all, it's closer to a HOA.

..except our Gov't was built with limits in places, folks like seek more gov. and less Constitution.

You'll get your wish.

FORWARD!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Or maybe people don't like paying for other people's healthcare? Mr. Big Dog does not like to.

That's one of your more ignorant statements. We all pay for other people's healthcare. Each and every day. Anyone using the services of the firm I work for - and that's a lot of people - pays for my healthcare and that of my co-workers. They also pay for the food I put on my table and my mortgage and pretty much everything else that my salary affords me. And so I support the employees of the businesses that produce the goods and services that I consume. The issue is that some businesses don't want to honor the grand contract we have in this country where people obtain their health insurance as a benefit from their employers. That's the model this country has settled for. It sucks but until we decouple health insurance from employment, that is the model.

Usually, the businesses that deny their employees benefits are those that are poorly run or where naked greed rules. It's not like goods and services at those businesses are cheaper to the consumer. Personally, I make choices not to frequent businesses that fail to treat their employees fairly. I rather pay for the health insurance of other fellow Americans when doing business just as my health insurance is paid for by other Americans doing businesses with my employer.

Don't you have some government teat to suck on?

Edited November 18, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

That's one of your more ignorant statements. We all pay for other people's healthcare. Each and every day. Anyone using the services of the firm I work for - and that's a lot of people - pays for my healthcare and that of my co-workers. They also pay for the food I put on my table and my mortgage and pretty much everything else that my salary affords me. And so I support the employees of the businesses that produce the goods and services that I consume. The issue is that some businesses don't want to honor the grand contract we have in this country where people obtain their health insurance as a benefit from their employers. That's the model this country has settled for. It sucks but until we decouple health insurance from employment, that is the model.

Usually, the businesses that deny their employees benefits are those that are poorly run or where naked greed rules. It's not like goods and services at those businesses are cheaper to the consumer. Personally, I make choices not to frequent businesses that fail to treat their employees fairly. I rather pay for the health insurance of other fellow Americans when doing business just as my health insurance is paid for by other Americans doing businesses with my employer.

Don't you have some government teat to suck on?

It's funny how one sided you are in your choice of freedoms. You are all about exercising your right to chose who you do business with and who you support with your spending, but somehow someone who owns a business deciding how he will compensate his employees and the same employees deciding if they will work there or somewhere else is a bad thing. The thing with the freedoms we support is that we support them for all. My employer does not owe me health insurance. He provides it so yeah. If he did not I would work elsewhere. My choice.

Let's be clear. Supporters of Obama care are not talking about affordable health care they are talking about subsidized health care.

As to your point that people that do business with your company support your health care. Yes they do, but they are given a service or product in return and the cost is part of that service. Obama care is telling me I must contribute money for someones health care with nothing offered in return and no choice in the matter.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Obama care is telling me I must contribute money for someones health care with nothing offered in return and no choice in the matter.

Wrong, Obamacare says that as long as this nation organizes health care around employer sponsored insurance, employers must be part of the system. We can't have a situation where some employers withdraw from that established model while others continue to support it. That situation gives those businesses that opt for the free ride a cost advantage over those businesses that hold up their end of the bargain. Why would we want to reward free riders?

[Danno 1,228]

It's funny how one sided you are in your choice of freedoms. You are all about exercising your right to chose who you do business with and who you support with your spending, but somehow someone who owns a business deciding how he will compensate his employees and the same employees deciding if they will work there or somewhere else is a bad thing. The thing with the freedoms we support is that we support them for all. My employer does not owe me health insurance. He provides it so yeah. If he did not I would work elsewhere. My choice.

Let's be clear. Supporters of Obama care are not talking about affordable health care they are talking about subsidized health care.

Well said!

One of the remarkable turn of event in my view is how Gov't got so involved in Healthcare, providing this free-b to scores of people, requiring states and hospital to operate a walk-in free clinic and then when the price skyrockets..... they double down and say we are so intwined in it now.... why we must go even further and regulate and mandate the whole thing.

But never you mind your pretty head, when Obama care bleeds red, they will come again with another solution.

One of the fasted growing costs is -education. Why because we keep "investing" other people money into it which keeps driving the cost higher and higher...... thereby justifying even more Gov't money to help students obtain it.

Why is dental care historically been fairly affordable? Because there is less insurance dollars available and less Gov't involvement.

In the last decade we have seen that start to change and now we see it starting to clime as well.

I have pretty good teeth but 2 decades ago (in NJ) I had two teeth that needed to be filled, I had both done along with an exam for $50 bucks at a dentist in a mall..... (which means he had overhead.)

yet still, because I haggled a and had no insurance it was reasonable.

I have a dentist not far from where I live n ow who will also give you a steep break if you don't have coverage (I have limited now).

You people think the GOV will correct the market when the truth is you are preventing that very thing.

There is a reason a nurse with a two year degree can make 35-45 bucks an hour within the first year of work here in NC.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Danno

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Democrat solution...put the Americans on unemployment and welfare, hire illegals to replace the legal workers, don't pay anything into the system,say that the illegal Mexicans are only here to do the jobs LEGAL Mexicans will not do and live happily ever after.