iBankCoin
Joined Nov 11, 2007
31,929 Blog Posts

Frightening: Choking on Obamacare

By , Published: December 2

LOS ANGELES

In 1941, Carl Karcher was a 24-year-old truck driver for a bakery. Impressed by the large numbers of buns he was delivering, he scrounged up $326 to buy a hot dog cart across from a Goodyear plant. And the war came.

So did millions of defense industry workers and their cars. And, soon, Southern California’s contribution to American cuisine — fast food. Including, eventually, hundreds of Carl’s Jr. restaurants. Karcher died in 2008, but his legacy, CKE Restaurants, survives. It would thrive, says CEO Andy Puzder, but for government’s comprehensive campaign against job creation.

CKE, with more than 3,200 restaurants (Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s), has created 70,000 jobs, 21,000 directly and 49,000 with franchisees. The growth of those numbers will be inhibited by — among many government measures — Obamacare.

When CKE’s health-care advisers, citing Obamacare’s complexities, opacities and uncertainties, said that it would add between $7.3 million and $35.1 million to the company’s $12 million health-care costs in 2010, Puzder said: I need a number I can plan with. They guessed $18 million — twice what CKE spent last year building new restaurants. Obamacare must mean fewer restaurants.

And therefore fewer jobs. Each restaurant creates, on average, 25 jobs — and as much as 3.5 times that number of jobs in the community. (CKE spends about $1 billion a year on food and paper products, $175 million on advertising, $33 million on maintenance, etc.)

Puzder laughs about the liberal theory that businesses are not investing because they want to “punish Obama.” Rising health-care costs are, he says, just one uncertainty inhibiting expansion. Others are government policies raising fuel costs, which infect everything from air conditioning to the cost (including deliveries) of supplies, and the threat that the National Labor Relations Board will use regulations to impose something like “card check” in place of secret-ballot unionization elections.

CKE has about 720 California restaurants, in which 84 percent of the managers are minorities and 67 percent are women. CKE has, however, all but stopped building restaurants in this state because approvals and permits for establishing them can take up to two years, compared to as little as six weeks in Texas, and the cost to build one is $100,000 more than in Texas, where CKE is planning to open 300 new restaurants this decade.

CKE restaurants have 95 percent employee turnover in a year — not bad in this industry — and the health-care benefits under CKE’s current “mini-med” plans are capped in a way that makes them illegal under Obamacare. So CKE will have to convert many full-time employees to part-timers to limit the growth of its burdens under Obamacare.

In an economic climate of increasing uncertainties, Puzder says, one certainty is that many businesses now marginally profitable will disappear when Obamacare causes that margin to disappear. A second certainty is that “employers everywhere will be looking to reduce labor content in their business models as Obamacare makes employees unambiguously more expensive.”

According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, by 2008 the cost of federal regulations had reached $1.75 trillion. That was 14 percent of national income unavailable for job-creating investments. And that was more than 11,000 regulations ago.

Seventy years ago, the local health department complained that Karcher’s hot dog cart had no restroom facilities. He got help from a nearby gas station. A state agency made him pay $15 for workers’ compensation insurance. Another agency said that he owed more than the $326 cost of the cart in back sales taxes. For $100, a lawyer successfully argued that Karcher did not because his customers ate their hot dogs off the premises.

Time was, American businesses could surmount such regulatory officiousness. But government’s metabolic urge to boss people around has grown exponentially and today CKE’s California restaurants are governed by 57 categories of regulations. One compels employees and even managers to take breaks during the busiest hours, lest one of California’s 200,000 lawyers comes trolling for business at the expense of business.

Read the rest here.

 

If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter

24 comments

  1. yesman

    lol… this from the ultra leftist WaPo?

    Obama is in big trouble

    • 0
    • 0
    • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
  2. Brian

    Its funny they use a fast food chain as an example when fast food is part of the healthcare problem. But, obamacare is awful in its delivery and timing. Got to push the political agenda at any cost.

    • 0
    • 0
    • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
  3. yesman

    food in any high class French restaurant is worse than any McDonald’s or KFC. but no one wants to shut those down in California…

    German “cuisine” is even worse.

    but go to Korea into a KFC or Burger King, and you see skinny Asian girls eating big burgers…

    Brian, you’ve got no idea about what makes people fat. from international experience, I can tell you, it’s not the food, it’s how much you eat and how much you don’t sit on your ass all day.

    I’ve eaten at McDonald’s for years and I’m in perfect shape. why? because I work out and stop eating when I’m full.

    but leftist anti-authoritarian parents can’t teach their children this simple truth and have to blame others for their failure.

    the fat f*ck who can’t stop stuffing food into his mouth is the one responsible for his obesity, not the guy grilling his burger.

    • 0
    • 0
    • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
    • Mad_Scientist

      its also partly genetics, big guy.

      • 0
      • 0
      • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
      • yesman

        apart from a fraction of a fraction of a percentage, that’s just rubbish.

        go to a concentration camp and find an obese Jew or go to North Korea and find obese people among the starving.

        eat less and you won’t get fat. if you are fat, move your ass and eat less.

        only someone who has never left the US can think it’s genetic or evil fast food.

        the same people eating the same food in other countries don’t get that fat. why? because there is no media supported myth that it’s not your fault if you are a fatso.

        people get shamed into not taking up 3 seats on an airplane or the subway.

        because it really is their own fault.

        • 0
        • 0
        • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
        • Mad_Scientist

          You fucking idiot. Anyone forced to starve gets skinny. Pathologically skinny. Hence the term starvation and all that entails.

          You are truly a fucking moron. WOW.

          I never mentioned “evil fast food” or evil anything. How fat a person gets from the amount he eats IS partially genetic.

          Generally it’s true that the less someone eats, the less fat they will be, but it’s not ENTIRELY true. Because some people have a higher threshold for caloric intake, and some have lower. That’s why certain people have to be more careful than others in limiting food intake because their METABOLISM IS SLOWER, and so they will get fatter than the other person from the same amount of food. Even though for that individual person, when not compared to anyone else, it is GENERALLY TRUE that the less they eat, the less fat they will get. But when you factor in different people, and absolute amounts, (you know, objective things like numbers) genetics become more relevant.

          So keep your concentration camp anecdotes to yourself you dumbfuck.

          • 0
          • 0
          • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
          • Mad_Scientist

            You compare balancing numbers of calorie intake and exercise, a normal situation, to a pathological situation and somehow think that’s a valid analogy.

            • 0
            • 0
            • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
          • yesman

            starving means taking in very little calories; too little to survive in the long run.

            that is not pathological.

            starving is not a disease.

            so keep calm, rein in your emotional outbursts and think for a second about what you’re saying.

            but I forgot, for you liberals, everything is a disease. alcoholism, drug use, liking sex a lot, stealing… just not taxation, curiously.

            my point was that spending more energy than you take in, makes you lose weight. I chose the most drastic example I could think of. still not enough it seems.

            blaming fast food or genetics means disregarding the simple equation between energy intake and spending.

            that it is evil to force someone to take less energy in than he has to spend is not the point here. I think we can all agree on starving being a bad thing.

            but with your argument, losing weight due to spending more energy (i.e. working out, or being forced to do manual labor) than taking in energy via food, would be impossible.

            • 0
            • 0
            • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
    • Brian

      Whoa somebody LOVES their big macs.

      • 0
      • 0
      • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
  4. ottnott

    Per CKE’s own numbers, they were paying about $50 per direct employee per month for health care.

    That means that everybody else was subsidizing the cost of providing healthcare to the employees and families.

    CKE liked having that subsidy, and is squealing now that the amount of subsidy is being reduced.

    • 0
    • 0
    • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
    • Woodshedder

      Ott, I’m guess you will squeal as you watch the unemployment rate remain elevated and as health care begins to be rationed. Or, probably not. I’m guessing you’ve been working a long time towards a full implementation of Cloward and Piven.

      • 0
      • 0
      • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
      • ottnott

        Health care is already rationed, and has been for …pretty much since there was anything you could reasonably call health care.

        • 0
        • 0
        • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
  5. Woodshedder

    Here is some reading for you on the mini-med plans much like the type CKE was offering.
    http://healthreform.kff.org/notes-on-health-insurance-and-reform/2011/july/what-is-a-mini-med-plan.aspx

    What you need to understand is that fewer_people_will_have_jobs due to obamacare, and then we will ALL have to subsidize the coverage for the increased amounts of the un or underemployed.

    A dear friend of mind is carpenter and home contractor/handyman type. Doesn’t make much money. Probably is considered “poor” since he has a family of four and lives on less than 40K/year. He carries his own insurance, as you would expect, working with power tools, every day. His plan has a very high deductible. Read more about this type of plan here: http://www.insurance.com/health-insurance/coverage/pros-and-cons-of-catastrophic-health-insurance.aspx

    However, under Obamacare, he will no longer be allowed to have his low cost, high deductible plan. In fact, recent estimates put the cost of FORCED Obamacare at DOUBLE of what he is currently paying. Keep in mind, he has no recourse. He MUST pay this amount or he will be FINED.

    That extra 300 dollars a month difference is huge for his family, and he is furious. He may be the only working-class white guy left in America who will vote again for Obama, but believe me, his is experiencing some serious cognitive dissonance.

    So you’ve got businesses who will hire fewer people due to Obamacare and many individuals who will see their health insurance costs increase. That is recipe for disaster.

    Good luck Ott, you will see your academic dreams fleshed out in real life over the next 10 years, assuming the Supremes don’t overturn Obamacare. It won’t be pretty.

    • 0
    • 0
    • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
    • ottnott

      I have good news for your friend.

      If you are describing his situration accurately, he’ll be paying less money than he is now for vastly superior insurance for his family.

      Current situation:
      $300/month for catastrophic coverage only

      Under “Obamacare” in 2014:
      $242/month (in 2014 dollars) for real health insurance

      You’ve told us that he’s earning less than $0k (less than 200% of the Federal poverty level), currently paying more than 9% of his income each year for the barest of coverage (which an insurer can decline to renew at the end of each contract period), and would have to pay double that, 18% of his income, for coverage after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act takes effect.

      His fears about his future costs are unfounded.

      Go to http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx , enter the numbers and learn that his bill would drop to $2952 per year.

      Please show that to your friend and ease his mind.

      • 0
      • 0
      • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
      • Woodshedder

        Ott, for the sake of my buddy, and for only his sake, let’s hope you’re right.

        Here is the problem with the calculator. They are using CBO numbers/projections to develop the calculations. The CBO must necessarily work with the numbers that Congress gives them (and in this case, a Democrat led Congress) and are likely to be vastly different from real life.

        In real life, we are likely to see premiums increase substantially, as one would expect would happen anytime a demand shock is introduced. We add 30 million new customers, virtually overnight, without any growth in the services to handle that demand and premiums will go up. Even worse, we are in some cases seeing a decrease in services as doctors give up trying to handle the new regulations.

        Perhaps, 2.5 years from now, we’ll look back and say that this calculator was accurate. I believe we’ll look back and say that Enron had more accurate accounting.

        Anyway, you might also explore some of the calculators that allow you to subtract or add to the CBO projections. You’ll be finding that if they are wrong, most of us that pay taxes will be paying significantly higher amounts.

        • 0
        • 0
        • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
        • ottnott

          Your buddy’s premium is based on a % of his income, not a % of the actual coverage cost.

          • 0
          • 0
          • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
  6. Woodshedder

    More reading for you Ott. Net effect? Fewer jobs for those who need them most.

    Thanks to Obamacare, low-skilled job seekers will find it even harder to find work. And low-income areas will find it even more difficult to attract new businesses. That’s the lesson drawn from a new analysis by White Castle, the iconic hamburger chain.

    Numbers crunchers there looked at how Obamacare provisions would affect the company’s bottom line. Of particular interest were provisions that hit employers with a $3,000 per employee penalty—even if they offer health insurance—for workers whose household income is low enough and they get subsidized health coverage through a government-run insurance exchange.

    Curiously, the penalty for hiring and offering coverage to a low-income worker is 50% higher than the Obamacare penalty ($2,000 per employee) for NOT offering coverage.

    The net effect of this weird policy is to discourage businesses from hiring workers from low-income households—those who need jobs most. According to White Castle’s Jamie Richardson, Obamacare “makes it difficult to justify growing where jobs are needed most—in lower income areas.”

    Heritage analyst Robert Book warned of this months ago. “The Senate health care bill discourages companies from hiring those who need jobs the most and encourages employers to lay off people with family members who have also lost their jobs. The bill punishes employers who hire or retain those workers anyway and harshly punishes employees who have “too many” co-workers from low- and moderate-income families.”

    Book predicted: “The net result would be higher unemployment for low- and moderate-income families and higher health insurance costs for their co-workers—the exact opposite of what the bill’s proponents claim is their goal.”

    As the White Castle report shows, Obamacare is more likely to hurt than help low-income workers. Additionally, employer penalties create incentives to drop coverage altogether, making a mockery of President Obama’s promise that “if you like it, you can keep it.”

    If employers drop coverage and dump their employees into the exchange, low-income workers will receive generous government subsidies to buy insurance. Everyone else will be left to face the expense of health insurance on their own—no help from employers, and even less help from the government (zero) than they had before with the ability to use pre-tax dollars.

    http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/health-care-news/side-effects-fewer-flippin-hamburgers-at-white-castle/#more-3589

    • 0
    • 0
    • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
  7. drummerboy

    newt will rescind that POS 0’hobos’ phoney health care plan within the first 100 days………mark my words.

    • 0
    • 0
    • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
    • Mad_Scientist

      While he instates amnesty for illegals you really think he’s going to get rid of Obamacare? LOL. Keep dreaming pal.

      • 0
      • 0
      • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
  8. Mad_Scientist

    Starvation is a pathological condition, by definition. You, yesman, have personal convictions about weightloss (“everyone’s a lazy fat fuck who refuses to get into shape”) so when you preach your gospel, facts apparently do not matter to you. But to me, facts do matter. Starvation is pathological. Caloric restriction is NOT by definition pathological. (It is therapeutic, in fact).

    Starvation results in mobilization of PROTEIN to maintain functioning of the body (the protein is broken down to maintain energy levels in the bloodstream – ie converted to glucose and then used for energy). This breaking down of protein for energy defines the pathological state. In layman’s terms in case you are slow on the uptake here, this means a person’s muscle mass is wasting away to keep them alive. Calorie restriction on the other hand (or therapeutic fasting), results in mobilization of stored FAT as an energy source, which is an evolutionary mechanism designed to spare the body’s protein and thus keep the person out of the pathological state. In this situation, fats are converted and broken down for energy as ketone bodies, or they can also be converted into glucose and broken down for energy.

    If you deny this, it’s because your “religion of indignation at fat americans” clouds your ability to accept basic science.

    Moving forward, for any given person, if they eat less, they will weigh less. That’s known fact. But comparatively with other people, THE AMOUNT that a person decreases his food intake to achieve the same effect that can be achieved in another person, can vary depending on the speed of their metabolism, which is of course a result of their genetics. IE, as a crude example, one person (Person A) can eat 10% less calories than usual for 4 weeks, and lose only X pounds, while Person B could eat 10% less calories than his usual for 4 weeks, and person B would lose X+5 pounds. Because there are subtle genetic differences only a complete boor would try to deny.
    Or as another example – person A could eat 2000 calories per day and be 20 pounds overweight (for his height, let’s say), while person B could eat 2000 calories per day and be just below overweight for his own height. How can that be, you ask? Cuz genetics do influence how a person’s metabolism functions, just like it influences every bodily function!

    Mice have a metabolism that is 6 times that of the human, so they will lose a great deal of bodyweight (15-20%), achieve a significant lowering of glucose levels and elevate ketone levels in the bloodstream with a 30-40% calorie restriction over a very short period of 1-3 weeks. Quite a dramatic change in bodyweight. That won’t happen in a human on the same exact diet. These are different species but there are differences within species which are a microcosm of these species-specific differences and help explain why people are different from each other and would react differently to the same metabolic stress because of their individually varying genetics. Hopes this helps clear up the confusion.

    Further, I find your use of starving Jews in a concentration camp as an example to promote your misinformed fervor (religious convictions?), really offensive and obnoxious. And so my disdain for you was twofold – not only did you promote ignorance here, but you did so in the manner of a complete douchebag.

    • 0
    • 0
    • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
  9. Mad_Scientist

    And no I am not a liberal. Starvation isn’t usually classified as a “disease” but it is a “disease state” or more precisely termed, “pathological.” It’s amazing to me that because some liberals classify drug use or stealing as a disease, that signals to you that you should deny that anything is a disease (or disease state in this case). How illogical and irrational can you get?

    Btw, I thought it was the liberals who decided that homosexuality could no longer be classified as a mental health disease? You seem to not have your story straight on who is “for or against” diseases. Here’s a bit of advice – instead of adopting some bizarre dogmatism that genetics are an evil concept invented by liberals, how about treating each subject on its own and analyzing what is true and what isn’t? Oh, and don’t call me a liberal because I disagreed with your incorrect statement.

    • 0
    • 0
    • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
    • yesman

      you are a Liberal by definition because you can not make an argument or respond to one in a rational fashion.

      an example: “instead of adopting some bizarre dogmatism that genetics are an evil concept invented by liberals,…”

      I said nothing about genetics. I said blaming genetics was illogical in this case, because my point is not how quickly someone is losing or gaining weight (your whole wall of text, which you repeat, rewrite and report every time), but about the simple irrefutable truth that eating less and doing sports will make you lose weight, regardless of genetics.

      how easy or hard this is, is not part of this discussion.

      as a Liberal, you are unable to follow logical, point by point discussions, of course, but I’ll try anyway…

      you can make the same wall of text about (let’s chose another example) the medical and pathological processes about being stabbed in the chest.

      my point was, that everyone can get stabbed.

      you however, in typical Liberal fashion, change the subject and keep on telling us that blood loss is caused by blabla and mice can survive more stab wounds on so on…

      my point is: weight loss is something everyone can achieve.

      your point is deflection and telling people it’s not in their hands if they can do it, because there genetic factors and because they ate at McDonald’s one time too often.

      Liberals always see the individual as in need of oversight. as helpless, impotent and unable to take care of himself.

      you do the same. that’s another reason why you clearly are a Liberal.

      my point simply is: if you do not want to be fat, you can do so. that it will be harder for some is not the point.

      I have seen enough people of any race and color and religion worldwide who eat fast food daily and are not fat, to know that I’m right.

      • 0
      • 0
      • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
      • Mad_Scientist

        What did I repeat and rewrite? I explained the subject clearly. You tried to argue that starvation is not pathological, but it is a pathological condition, by definition. Now you are denying this? Or you are simply admitting defeat but complaining that I wrote out the explanation for why you were wrong about that point?

        I never disputed that ‘eating less and doing sports’ will make you lose weight. Still, genetics play a role, and the DEGREE of the affect it will have will be influenced by genetics. You originally tried to say genetics is not relevant at all to anything. That’s just stupid. I pointed it out. It doesn’t mean I’m saying that DNA decides whether you’re a fat lazy slob or not.

        What about what I wrote in that post was not rational? It seems you think you win an argument by calling me a liberal and saying I didn’t respond rationally or logically… when I did. How about pointing out what aspect of what I said did not meet standards of logic or rationality, rather than just throwing accusations around or labelling it? Most likely, you cannot critique anything directly or explain what is irrational about it, so you do the equivalent of “namecalling” by just saying the entire thing is irrational.

        “Liberals always see the individual as in need of oversight. as helpless, impotent and unable to take care of himself.”

        I never said any of that.

        “my point was, that everyone can get stabbed.”

        How is that a point? And how does it relate at all to the subject of discussion?

        “how easy or hard this is, is not part of this discussion. ”

        I made it part of the discussion by pointing out that genetics will influence how hard or how easy it will be, even though it is achievable for anyone! You seem to have a problem with that. I can’t understand why.

        “your point is deflection and telling people it’s not in their hands if they can do it, because there genetic factors and because they ate at McDonald’s one time too often.”

        I didn’t make that point, and I didn’t say any of this. You imagined that I made that point and then got offended.

        “my point simply is: if you do not want to be fat, you can do so. that it will be harder for some is not the point.”

        Maybe not the point you are making, but it’s still true. It will be harder for some people, and that is due to genetic influences. To deny this is to deny reality, plain and simple. It doesn’t make me pro-macdonalds or anti-macdonalds. (Personally, I don’t touch that stuff). And it still means people can lose weight if they try.

        “I have seen enough people of any race and color and religion worldwide who eat fast food daily and are not fat, to know that I’m right.”

        Actually, this proves me right. Having a faster metabolism can enable someone to eat more of this junk and not necessarily gain as much weight as the guy next to him who eats it just as much and does gain. (similarly, if they exercise more, they won’t gain as much from it – it’s still unhealthy food though, but burning calories through exercise will prevent weight gain).

        • 0
        • 0
        • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"