Denny’s Restaurants To Put 5% Obamacare Surcharge On Customer’s Bills

27008_da_phoenix_dennys

I applaud this business owner. This takes a lot of courage:

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.’

I’m a big fan of businesses being transparent about building the cost of government policies into their prices. That’s a facet of policy debate that often gets lost in the squabbling. Taxes and red tape don’t just hurt the ability of a given business to hire and compensate employees. It also raises the cost of goods and services for their customers.

Businesses don’t build the sales tax into their “on the shelf” prices because businesses want to make clear to customers what portion of the price they pay is tax. But it’s hard to quantify the portion of a price attributable to non-tax policies, but there is a cost. And consumers should be aware of it.

Americans might vote very differently if the knew how large a percentage of their day-to-day expenditures is the result of price-inflating taxes and regulation.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • WOOF

    This action runs counter to Bobby Jindal’s
    “stop being the stupid party”.

    • Spartacus

      who was being a democrat?

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      I don’t think there’s anything stupid about pointing out the real-world impact of policies like Obamacare.

      • WOOF

        Pissing off half your customers is stupid.

        • Onslaught1066

          Do you eat at Denny’s or just wash dishes there.

          BTW you might want to try removing your obama bumper sticker, I’m sure when lay off time comes around such things will be taken into consideration.

          • The one you love

            Have you removed the Mitt Romney sticker?

          • Onslaught1066

            Of course. Silly boy.

          • The one you love

            Pheww! I was worried for nothing.
            I should have known…….

          • Onslaught1066

            How could you be expected to know?

            greek pederasts aren’t renowned for their intelligence after all.

            If when you are confused regarding a point of fact in the future, just ask and I will be more than happy to elucidate.

          • The one you love

            Actually theGreeks are renowned for their intelligence.

            Philosophy, philology, poetry, theater, science, medicine, math, geometry, architecture, sports, libraries, you name it they either invented or further developed it.

          • Onslaught1066

            “you name it they either invented or further developed it.”

            Pederasty, larceny, fecalphelia, cannibalism, matricide, despotism, bestiality…

        • RCND

          if they are really pissed they won’t eat at Denny’s. Gotta love choice in the marketplace…. something we won’t enjoy much longer with “free” healthcare

  • Flyby_Knight

    Hello, Law of Unintended Consequences. Haven’t seen you in a while.

  • Davo

    This John Metz is an asshole. He’s effectively stealing tips from his waiters. What a douchebag.

    • RCND

      No he isn’t. It is still up to the customer whether and how much of a tip is warranted.

    • Onslaught1066

      Let them earn tips the old fashioned way, on a street corner holding a sign.

    • sbark

      Thats true for the customers that are Dem’cats—-they must tip as poorly as they give charitable contributions……

  • Guest

    Golly gee, what’s wrong with this country? I’d much rather save twenty cents on the bill than eat at a restaurant where a child of an employee won’t die from lack of health care coverage.

    • Spartacus

      you’re free to waste your money any way you want, for now.

      • Guest

        Yes exactly, money to prevent unnecessary deaths and treat illness is wasted.

        • Onslaught1066

          Hey Azbeulah, did you know that your daddy, Lime Krushednutz thinks that you are a coward because you don’t post under your real name?

          But he might give you a pass if you give, that’s give, not sell, you trollop, him a “Lewinsky”.

          • Guest

            Normally I’d tell people like you to stop posting, but you make conservatives look so crazy I hope you continue posting.

          • Onslaught1066

            Normally I’d tell people like you to stop posting

            Because you are just so in love with the freedom of speech, right?

            I don’t tell you to shut your festering gob, now do I?

            Why are you tolerant libs so quick to prove how intolerant you actually are?

          • Guest

            Yes, you did tell me not to respond to one of your earlier posts. And if you read closely, you’ll notice I didn’t tell you to stop posting; I in fact encouraged it.

          • Onslaught1066

            But you were too stupid to understand what I said?

          • Guest

            Your post was so indiscernible, I was legitimately concerned you were having stroke.

          • Onslaught1066

            There is nothing legitimate about you, but I’m sure “Uncle” dad loves you just as if you were his own.

          • The one you love

            No. You were too stupid to accurately convey your message

          • Onslaught1066

            but you got it, didn’t you?

          • The one you love

            I am a mind reader.

          • The one you love

            Please shut your festering gob.

          • Onslaught1066

            Since you asked nicely.

          • The one you love

            Thank you for shutting festering gob.

        • Spartacus

          Instead of spending “twenty cents” at a diner why don’t you put your money where your bleeding heart is and buy health insurance for one, or several of these people for whom you sympathize with instead of demanding every other personally responsible individual foot the bill for those who are personally irresponsible?

          • azul

            Because some of those people legitimately can’t afford health care and shouldn’t have to die for it so ultra-rich can buy another private yacht. You make Ebeneezer Scrooge look like a saint, you’re disgusting for advocating such an inequitable system. Even Thomas Hobbes would reject your grim state of nature argument. Fact is people do make sacrifices for the general good, whether it be paying taxes for roads, schools, or national defense. Ensuring people aren’t dying from easily preventable illness is just as worth of support as those goals.

      • Your Greek buddy

        Can I buy you a drink?

        PS: Buying you a drink is not a waste.

        It is but a small token of my level of carrying for you.

        • Spartacus

          carrying?

          • two_amber_lamps

            I’d be careful accepting “carrying” from the Greekling pederast… he’s liable to try to drag you off to his basement rumpus room and chain you up next to the 10 year old concubine boy he keeps in thrall.

          • The one you love

            Does positive Lyapunov exponent always mean chaos?

          • Your Greek buddy

            Caring is what I meant.

    • HG

      Let me get this straight, Children of Denny’s employees are dying for lack of healthcare in America?
      That is called a false dilemma. Your argument presumes either we have Obamacare, or children of Denny’s employees will die. It couldn’t be further from reality.

      • azulu

        People absolutely die because they lack of health coverage, HG.
        http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/publications/reports/dying-for-coverage.html

        It’s real problem, not a false dilemma.

        • Onslaught1066

          ‘Beulah, you don’t mind if I call you Beulah do you? anyway ‘Beulah, anyone who needs to see a doctor can go to any emergency room and receive “Health Coverage”, but then you already knew that didn’t you?

          Why you gots ta’ lie ‘Beulah?

          • Guest

            There’s several problems with that. First, the costs of those uninsured people are often passed onto the hospital and federal government when they don’t pay there bills. It’s effectively socialism, you’d think conservatives would oppose that. Second, the uninsured often wait until it’s too late to seek care. An emergency room is not going to save a person who found out they had preventable cancer too late.

          • HG

            The problem with that is your previous argument fails.

          • Guest

            Last resort of a person who is wrong, just keep repeating to yourself that you are rights in face of facts and argument to the contary without offering any evidence to support that conclusion.

          • HG

            What facts to the otherwise?
            My statement is a fact. The law requires that no person is denied medical attention. Why do you think the ER’s are full all the time?

          • Onslaught1066

            And you are such a natural at it too.

          • Onslaught1066

            I though you libs simply creamed your pants with longing for good old socialism, anyway that ignores what you were talking about which is “Coverage”.

            What, in your tiny mind, do you “think” the word “coverage” means cause if you’re really talking about “insurance” you should probably use that word.

            Second off, where, in that tiny mind of yours, do you suppose the Federal Government gets its money?

            Do you “think” that they just pull it out of their a$$, much like you do your facts?

            If people wait until its too late to seek medical attention, how is that a problem for you who, I am guessing, ascribe to the tenets of evolution and natural selection (at least until such things impact upon the rocky shores of your emotions)

            Beulah, Beulah, Beulah, you just don’t get it, do you?

        • HG

          Sure it is a false dilemma. There are other options beside Obamacare to providing healthcare for the uninsured. Nobody in this country is denied healthcare, period. Nobody dies for lack of care unless they can’t get to it or refuse it, period.
          By the way, your link says nothing of Denny’s employee’s children dying for lack of health insurance. It doesn’t even address anyone under the age of 25.
          It would be nice if you liberals wouldn’t waste time with phony arguments rooted in willful ignorance. Maybe then we could have an adult conversation.

          • Guest

            Did you even read the article? It’s indisputable that people absolutely do die because they lack health insurance. You haven’t offered any proof or fact to the contrary besides the wholly unsupported claim nobody is denied health care. It would be nice if you’d take your own advice and not waste time in willful ignorance.

          • HG

            Sure did read it, no mention of anyone’s children dying. My claim is a fact and everyone knows it, with the exception of yourself apparently. Now if you want to have a reasonable conversation, avoid fallacies like false dilemmas.

          • Guest

            If your claim is true you should have not trouble proving it, yet you won’t (and can’t, because it’s demonstrably untrue).

          • HG
          • Guest

            That doesn’t prove anything, people still die from lack of insurance even if they have access to emergency rooms. An emergency room is not going to save a person who would’ve been diagnosed with a treatable illness but wasn’t because of their lack of insurance. Emergency rooms aren’t a cure all. I don’t see many stage IV cancer patients skipping out of the emergency room in good health.

            So again to recap. My evidence: two studies. Your evidence: they can go into an emergency which will magically solve everything.

          • HG

            How sad. Your study shows nothing related to your claim.

            I’ve proven everyone can access healthcare. As for the cancer patient, many, many charitable organizations and hospitals exist for just such cases. Your ridiculous assumption that only Obamacare will prevent the children of Denny’s employees from dying is ludicrous and without any basis in reality.

            But hey, I can only present you with facts, it is your choice to continue believing fairy tales.

          • The one you don’t care for

            Name one charitable organization and 10 hospitals that provide cancer care to the indigent and the uninsured.

          • HG

            You know how to use a search engine?
            It isn’t hard to do at all. Locally, our Catholic hospital does. Many people donate to a fund managed by the hospital that is used for just such cases.

          • HG
          • The one you don’t care for

            That is 8 hours away from my location.
            Bottom line. Early diagnosis through regular medical care as provided to those with health care insurance in many cases not only prolongs lives but if caught in the early stages saves lives.
            By the time your symptoms become severe and you go to the hospital it is often too late, and you know it.

          • Guest

            You’re just being wilfully ignorant now. My study shows nothing related to my claim? They specifically say:

            “Across the nation, thousands people die prematurely due to a lack of health coverage.” “Each and every state sees residents die prematurely due to a lack of health insurance.”

            “Uninsurance is associated with mortality”

            The studies say exactly what I claim, that being uninsured causes unnecessary death. Your argument that they don’t is laughable and wholly unsupported. The second study even specifically rejects your emergency room argument because emergency room cannot always provide care when needed or the regular, continued care to prevent deaths that someone with insurance would have avoided.

            Please take your own advice and stop living in willful ignorance.

          • HG

            Nobody under the age of 25 was included in the study you link.
            Your claim was specifically about children, denny’s employees children to be exact.

          • Guest

            My point was that being uninsured causes unnecessary deaths. I’ve shown it has, and nobody had demonstrated otherwise.

          • HG

            That’s not what you said.

          • Guest

            Yes it was, I said “People absolutely die because of lack of health insurance.” Even if it we were solely concerned with children, you’ve given no evidence to deny claims other than emergency rooms and charties will solve everything.

          • Guest

            And if you just want to argue only about children, there is a study showing a lack of insurance causing children’s deaths. http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/lack-of-insurance-may-have-figured-in-nearly-17000-childhood-deaths.aspx

          • HG

            Try again. You cannot prove that Obamacare is the only way to save these children you claim die from uninsurance.

          • Onslaught1066

            Then you should be able to present a death certificate listing the cause of death as “Uninsurance”.

          • Guest

            “Other factors being equal, researchers found that uninsured children in the study were 60 percent more likely to die in the hospital than those with insurance.” “http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/lack-of-insurance-may-have-figured-in-nearly-17000-childhood-deaths.aspx”

          • HG

            Don’t forget what you claimed.

          • Spartacus

            “Across the nation, thousands people die prematurely due to a lack of
            health coverage.” “Each and every state sees residents die prematurely
            due to a lack of health insurance.”

            Are you willing to admit that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people willingly opt out of purchasing health insurance through the plan their employer has set up? Or are YOU the one that’s being willfully ignorant? Decisions have consequences, those that make poor decisions are not automatically dependents of those of us that make wise decisions. Breaking news: who ever told you life is fair lied to you.

          • azul

            You’re a monster for wanting those people to die. Not even Romney said the uninsured should die if they become ill.

          • Onslaught1066

            Beulah, Can you point to anyone who has never died?

          • Guest

            Hey look another story supporting my argument. http://www.pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf

            So to recap. My evidence: Two scientific reports. Your evidence: conjecture.

          • HG

            Same report. Same claim. No Denny’s employee’s children or any children for that matter included in the report.
            You have no proof of your claim that Denny’s employee’s children will die without OBamacare.

          • Guest

            The studies show people without insurance are at a greater risk of mortality. I will double check, but I think Denny’s employees’s children are “people”.

          • HG

            Try again. The report includes only people above the age of 25. Read it.

          • Guest

            “Other factors being equal, researchers found that uninsured children in the study were 60 percent more likely to die in the hospital than those with insurance.” http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/lack-of-insurance-may-have-figured-in-nearly-17000-childhood-deaths.aspx

          • HG

            Is this the part where you repeat yourself to try and get us to forget what you originally claimed?

          • Guest

            It’s the part where you’re proven demonstrably wrong and will likely be preceded by a post where you baselessly reject the premise without providing any evidence to support your argument.

          • HG

            Nope.
            Please prove your claim that without Obamacare, Denny’s employees will see their children die for lack of insurance.

          • Guest

            “Other factors being equal, researchers found that uninsured children in the study were 60 percent more likely to die in the hospital than those with insurance.” http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/lack-of-insurance-may-have-figured-in-nearly-17000-childhood-deaths.aspx

          • HG

            I addressed this above.

          • Onslaught1066

            Beulah, can you show us a death certificate officially listing the cause of death as “Uninsured”?

            I would totally be on your side if you did.

          • Guest

            What a profoundly stupid argument. No death certificate ever says murder on it either; it says poisoned, blunt force trauma, etc. Would you argue nobody therefore ever dies from murder, either retard? Looking over your comments, I heartily recommend you read “Logic and Reasoning for 1st Graders,” although it might be a bit advanced for you.

          • Onslaught1066

            people still die from lack of insurance even if they have access to emergency rooms.

            researchers found that uninsured children in the study were 60 percent more likely to die in the hospital

            If children are in the hospital, they must be receiving “coverage”, If children go on to die while receiving “coverage” while in the hospital your contention is that they died of “Uninsurance”.

            Therefore it should not be a problem for you to produce a death certificate that states cause of death as “Uninsurance”.

            And remember you will win an unshakable convert if you do produce such a document.

            Fake it if you have to, it’s the democrat way.

          • Guest

            Uninsurance, like murder, may not be the medical cause of death but it’s still the proximate cause. Unless you seriously want to argue that nobody dies from murder, your argument is profoundly retarded.

            You won’t find any death certificate saying someone died from a car accident, but that doesn’t mean people do die from auto accidents even if they technically died from blunt force trauma.

            Find me a study that says people don’t die from lack of insurance and I’ll be convinced, because I’ve only been able to fund studies that say people to die from lack of health insurance while you provide no evidence or facts that they do not.

            http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/publications/reports/dying-for-coverage.html

            http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/harvard-medical-study-links-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-u-s-deaths-a-year/

          • Onslaught1066

            Then why did you say it was?

            And your specious argument that I prove a negative is a profoundly stupid one, Beulah.

            You made the claim that people die of “Uninsurance”, it is incumbent upon you to prove your case, unless you are currently having a stroke and are in need of medical attention, then you may hand in your assignment latter along with a doctors note documenting your medical excuse.

          • Guest

            I provided you several studies saying uninsurance leads to death, your choice to ignore it is not my problem.

            Your evidence: nothing

            My evidence: studies backing up my point.

          • Onslaught1066

            So you are saying that the leading cause of death is Uninsurance?

            Then you should have no problem providing a document that states for the record that the cause of death was Uninsurance.

            Otherwise you are unremarkable in that lying dems are a dime a dozen.

          • Guest

            I never said it was a leading cause. I said lead to deaths. I’ve given you studies proving that points, which you chose to ignore. The problem is you Conservatives appear to have a reading comprehension problem.

          • Onslaught1066

            If it leads to death, it is a cause of death if it is a cause of death you should have no problem providing a document that lists the cause of death as Uninsurance.

            BTW, Beulah, are you aware that humanity has been in existence long before Insurance?

            If Uninsurance leads to death how is it that your parents and their parents before them and the many generations of the Beulah family survived long enough for Momma Beulah to crap out a turd like you?

          • Guest

            Your premise that if it leads to death it is a cause of death and should be reflected in some official cause of death list is invalid. If it were, people would never be said to die of car accidents or gun accidents, since the medical cause of death wasn’t the accident but rather a physical injury.

            I never argued that uninsurance is disease, but rather that’s it’s a contributing factor that could have prevented deaths. If you don’t think insurance prevents deaths, then please cancel your insurance policy because it’s obviously worthless, just like your logic and reasoning skills. Good thing your ancestors didn’t have insurance, otherwise a few might’ve had lived longer from prevented deaths and had more children and we’d have even more retards burdening the state of discourse.

          • Onslaught1066

            Don’t worry about it, Beulah, HG explained it to me and I see what the confusion is now.

            I was temporarily side tracked from the meat of the issue by your ignorance, illiteracy and inability to use basic syntax.

            You may go on about your way now, you might, if you like, want to consult a dictionary from time to time to help out with some of the bigger words that you frequently try to promulgate, but I suspect that ‘dictionary’ may fall into the afore mentioned category

            Look to engage me no further on this line of discussion as I am not too eager to continue a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

            Goodbye, farewell, auf wiedersehen, adieu.

          • Guest

            Yes, reading comprehension is often difficult for the mentally challenged. Sorry for not dumbing it down for you.

          • HG

            Az, wants us to recognize that people can die if they don’t get health coverage. That is obviously true.
            We’re saying people don’t die “from” going without health coverage. The die “from” undiagnosed conditions or illness That is just as obviously true.
            We’re saying two different things.

          • Onslaught1066

            Well, that’s different.

          • HG

            Yeah, that wasn’t clear from Az’s original comment.
            Her conclusion based on that are still wrong. See my response above to her original comment.

          • Guest

            And sure you can prove a negative. Looking at the sky and seeing it’s blue proves it is not orange. Similarly, looking at your posts proves you are not a smart person.

            A proximate cause is still a cause.

          • Onslaught1066

            Reading your drivel proves you have no brain.

            Now prove your claim that people die of Uninsurance.

          • Guest

            Scroll up two posts to see the studies I linked. Now prove them wrong or provide evidence to the contrary.

          • Onslaught1066

            That ignores your contention that people die of Uninsurance.

            Now prove your claim, an official death certificate listing Uninsurance as the cause of death will do just fine.

            Your lack of compliance will be taken as admission of your lack of veracity.

          • The one you don’t care for

            From the link: “The uninsured frequently face medical debt or go without necessary care, and too many of them die prematurely.”

            You read the article, but you did not understand it.

          • HG

            I read it. It says nothing of children dying. Not one thing. The youngest person in the study was 25. Did you read it?
            Now quit squabbling and start thinking.

          • Guest

            “Other factors being equal, researchers found that uninsured children in the study were 60 percent more likely to die in the hospital than those with insurance.” http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/lack-of-insurance-may-have-figured-in-nearly-17000-childhood-deaths.aspx

          • HG

            “”may have contributed” is not proof of anything.

            17,000 deaths over 20 years?
            In a country with a population of 74.1 million children you’re talking .02% or .001% a year. Hardly an argument for Obamacare.

            Nevertheless, your original claim that without Obamacare Denny’s employee’s children will die is a false dilemma. There is no proof that Obamacare will cover everyone, in fact there is evidence to the contrary. There are other options to getting healthcare for those without insurance.

            After all this back and forth your claim is still as absurd as when you typed it.

          • Guest

            It’s still much more than anything you’ve provided. I’ve shown a lack of insurance increases risk of morality for the general population and among children with three studies. You’ve shown no evidence to the contrary besides the unfounded assumption that access to charties and emergency rooms solves everything (things which the studies already account for). Even if you think the numbers are small, it still supports my argument, You’ve provided nothing to the contrary and have completely failed to support your unfounded assumptions.

            What’s absurd is you’ve been given ample evidence I am correct, provided nothing yourself to support your arguments, and still think you’re correct.

          • HG

            No, it’s not more than anything I’ve provided. You claimed that without Obamacare children will die from uninsurance. You can’t prove that.
            I’ve shown you that there are other options which provide care for the uninsured besides Obamacare. That alone proves you wrong.

          • Guest

            You haven’t provided a damned thing. You say that there are other options, but haven’t shown that those will sufficiently prevent deaths with the same effectiveness insurance would have. Charities and emergency rooms won’t provide the same care preventing death that insured person would receive, as my studies show. Unless your next post is a study or article to that effect, you’ve lost the argument.

          • HG

            I didn’t provide a damn thing except the fact that hospital and charities treat sick people for free?

            I think you’re forgetting who claimed what.

            You’re the one who made the claim. I challenged that claim. You have yet to prove that Obamacare will prevent children from dying for lack of insurance. You’ve only shown that 17,000 children “may have” died over a 20 year period for lack of insurance.

            You ignore the fact that Obamacare leave 30 million non-elderly without insurance. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-obamacare-will-leave-30-million-uninsured
            That alone proves you wrong.
            This is the problem with you liberals. You assume too much. You think that only the gov’t can guarantee children won’t die from a lack of healthcare. You assume that Obamacare covers everyone. You assume Denny’s employees children will die without Obamacare. You assume that there is no other option.
            You’ve failed again.

          • Guest

            What a surprise, you couldn’t provide a link showing that emergency rooms and charties will prevent deaths at the same effectiveness an insured person would receive. I could support my claim with a study that said there “was a powerful link between health insurance and risk of dying for children” and the best you could come up with some people still might not buy insurance. You failed to show that there is no link between insurance and child morality, while I could show otherwise, and have therefore lost the argument.

          • HG

            There you go again. I never claimed that hospitals and charites will prevent deaths the same as insurance and I doubt there exists such a study.

            You’ve failed to show there is no child uninsured under Obamacare. Therefore, your claim is false.
            You claimed that without Obamacare Denny’s employees children will die. Again you assume the other available options will not prevent their death. Something you cannot possibly prove.
            Well, I guess you’ll continue your fairytale understanding of healthcare. Enjoy.

          • Guest

            Still no evidence to support your counter argument that other options are just as effective as insurance. You’re the one the fairytale.

          • HG

            What was my counter argument? Do you even remember?

          • Guest

            HG:”Nobody dies for lack of care unless they can’t get to it or refuse it, period”

            You provided absolutely no evidence to support that claim besides access to emergency room treatment, which the studies I provided for you already accounted for. People still die for lack of insurance even with emergency room care available because emergency rooms can’t cure illness and diseases that should’ve been treated long before a person got so seriously ill it warranted a trip to the emergency room or provided long term care for some illness like chemotherapy. You failed to show that that charities and emergency rooms would stop those uninsured from dying had they had insurance, while I provided several studies that show they do die regardless of that acesss.

            Until you provide a least one shred of evidence that emergency room and charities stop people without insurance from dying, your claims are wholly without merit.

          • HG

            You should have scrolled up higher. That wasn’t my original argument.

            This was:

            “That is called a false dilemma. Your argument presumes either we have Obamacare, or children of Denny’s employees will die. It couldn’t be further from reality”

          • Guest

            So you don’t deny that your claim nobody dies for lack of insurance was incorrect?

          • HG

            No. Your claim that without Obamacare children of Denny’s employees will die, is a false dilemma. No way around it.

          • Guest

            So you don’t deny your claim that nobody dies for lack of insurance was incorrect?

            It’s not a false dilema; Children without insurance are more likely to die because of that. I provided a study showing “a powerful link” between uninsurance and child mortality and you’ve provided nothing. Unless you provide hard facts or evidence to counterweigh that fact, you’ve lost the greater debate (nobody dies for lack of health insurance) and the subset of that debate (no children die for lack of insurance) .

          • HG

            Az, you’re not being honest about your argument. Let’s revisit your claim again. You said that without Obamacare children of Denny’s employees will die for lack of health coverage.

            First, Obamacare isn’t the only means of health coverage.

            Therefore, other health coverage options besides Obamacare, like charity or hospital policy may prevent children of Denny’s employees from dying for lack of health care.

            You then went on to argue insurance in general rather than defend your original claim regarding Obamacare. Which expands your original argument. This also is incorrect since:

            Second, Obamacare leaves 30 million uninsured.

            Therefore, Obamacare cannot guarantee health coverage and subsequently cannot prevent all from dying for lack of insurance.

            Finally, Obamacare isn’t the only health insurance available.
            Therefore, other insurance options may provide coverage and prevent one from dying for lack thereof.
            You’re wrong.

          • Guest

            You lost the greater the debate nobody dies from lack of health insurance and now want to pretend that’s not the focus, fine. Other options were available to the children in the study I provided for you, but there was still a “powerful link” between unsinsurance and mortality. You provide no evidence that other options prevent children from dying, just conjecture. Until you provide facts to support that argument, you’ve lost. Keeping living in your fantasy world were nobody dies from lack of insurance despite only facts to the contrary.

          • HG

            Ignoring the facts I laid out won’t cut it Az. But you’re free to do so.

          • Guest

            You didn’t lay out any facts, just conjecture that other options would stop those people from dying. Other options were available to the children and deceased in the studies I provided for you, but there was still a “powerful link” between unsinsurance and mortality. Until you provide facts to support that argument, you’ve lost. You’ve ignored all my facts and pretended like your conjectures are fact when they are not.

          • HG

            Why not respond to my comment above?
            One of the facts I laid out is that:
            Obamacare leave 30 million uninsured.

            Respond above.

          • Guest

            Irrelevant. We know the Denny’s employee should not be among the uninsured because federal law will require it and that’s why Denny’s is raising prices, after all.

            My evidence: Studies showing a uninsurance leads to unnecessary deaths.

            Your evidence: baseless, unsupported conjecture that other options can provide the employee health care tantamount to insurance and arguing that people will still not be uninsured (which does nothing to undercut my argument that uninsurance leads to unnecessary deaths anyways)

          • HG

            Not all Denny’s employees are full-time and therefore not all will be required to by covered by Denny’s.

          • Guest

            Let me just say It’s extremely funny that you are now effectively advocating an even stricter insurance mandate to prevent any and all theoretical deaths from lack of insurance to prove me wrong.

            You think I argued that children will die without lack of health insurance, which is not true. I said it can lead to death. My original post was about “a child won’t die from lack of health insurance.” That’s not the same thing as a child will die without insurance. As long as one full time employee gets covered, they will have insurance and can’t die from lack of insurance. If you want to argue theoretically about who will be still not be covered, please prove that no employ will be covered under the new law if you really want to counter my argument that “a child won’t die from lack of health insurance.”

          • HG

            Let’s try something. For arguments sake, lets agree that children die for lack of insurance. Now, how does that make your claim that without Obamacare children of Denny’s employees will die for lack of coverage true since:
            1. Obamacare leaves 30 million non-elderly uninsured.
            Correct me where I’m wrong, but it seems to me that even if children die for lack of insurance, Obamacare coverage doesn’t change that.

          • Guest

            It’s irrelevant. We know the Denny’s employee should not be among the uninsured because federal law will require it and that’s why Denny’s is raising prices, after all.You seem to think that’ll you win the argument by proving theoretically some people will still die for lack of insurance despite the law, which is completely disingenuous. Unnecessary deaths will be prevented because there will be fewer uninsured. Some people still ride motorcyles without helmets or don’t wear seatbelts, but laws requiring helmet and seatbeltuse still undeniably save lives.

            Again to recap:

            My evidence: Studies showing a uninsurance leads to unnecessary deaths.

            Your evidence: baseless, unsupported conjecture that other options can provide the employee health care tantamount to insurance and arguing that people will still not be uninsured (which does nothing to undercut my argument that uninsurance leads to unnecessary deaths anyways)

          • HG

            According to your argument, they will die from uninsurance. 30 million are still uninsured, therefore children will still die according to the “facts” you provided.

          • Guest

            No it’s not, the argument is whether people die from uninsurance.

            Again to recap:

            My evidence: Studies showing a uninsurance leads to unnecessary deaths.

            Your evidence: baseless, unsupported conjecture that other options can provide the employee health care tantamount to insurance and arguing that people will still not be uninsured (which does nothing to undercut my argument that uninsurance leads to unnecessary deaths anyways)

          • HG

            If they are uninsured how can you be sure they won’t die?
            If children die from uninsurance, as you argued and I agreed for agument’s sake, how can you be sure they won’t die?

          • Guest

            This is pointless. I’ve given several studies showing a link between non-insurance and mortality and the best you’ve been able to come up with is conjecture arguments that some people still might not buy insurance or that charties stop them from dying, none of which does anything to disprove the claim that people die prematurely as a result of not having insurance.

            Unless you can provide any credibile evidence in your next post that counter my argument that people die from lack of insurnace, I’ll consider it a concession that you are in fact wrong.

          • HG

            You’re avoiding the answer.

          • Guest

            What a surprise, no credible evidence to support your argument. Thank you for that admission of being wrong.

          • HG

            By avoiding my question you’re avoiding the “fact” that 30 mil are uninsured by Obamacare. That “fact” I provided conflicts with your original claim.

          • Guest

            Still no evidence to counter my claim that uninsurance leads to unncessary deaths. Thank you for that admission of being wrong once more.

          • HG

            You realize I agreed with that point for the sake of argument?
            My question does not disagree with that point. It challenges your conclusions based on that point being true.

          • Guest

            If you agree people die because they are uninsured, the debate is over. Showing uninsured might still die because of that condition under the ACA only reinforces that fact.

          • HG

            See my response to your original comment above.

          • HG

            I think I’ll start over. I’ll try responding to your original comment in a way that assumes your point about insurance is accurate.

          • HG

            Az,

            Let me help you out here. After all your comments it seems to me what
            you may have intended to say was something like without access to preventative healthcare and regular checkups, children “may” die from undiagnosed conditions.
            Just to say that children die for lack of insurance is way to general and not accurate. For, just providing insurance will not guarantee children won’t die. Nobody dies from lack of insurance, they die because of numerous medical conditions that if diagnosed early can often, but not always, be prevented. So even with insurance children may go undiagnosed or find themselves incurably diagnosed. That means that even with insurance some of those same children may die. Insurance cannot guarantee anyone life.

          • Guest

            Still no hard facts or evidence to support your claim that nobody dies from lack of insurance, you lost. Keep living in your fantasy world were nobody dies from lack of insurance despite only fact the contrary.

          • HG

            Will do.

          • HG
          • Guest

            Couldn’t find anything? Thought so. Keeping living in your fantasy world were nobody dies from lack of insurance despite only facts to the contrary.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Children of parents without healthcare can die, will die. That includes anyone who doesn’t have healthcare, including Denny’s folks.

          • HG

            False Dilemma – A fallacy of oversimplification that offers a limited number of options (usually two) when in reality more options are available

          • Guest

            So you don’t deny your claim nobody dies for lack of insurance was incorrect?

          • HG

            You don’t deny your claim is a false dilemma?

          • Onslaught1066

            So you don’t deny that your claim anybody dies for lack of insurance was incorrect?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            It wasn’t:

            Lack of health insurance might have led or contributed to nearly
            17,000 deaths among hospitalized children in the United States in the
            span of less than two decades, according to research led by the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center.

            According to the Johns Hopkins researchers, the study, published Oct. 29 in the Journal of Public Health,is one of the largest ever to look at the impact of insurance on the number of preventable deaths and the potential for saved lives among sick children in the United States.

          • HG
          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            No, he’s just distracting from having said something false, by trying to hammer home something you said that is representative of the truth, but not an exact diagnosis.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            10x.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Charities pick and choose who they give charity to. It’s the very type of death panels you so falsely pretended to care about.

          • donwalk

            The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.[1]

          • Guest

            Having access to emergency rooms doesn’t stop people from dying. Is an emergency room going to provide ongoing chemotherapy for a cancer patient that they would’ve received had they had insurance? No.

            Besides, the children in the study you discussed in the post you responded to had access to emergency room treatment, but they still died a higher rate than children with insurance. How do you explain that?

          • donwalk

            I have never met a Dr. or Nurse who refused taking care of an individual in need in the past forty-plus years.

            Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: Denny’ s Restaurants To Put 5% Obamacare Surcharge On Customer’ s Bills

          • Guest

            Interesting. Do you have any evidence that the kindness of doctors has stopped every cancer patient who needed chemotherapy but couldn’t get it because they lacked insurance? How is the kindness of a doctor going to save a person who had an easily treatable illness but didn’t know about it because they lacked the regular check ups provided for by insurance? Unless you can provide one shred of credible evidence that people don’t die from lack of insurance, your argument is wholly without merit.

            My evidence people die as a result of not having insurance: Argument with evidence, citation, and studies backing up my points.

            Your evidence: Some doctors are nice.

          • The one you don’t care for

            Those over 25 are somebody’s children.
            Did you comprehend it?
            Now quit squabbling and start thinking.

          • HG

            True. But likely not a child. You may be the exception.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You fool!

            Lack of Insurance May Have Figured In Nearly 17,000 Childhood Deaths, Study Shows

            http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/lack-of-insurance-may-have-figured-in-nearly-17000-childhood-deaths.aspx

          • Onslaught1066

            Why do you care?

            An abortion by any other name…

          • The one you don’t care for

            Once again. Those over 25 are somebody’s children.
            Lack of medical care in the early years, translates to shortened life span due to ravages of untreated illnesses.
            I am sure your mother thinks of you as her child, and you are one of her children.

          • Onslaught1066

            Those over 25 are somebody’s children

            That’s sweet…

            You know, boys from the ages of 12 to 17 are also “somebody’s children”… Why don’t you stop having sex with them, OK?

          • donwalk

            Then Medicare is not needed, as seniors are all children of somebody, right? No wonder Obama took 715 billion away from Medicare and transferred it to Obamacare!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You ignorance is impenetrable. People who can’t get access to healthcare, either because of pre-existing conditions or because they don’t have insurance to get regular health checks, die much earlier because these health issues are not caught in time. The same happens to their children who aren’t covered under the insurance program and diseases, or health issues aren’t caught in time.

            Why are you denying these irrefutable facts? Is this just more fantasy land stuff that cost you the election?

          • Onslaught1066

            Your stupidity is invincible.

            Say, this is fun.

            Run along home now, lil feller.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Say, how did that election work out for you? Did you learn anything from the results?

          • Onslaught1066

            That no matter how much money you throw at the education system, you can’t fix stupid?

            Of course with the proper insurance plan we could have you ‘fixed’.

          • donwalk

            This has always been in effect since 1986.
            The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.

          • John Willis

            Ummm… I got cancer as the result of being unable to afford the medication I needed. I was denied assistance because I make $15000 a year. I guess that’s ok by you.

        • RCND

          People die. It’s normal. How long of a life is long enough? Why that long? What deaths are acceptable, and what ones are not?

          Death is tragic, but it is a normal part of life. Science is wonderful in that it helps us live longer, and understand how to live longer, but life ends… and depending on your beliefs you move on to whatever the next phase is.

          So back to your ridiculous premise that people die because they lack health coverage. BS! People die because:
          1. They did not take care of themselves. Most the time that can be done with proper behaviors. Most health care costs are associated with the consequences of bad behaviors
          2. They were stupid
          3. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time
          4. It was their time to go

          Don’t be a drama queen and try to blame a lack of health insurance. It just doesn’t wash.

          • Guest

            I’ve given several studies showing people do lack health insurance and the best you can come up is with “people die, get over it.” Why should anyone buy health insurance then, since they’re going to die regardless? You provided no facts to justify your claim that nobody dies from lack of insurance, while I have. Stop living in a fantasy world where the only available evidence is contrary to your beliefs.

          • RCND

            Yes I did. Lacking insurance doesn’t cause their deaths nor does having it necessarily prevent death. Insurance only relates to who and how a bill is paid. Don’t confuse the two, as has happened too much in this debate.

            I say again with some emphasis, people die because:

            1. They did not take care of themselves: it doesn’t matter if you have insurance or you don’t… or if you do, how good is your policy- If you smoke, don’t exercise, don’t eat right, you will probably be sicker and die quicker. It still ultimately is a personal responsibility to live healthy
            2. They were stupid: Google the Darwin Awards for some excellent examples of this, but they don’t have to be that extreme to get the point. This one sort of ties in to 1 above too.
            3. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time: health insurance wont prevent you from getting killed by a drunk driver
            4. It was their time to go: People get old and die from that all the time. No insurance will ever provide everlasting life, and if it did, I honestly wonder how many would want it.

            The key to being healthy and maximizing your lifespan ultimately rests with personal responsibility. Government can’t give that to you via stealing resources from others. You have to do it yourself. And that is why health care, and funding for it, has to remain a personal responsibility or little incentive will ever remain for people to take responsibility for themselves.

            So back to my questions, as macabre as they sound…. How long of a life is long enough? Why that long? What deaths are acceptable, and what ones are not? I answered yours, you answer mine.

          • Guest

            No you didn’t. You say insurance only relates to how a bill is paid, but that’s not true. If you don’t have insurance, your not going to get potentially life saving treatment that a person with insurance would receive. Hospitals won’t provide routine care to the uninsured unless they have the money upfront, which is often not the case Your lying to yourself if you think someone with insurance is getting the same care as someone without insurance.

            Just because people die from other reasons doesn’t mean their lack of access to health care wasn’t a proximate cause of their death. A person with preventable cancer didn’t die because they were unable to take care of themself, were stupid, killed by someone else, etc. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize a person without insurance isn’t going to get the death preventing care like chemotherapy or regular checkup that insurance provides for that will prevent unncessary deaths, but it does take a retard to ignore the facts and argue people are going to die anyway. It was not there time to go because that death could’ve been easily been prevented had they had access to health care. Why should anybody buy insurance under your logic if we’re all going to die anyway? If you truly believe insurance doesn’t prevent any deaths, please cancel your policy because it is as worthless as your logic and reasoning skills.

            I provided several studies showing being uninsured leads to premature deaths and the best you can come up with conjecture. Unless you find facts showing no connection between being uninsured and mortality, your argument is wholly without merit.

            As to your personal responsibility argument; under the old health care system, uninsured would often leave their emergency medical bills unpaid, leaving the bill to be paid by the federal government (and ultimately us through higher taxes) or the hospital (and ultimately us through higher bills so the hospital can cover that loss). Obamacare makes people take personal responsibility by at least mandates that that everyone get insured so we no longer have to pay higher taxes or medical bills to cover that cost.

          • RCND

            You switch between routine and life-saving care in the same argument. Life-saving care won’t be denied. Routine care is a matter of the priority each individual places on it, but up until Obamacare was implemented you were not denied access to it without insurance.

            Do I think people are wise to have insurance? Yes. Do I believe we should force them to get it? No. That isn’t liberty or free choice. That is exactly what we are sacrificing with Obamacare, and that sacrifice is not acceptable in a free society. We simply can’t call ourselves that anymore if this is allowed to go on, but maybe that is really what you want.

            You can cite all the studies you want, and it is always easy to find one that supports your personal beliefs… those conducting the studies had a vested interest in passage of Obamacare.

            But, common sense tells us my arguments are right. You claim access to insurance will prolong life, and to hell with the costs to society, our economy, and our way of life. Even if God forbid a single payer system becomes a reality though, nothing will ever top personal responsibility as the key to prolonging life and living a quality one. If that is not encouraged and practiced, then it doesn’t matter what your insurance situation is. No matter what, health care remains and must be a personal responsibility.

          • Guest

            Let’s see, yet again you do not provide or offer any evidence to support the argument that nobody dies from lack of insurance. Yes people will still die even if they have insurance, but it won’t be because they missed treatment that insurance would’ve provided for. An emergency room isn’t going to be able to save the life of stage Iv Cancer patient who missed years of chemotherapy because she couldn’t get insurance.

            So to recap:

            My evidence: several studies done before Obama was even in office showing people without insurance are at greater risk of premature death

            Your evidence: nothing besides a gut feeling you are right. If it’s so easy to find studies that support your position, please provide just one showing no connection between health insurance and mortality.

          • RCND

            And you have failed at something very basic in your multipost rant…how is it that access to health insurance is a right, and if it is one, how is it that right is to be paid for by others? I have a right to keep and bear arms, but no one else but me pays for them.

            You misread my earlier post on studies. I said it was easy for YOU to find studies supporting YOUR position. That is because those doing the studies have a vested interest in expanding government. You are correct… these studies predated Obamacare, but that is neither here nor there.

            I don’t need a study to prove people don’t die from a lack of insurance. People die from all the things I stated earlier. Those things are the direct link to death. You may wish to continue to push that has some indirect influences, but there are just as many other indirect influences as well that are not insurance related but otherwise played a factor a good example may be family history. With your way of thinking however, we should want to welcome eugenics funded by the government as the next “right” we are entitled to.

          • Guest

            Couldn’t find anything to support your argument, huh? Didn’t think so, probably cause you’re wrong. I didn’t say health care was a right, I said a lack of insurance leads to premature deaths. Just because people die from other things doesn’t mean lack of insurance doesn’t lead to premature deaths. You’ve completely failed to prevent any shred of credible evidence to the contrary. If an uninsured person needs treatment for prohibitively expensive chemotherapy that a person with insurance would receive but doesn’t receive it, they died because they lacked insurance. But for their lack of insurance, they would have lived. Case closed. Your wrong.

            Just to recap:

            My evidence: several studies showing a connection between lack of insurance and premature deaths.

            Your evidence: Nothing but a gut theory you are right and laughable argument that because having insurance will prevent unnecessary deaths the government will implement a eugenics program. I almost hope they do so I won’t have to deal with retards like you anymore who can’t bring any facts or evidence to support their wholly meritless arguments.

          • RCND

            I never looked and never said I would. Some facts don’t need a multimillion dollar study to know. There simply is not a direct causal link between no insurance and dying.

            People of your opinion however, need studies to push your agenda. But when you control the study you can come up with the outcome you want.

            I was purposely being absurd with the eugenics remark. Of course I don’t think that will happen… if it did I don’t even want to envision a government run a eugenics program just based on the results of them running a postal service.

            I accept your surrender by the way. When the liberal results to namecalling, they know they lost.

          • Guest

            If your “facts” were so obvious you should have no trouble proving them, but you’ve completely failed at that. You assume you are right despite only facts to the contrary and couldn’t explain how if an uninsured person needs treatment for prohibitively expensive chemotherapy that a person with insurance would receive but doesn’t receive it, that that person did not die but for their lack of insurance. If something would’ve happened but for another thing, it’s a cause of that thing. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/but-for_test The person would’ve lived but for their lack of insurance, therefore the lack of insurance caused their death. You contention to the otherwise defies basic logic. If you think my studies are wrong, please tell me your objection to their methodology.

            Yes, people like me do like having studies to demonstrate the veracity of our arguments. It’s called being reasonable and objective. People like you, however, will believe they are correct despite all the evidence to the contrary. It’s sad.

            Since you couldn’t provide any evidence of no link between lack of insurance and death while I could show there was a link, I accept your constructive admission that your argument is wholly without merit.

          • RCND

            People with insurance still die in spite of the treatment received which insurance may pay for, so nice try. That same analogy you cite can be used to blame pretty much anything we want to justify spending money on as a “cause”. For example, we can blame a lack of internet access as a cause for death to because an individual didn’t have access to information available there which if heeded could have prevented a condition from developing into a life ending cause. Gee, I guess that means we better set up programs to ensure access to the internet for all, and compel them to have a means to access it even if they don’t want it. bottom line is, again, I don’t need a study to tell me the obvious. The existence of a study, or lack of one, also does not necessarily make something a fact or not a fact as you contend… especially where the government is concerned.

            Now I am glad to see your admission that health insurance is not a right. We have some common ground here. Health care, which is most often paid for with insurance, is a service which is exchanged on the free market. Many squeel that it is a right and should be available to all without consideration of cost, but that ignores the fact that the market plays into it whether we like it or not. Lets compare that to some other market exchanges.

            If you do not eat or take in water, you will die. That is a direct and causal relationship, unlike with health insurance where lacking it will not lead to death. And while yes some assistance programs do exist to assist the poor in accessing food and water, those essential commodities are still for the most part exchanged and accessed via the free market. There are also no laws requiring us to access food and water, yet the commodities are needed to live. We also have no laws that establish these commodities as essential rights per se. Costs are also driven for the most part by the market just like health care. We may not like that health care costs are high, but how much are they supposed to cost, and why that much? Not, what do we WANT them to cost, but supposed to and why.The reality is it is a service driven by the market with costs set by that market

          • Guest

            Excellent, you are making progress now that you recognize that lacking health care coverage is the actual/but for cause of deaths. Now you object to it being the proximate cause. Since you’re clearly new to this logic and reasoning thing, that basically means there is a sufficient relationship between the two events that one can be considered the cause of the other.

            What are the directly foreseeable risk of not having internet access? Well maybe some will be bored and RCND won’t be able to download copious amounts of gay pornography, but if the internet goes down it’s not too likely people will die. What are the directly foreseeable risks of not having health insurance? That one will get sick and than not be able to receive health care and die from that untreated illness. Avoiding that is one of the main reasons people buy health insurance, after all. Insurance industries even advertise such a risk in advetising their products; “Lack of insurance causes some people to ignore their body’s warning signs or avoid buying needed prescription drugs. Minor conditions can become serious, and even fatal, if not treated in a timely fashion.” http://www.allaboutinsurancequotes.net/our_services.php

            Now I’m sure you’re thinking backards now from the conclusion that healthcare is not causing deaths to somehow show that it is not a proximate cause. Before you do, think of this: Do people die from not buckling their seat belt? While it’s true that people don’t instantly die for not wearing seat belts, it is a directly forseeable risk from that, just like not being insured. People technically die from the physical injury resulting from a car accident, but such an injury could’ve been prevented had they been protected by the seat belt ust as a woman’s death from breast cancer would’ve been prevented if she had been provided regular check-ups that she would’ve received under an insurance program.

            Your argument about rights to health care are simply irrelevant to the debate of whether people die as result of not being insured, which is what we are discussing. I never claimed there was a right to health care because that is irrelevant to what we are discussing, not because I agree there is not. Although I will note you are wrong about legal access to water. North Dakota, for example, requires drinking fountains in buildings open to the public. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ptnCelKEAx8J:www.legis.nd.gov/information/acdata/pdf/62-03.1-02.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgg5Nj6yQ4WYYTUNL5yX5zwSzulMQjVdROH6zc8xAVUAXZ9GKtjA3XM4OZk66NmcX3jYBp4eQDNmZEaH-zlOle0eMuMst7lQUMbGO57YloWYbN0IAkLRdTi5UOJN1mNpPABEjlz&sig=AHIEtbQDfwLg1IJZhblj0xczmKeyHuWEnw

            To recap:

            My evidence: Hard argument back up with studies and citation proving people die as a result of people not having insurance

            Your evidence: A gut feeling, a fatally flawed criticism that dying from a treatable disease isn’t a foreseeable risk from lacking insurance, and an irrelevant tangent into whether there’s a right to water and food.

          • RCND

            Thought you fell over dead there due to lack of insurance. That’s OK, I was out hunting.
            First off, I want you to note that while you attempt to portray yourself as intelligent (and I am not saying you are not), you don’t do your credibility any good through namecalling. You have done it twice now, and it makes it harder and harder to take you serious. You may want to work on that.

            If I lost my insurance tomorrow, I know I won’t die. It is that simple and I don’t need a study to confirm it. I would simply have to pay more of
            my own pocket.Ill have to make some decisions on what I seek treatment for, but if I really need it to live, I know I can get it.It is no different than if I lose my job… Ill live, but Ill have to make some decisions on what is a priority and what isn’t. That is all part of being responsible for yourself.

            Is insurance a good thing? Sure. No argument . Do you need it to live? No. Will you die without it? With or without it you will die, and you will die for the basic reasons I explained earlier; not because you don’t have it.

            At the end of the day, all your studies really mean nothing in the great debate, whatever the motivation is for conducting them and citing them. The real question is the role of government in something as personal as health care, and why we have basically created a bunch of emotional arguments to justify nationalizing 1/5 of the nations economy. It simply doesn’t matter if you are right or if I am, what does matter is no matter how good it may make people feel to pass a train wreck like Obamacare, government has no business being in this business to begin with. What is the next thing they will take over because the problem (real or imagined) was laid at their feet? Government is not supposed to be our Mother, and we need to quit expecting it to be

          • Guest

            Please remember, I am not arguing people will die if they do not purchase health insurance, I argue that people can and do die as a natural consequence of lacking health insurance.

            So basically you lost the argument that nobody dies from lack of health insurance and would rather argue about the proper policy to solve our health care problems?

            Fine, we can start at the fact you’re wrong that Obamacare was a takeover of the healthcare industry. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/

          • RCND

            No I didn’t actually… just from your point of view.All I was ever saying is they won’t die because of a lack of insurance. Your “natural consequence ” viewpoint can be twisted and turned to fit anything you want in order to justify expansion of government. For example, you cite seat belts earlier. Some have expanded government by passing laws requiring seat belt use based on natural consequence type justifications. Why not go for the full Monty then and just outlaw driving? It is the only way to truly be safe fro dying in a car accident. In reality, seat belt laws are as equally unreasonable as outlawing driving because both remove personal responsibility for yourself from the equation.

            The policy argument about Obamacare quite frankly is boring now. Both sides have all their arguments on the table; you are either for or against it now. At this point it is a battle of will and who is going to quit first.

          • Guest

            You’re completely confusing the issues. The issue is whether people die from not having insurance. You then run with that argument saying that if it is true, than the government will do crazy things as a result. The reasonability of the government’s response has no bearing on whether the stimulus for its action is true. Just because the government does something crazy about people dying from not wearing seatbelts doesn’t mean that people don’t die as a result not wearing their seatbelt, does it? If some government goes and blows up the moon because it twists the fact that the moon effects tides into thinking the moon is causing flooding, does that mean the moon doesn’t effect tidal patterns just because its response was unreasoanble?

            I can understand if you don’t want to argue anymore. It must be rather tiring to argue a position that has no factual or logical support.

          • RCND

            I really think you are what is confused, not the issues. People don’t die from not having insurance. All the “natural consequence ” issues you cite IS the problem. Where does the line get drawn? Why there and not some somewhere else (thus my seat belts vs outlawing driving example)? You want that line to be at a point justifying a disaster in waiting called Obamacare. I don’t because it is too damn scary what other “natural consequences ” they say they want to protect me from next. That line has to be drawn somewhere and Ill take mine closer to liberty anyday.

          • Guest

            Nice try, accusing the accuser. Again, your argument is that someone shouldn’t be true because the government might do something unreasoanble as a result. That has absolutely no bearing on whether the reason underlying action is true or not.

            If you’d been following my argument, I’ve already given my answer to your question. The line gets drawn at what is reasonably foreseeable. What are the directly foreseeable risks of not having health insurance? That one will get sick and than not be able to receive health care and die from that untreated illness. Avoiding that is one of the main reasons people buy health insurance, as I said. Again, as I noted, Insurance industries even advertise such a risk in advetising their products; “Lack of insurance causes some people to ignore their body’s warning signs or avoid buying needed prescription drugs. Minor conditions can become serious, and even fatal, if not treated in a timely fashion.” http://www.allaboutinsurancequ

            If you think being uninsured does not present a foreseeable risk of possibly being unable to receive care for a terminal disease, please explain why even though health insurers disagree with you, and also keep in mind that the government’s policy in reaction to its forseeability has absolutely no bearing on whether such a risk is foreseeable.

            Just because you don’t like what might happen if it’s true doesn’t mean it’s not true.

          • RCND

            Because they want to sell their product. And people dont ignore those warning signs because they lack insurance. They do so because they simply don’t place a high enough importance on those warning signs to take prudent actions. And by the way, having insurance doesn’t mean you won’t go to the doc when you should (I haven’t sometimes admittedly) or you will fill and/or take your meds. It still comes down to the individual taking responsibility for themselves.

            If you are following my argument, It doesn’t matter what is reasonably foreseeable or not, and where the line is for reasonably forseeable. What does matter is why it becomes the governments problem versus the individuals problem regardless of what is/ where is. This is really why I don’t ultimately buy your reasoning… I simply don’t care about the reasonable foreseeability issues because they simply are not the governments problem (and really mine because the government works for me) to deal with in the first place. That problem rests squarely on the shoulders of the individual, because that is where the problem squarely belongs anyways.

          • Guest

            You completely failed to provide one reason why people who don’t have insurance are at a a reasonably foreseeable risk of dying as a result.

            Your arguments about personal responsibility are totally irrelevant to the issue of whether people die as a result of not having insurance. It is not contradictory that a person does or does not take responsibility and still dies as a lack of not having insurance. Does a person who buy all reasonable standards, got check ups when necessary, didn’t smoke, was healthy, but comes down with cancer do anything irresponsible? No. Will he die as a result of his uninsurance. Yes, he can’t get insurance to provide for him now and emergency rooms won’t provide chemotherapy. Is that equally true of person who develops cancer from smoking? Absolutely. Since it’s the same result either way, personal responsibility plays no role in the debate of whether people die prematurely from not having insurance. Will lack of personal responsibility still kill some people even if they are insured? Yes you’re right it there will be some, but that doesn’t mean there still aren’t people out there who will die as a result of not having insurance despite taking excellent personal responsibility over their lives. Say what you will about whether personal responsibility had a role in someone’s death, that bears no relationship on whether a lack of insurance is also attributable to a person’s death.

            If you were right that the issue of whether people die from not having insurance depends on whether “it becomes the governments problem versus the individuals problem regardless of what is/ where is.” Does that mean people magically do not die because it’s not the governments problem? If you don’t think it’s the government problem to worry about people starving in Africa, that’s fine, it doesn’t mean they aren’t dying from starvation though.

            Again, just because you don’t like what might happen if it’s true doesn’t make it untrue.

            Also what’s funny is mandating every body get insurance is basically telling everyone to take personal responsibility for their healthcare. Under current law, the uninsured get stabilized in emergency rooms (but aren’t necessarily saved from death, mind you) and the cost of that it passed on to everyone else through higher taxes and hospital bills. Isn’t that outrageous? Shouldn’t people take personal responsibility so they don’t have to pay for others lack of insurance?

          • RCND

            Again, people die because of one of the issues I outlined. If you want to go down the path of insurance coulda shoulda woulda, so be it. We can find a million other “if he coulda shoulda woulda done that, he maybe might prolong life a bit longer” to justify expansion of government and the subsequent removal of liberty from the individual. At the end of the day, I really don’t care if your info is right about insurance or not, except that due to Obamacare the issue now impacts my pocketbook as well as my free choice.

            I also don’t care if access to chemo, for example, maybe coulda shoulda woulda added X number of hours/ days/ weeks/ months/ years to someone’s life or not. If you want that access for yourself, figure out how to pay for it (insurance or otherwise). Don’t dump your problem on me, and create the largest expansion of government we have seen in ages in the process. Whether you add those hours/ days/ weeks/ months/ years to your life is on you. Don’t expect me to care if you do or don’t, and expect that I have a stake in paying for it. Life ends… deal with it. If you want to prolong life through medical care, that is YOUR choice but also must be your responsibility to figure out how you will pay for it.

            I also don’t believe a personal insurance mandate is pushing individual responsibility. I believe people should be responsible for themselves and their bills, but how those bills get paid is not the governments business. The government created this mess in the first place by mandating care would be provided (which I don’t necessarily think is bad) without a mandate on how reparations will be made from the individual, which is interesting because they do have such mandates when it comes to Medicare (their program) payments for nursing home care. They can basically go back ten years and seize assets to ensure they get theirs (I don’t have a problem with this since I pay for that program too).

            So I’m gonna end this discussion with this (because we are getting nowhere, and I have a real job to tend to). It is clear we both believe what we believe and we won’t budge the other. I do respect your passion for the topic, but my mind isn’t changed as with the majority (still even with the election) of other Americans. You have a big sales job ahead of you to reassure that this is the right course for America. Good luck with that..

          • Guest

            So basically your argument devolved back into people die from a lot of things so why bother attributing to any cause that is reasonably foreseeable risk to the death. You failed to provide any shred of evidence that nobody dies from lack of insurance and simply bemoan the fact that if that is true, the government may take actions you don’t like in resposne. Yeah that’s tough, but that doesn’t mean people didn’t die as a result of insurance.

            Just a final recap:

            My evidence: Hard argument with citations and facts that people die as a result of not having insurance.

            Your evidence: You don’t want that to be true because the government might try to solve it.

          • RCND

            No.

            Good day sir.

          • Guest

            Oh, I am so sorry. Where did you provide any argument besides that people die from other reasons or that the government might try to solve it if it’s true? Where did you provide any credible evidence that people do not prematurely die as a result of not having insurance? I must have missed that.

            I can understand why you don’t want to argue any more. It’s rather difficult to argue for a position that has no logical or factual support.

          • Guest

            Looks like you decided to cry and take your ball home. My only solace is that if, god forbid, Republicans succeed in repealing Obamacare, that in the unfortunate event that you come down with a terminal but treatable disease and your formerly federally mandated insurance benefits are terminated, you will be able to take comfort that the death will not be as a result of becoming uninsured, but rather you lack of personal responsibility.

        • $16179444

          and guess what? its going to get worse under OblunderCrap

      • RCND

        There is already a program for kids called CHIP. It existed pre-Obamacare.

        • HG

          Yeah, I know. I’m just letting out a little more line.

          • RCND

            and I replied to the wrong comment… meant to put it on azuleau’s post

    • HG

      I think you meant to say you would rather eat at a restaurant where children won’t die for lack of health coverage.
      Your argument is set up this way:
      Some children die from a lack of health coverage.
      Obamacare provides children of restaurant employees with health coverage.
      Therefore, Children of restaurant employees won’t die from lack of health coverage.
      A few facts that contradict your assumpltions:
      1. Restaurants will not provide health coverage for all employees under Obamacare since they are not required to.
      2. Obamacare leaves 30 million without health coverage.
      We then must amend your claim accordingly:
      Some children die from a lack of health coverage
      Some children of restaurant employees will not have health coverage under Obamacare
      Some children of restaurant employees may die for lack of health coverage.
      Get it?

      • Guest

        Reposted from below:

        Let me just say It’s extremely funny that you are now effectively advocating an even stricter insurance mandate to prevent any and all theoretical deaths from lack of insurance to prove me wrong.

        You think I argued that children will die without lack of health insurance, which is not true. I said it can lead to death. My original post was about “a child won’t die from lack of health insurance.” That’s not the same thing as no children will not die with insurance anymore. As long as one full time employee gets covered, they will have insurance and therefore won’t die from lack of insurance. It just takes one person getting health insurance for my claim that “a child won’t die from lack of coverage” to be true. If you want to argue theoretically that some will be still not be covered, please prove that no employee will obtain coverage under the new law if you really want to counter my argument that “a child won’t die from lack of health insurance.”

        • HG

          Hilarious.

    • $16179444

      so if its so good, why all the waivers? and there goes the air out of any plausible argument you have.

      • Guest

        Waivers too what? The Federal Government will set up a health exchange and states can opt out of it and set up there own. It doesn’t change the fact employers will be required to provide health insurance. That’s why Denny’s is raising there prices after all. If they could opt out, they wouldn’t raise their prices.

        I believe that sound was the air in your head escaping.

  • Neiman

    Actually, this is dumb. The customers will just give 5% less in tips and the waiters get screwed.

    • Your Greek buddy

      Only the tightwads, misers and penny pinchers would deduct $ 0.50 cents per $10.00 dollar plate from a waiters tip.

      • Neiman

        Yeah liberals, unless they are using tax money.

        • Your Greek buddy

          You a conservative thought about deducting the extra 5% from a tip.
          Don’t blame the liberals for your ugly thoughts.

    • Flyby_Knight

      Maybe you will. I plan to continue tipping generously for good service.

    • RCND

      I doubt it. In fact their tips may go up as most people only look at the bottom line when figuring out how much of a tip to write in. Even if it does happen on occasion, it is good for them to see that the Santa Claus they helped elect does come with a cost

  • $141015

    No more Denny’s for me.

  • Harold

    Obama can write another executive order making all customers pay this 5% Obama Care Fee upon entering the restaurant and if you don’t 5 years in prison for disobeying the man from Kenya.

    • Onslaught1066

      5 years free room and board plus free health care?

      Sounds like a democraps wet dream.

      • RCND

        And all the intimacy they can handle

        • Onslaught1066

          That is a given… or “taken”, if you will.

          NTTAWWT

  • Dallas

    Lets boycott Denny’s until they take his franchises away. He’s a gas bag like Bob Murry.
    Murry, who used to be head of North American Coal in Bismarck, required employees to make political contributions to Republicans. He made them attend a Romney rally without pay and has now laid off more than 100 because Obama was re-elected.

    Coal production is declining because of cheap natural gas.
    Lots of guys have died in Murry’s unsafe mines. Put the cheap bastard in jail!

    • sbark

      …….but the Obama regime can kill people with Fast and Furious and now Bengahzi fiasco…………..without any consequenses?

  • sbark

    We cant afford Medicare or Medicaid. They’re unfunded liabilities by untold trillions of dollars, when projected into the future. And the usual dem’cat solution is — what? To impose a third government insurance program that we can’t afford called ObamaCare
    That’s like a working family not being able to afford their two cars, so their solution is to buy a third one.

    • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

      ObamaCare is not a government funded or ran program. You are dumber than you were before November 6th.

      • sbark

        ohh…….thats right its the biggest tax increase in world history, that will encourage usage of perceived “free” medical care by 400% as did medicare…..
        So your saying the Post office isnt govt funded either?….its all funded by useage like ObamaCare is supposed ot be?………..talk about underutilized brain cells….
        Liberalism could take over control of the Sahara desert……..and in 5 yrs there would be a shortage of sand…………that is how they ruin everything they touch……100% failure

      • $16179444

        Government provided/government paid – this is the VA Health
        System, the armed services, and the Indian Health Service. Doctors in
        these systems are employees of the government and will stay that way
        under health care reform. There are many complaints with these
        institutions, but there are also many satisfied patients. This will not
        change under health care reform.

        Privately provided/government paid – this is Medicare and Medicaid.
        Many patients are okay with Medicare and those on Medicaid are glad
        they have something. Doctors don’t like these programs so much because
        the pay isn’t great and the Medicare/Medicaid watchdogs notoriously look
        for a reason to not pay the doctor’s fee. Doctors can refuse to
        participate in these programs, so it technically isn’t government
        control.

        • $16179444

          so in other words Hanni – you have NO fucking clue.

          • Guest

            Obamacare is not an insurance program, it’s a mandate you get insurance from a private insurer or be insured through one of those programs. You don’t sign up “for Obamacare.”

            In other words, you have no fucking clude.

          • $16179444

            yeah, you get it FORCED on you or you get penalized. The gov’t has no right to force me to buy anything. but hey, keep trying.

          • Guest

            Um, yes it does Mark. The Supreme Court ruled the law was constitutional, just because you think otherwise doesn’t make it true. But as you so stupidly put it, “hey, keep trying.”

  • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com Goon

    I saw this one coming and of course the left is upset… I guess they just expected everyone to pay their fair share.

  • $16179444

    i don’t understand why the left is upset about all of this. THIS is what YOU VOTED FOR! suddenly you see the consequences (remember, we had to pass it to find out whats in it) and guess what? THIS IS IT! you voted for it, now own it.

    • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

      Yes, we voted for people to get healthcare who could not obtain healthcare. Do you expect people to be ashamed of that?

      Or, do you think that your anger impacts anyone who cares about others?

      • $16179444

        and you really think (no i don’t believe you do) that obamacare is the solution? i almost pity people like you who are so ignorant.

        • Guest

          You know who I feel bad for? People whose arguments are so lacking in merit that they can’t offer any argument besides that they feel bad for others for not sharing in their meritless beliefs they can’t provide any evidence for.

          • donwalk

            Thank you for providing the perfect example!

          • Guest

            Your welcome, but will notice that I could provide argument besides feeling bad for the other side while you could not.

          • $16179444

            if that is your idea of providing anything factual, well i’ve got some bad news for you.

          • Guest

            So you don’t think having health insurance will stop people from dying from a lack of insurance?

          • $16179444

            ‘we have to pass it to find out what’s in it’ – and you bought it hook, line and sinker. then they infamous, it’s not a tax until it was a tax before it wasn’t a tax then its a tax – again you got duped. what you call beliefs are actually facts.

          • Guest

            Lots of people read it and new the overall mechanics of it. Anybody who paid any attention knew that the law was knew it was insurance mandate that if broken resulted in a tax penalty. Nobody got duped except people that know nothing about the law, like you.

            Under the current system, the uninsured get stabilized in emergency rooms and that cost gets passed onto us through higher taxes and medical bills. If you don’t think requiring everyone to buy insurance is the good way to stop that, what do you thinks the best way to end what is an effectively socialized system, hmm?

          • $16179444

            and yet your president was just so convincing that it wasn’t a tax, and now its the biggest tax hike in history that will do nothing except bankrupt us – the gov’t can’t tell me i have to buy something or get penalized. you want to be lead around like a lost puppy, so be it…i however do not.

          • Guest

            Except that Obamacare actually reduces the deficit by billions of dollars. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471 Any other patently untrue criticisms you have to throw at it?

            What’s the solution than Mark? Just because you’re apparently to stupid to realize the value of health insurance doesn’t mean I want to pay higher taxes or higher medical bills to cover the cost of your uninsured ass. That’s socialism, you’d think a true conservative like you would think that was bad.

          • Guest

            It’s patently untrue that it was the biggest tax hike in history. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/jul/25/mark-neumann/biggest-tax-hike-us-history-obamacare-says-gop-us-/

            I can already tell this conversation is going to go nowhere because you’re just spouting falsehoods and conjecture with no citation to back up your arguments. You’ll just transfer your anger about your small dick toward the government and won’t be convinced by anything I say. Angry about that comment? Well you shouldn’t be since citation-less arguments are good enough for you.

Top