Well-intentioned regulators can still hurt Michigan business
Americans, especially Michiganders, are finally seeing light at the end of the tunnel as we work our way out of this recession. But for many, simply getting back to where we were before the financial crisis is a struggle in itself. For example, before all this economic turbulence, I was living the American dream as a small-business franchisee for Domino's Pizza. Through years of hard work, I grew my business to 12 stores.
But like many others, I was forced to downsize just to stay afloat when the crisis hit. It was a tough decision as no small businessman wants to see the fruit of one’s labor disappear so quickly. Ultimately it was the right move, and with the support of the community, I was able to weather the storm and maintain four great stores.
As the recovery set in, I eagerly began growing my business once again. Unfortunately, just at this time, I was surprised and disappointed to learn that the 2010 health care bill specifically targets pizzerias with costly and nonsensical regulations.
Section 4205 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act states restaurants like mine must provide nutritional information for all menu items. While I support the end-goal of this rule whole-heartedly, the authors clearly had no understanding of the businesses they sought to regulate.
For starters, they don't realize that the majority of my business is done by delivery. The regulation requires that I maintain expensive, in-store menu boards, despite the fact that 90 percent of orders are placed either by phone or online, meaning that the vast majority of my customers will never see these menu boards, let alone act on them. Domino's implemented an online calorie counter in order to get customized information directly to these customers.
In addition, the regulations would mandate that I label per whole pizza, instead of per-slice. But pizza is a shared meal, and most people are not thinking of having to do long division when they are eating just a slice or two. The law also requires stores to provide the calorie count for every possible type of pizza. For my chain, Domino’s, there are 34 million possible combinations (yes, we counted each one). To account for such a customizable product, I would have to provide calorie ranges capturing the lowest to highest possible calorie combination for every pizza. But since there are so many options, the ranges could be extremely wide - up to 2,000 calories in some cases. I fail to see how this overly-broad information will help consumers.
David Cesarini at his recently redesigned Domino's Pizza franchise location on Plymouth Road in Ann Arbor.
Joseph Tobianski | AnnArbor.com
Section 4205 is a clear example of a good intention gone wrong. Unfortunately, the consequences of this regulation will make it much harder for small business owners like me to grow. The Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act provides a smart, workable solution to providing calorie information to my customers, while allowing me to get back to making pizza and my pursuit of the American dream.
Dave Cesarini of Ann Arbor is the owner of Domino's stores throughout Ann Arbor and East Lansing.
Comments
GreenMan
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 12:29 a.m.
So, my previous post was deleted. Facts seem to be uncomfortable for AA.com. The food industry makes vast profits selling fat, salt, and sugar to uneducated consumers. Children demand to be fed this concoction because the advertising compels them. This is the essence of the article. The health cost of obesity is billions each year. For today's children, it Is an early death or a life long struggle with health issues - diabetes, heart failure, cancer. This is not wild speculation. This is fact. The author of his article is worried about profits. Who is worried about our children?
GreenMan
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 1:18 a.m.
sHa, Exactly right. The fast food industry prepares concoctions full of salt, fat and sugar, not because of nutrition, but because of the addiction. They use marketing that targets children, even in our schools. They pay their workers minimum wage or less for the McJobs. They create unhealthy people, just like the tobacco companies before them, creating a festering health crisis that gets worse every year (Americans are the fattest people on earth). And when people have their health ruined, Big Food doesnt pay the health care bill, the taxpayers pay. And, yes, Mr. Pizza man loves the Tea Party because he can fool them into doing his bidding under the guise of "small government." Nothing would please him more than having his way without any restrictions on what kind of concoctions he serves. Remember, if you can't tell what it is by looking at it, it is most likely something you wouldn't want to eat. Meanwhile, our future, our children, get fatter and fatter and father. Mr. Pizza should offer some ideas on how to solve the fat problem, instead of stuffing the box with greasy pizza and bread sticks.
sHa
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 10:44 p.m.
Pizza Hut's Nutritional Information is available at: http://www.pizzahut.com/nutritioninformation.html
sHa
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 10:39 p.m.
If Pizza Hut can list nutritional information on a consumer-friendly website, are we really supposed to believe that it would be too much trouble for Mr. Cesarini to do the same? Mr. Cesarini is using this issue to publicize his dislike for Obamacare. As someone above mentioned, it's nothing but political posturing.
E Claire
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 6:54 p.m.
sHa, are you seriously under the impression that pizza is healthy, that you won't get fat or sick eating too much of it. Do you need a sign to tell you that?
sHa
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 6:19 p.m.
The author has an obligation to his customers to be open and transparent, whether it's on a website, product packaging, or in a store.
E Claire
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 5:14 p.m.
Parents should be worried. They make the choice of what their children eat, not the author. I agree with a lot of your post in re the advertising and health costs but really, people are not uneducated about what they're eating. They don't care. People want pizza and he sells it to him. I'm sure he works very hard, even if you are opposed to what does. Lots of people provide services we don't like but they have every right to do so.
Mike
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 9:49 p.m.
I am amazed at how many haters there are in this town................If you are a business owner you do not deserve to make a profit. The war on business is alive and well. Thanks BO
clownfish
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 10:19 p.m.
"U.S. corporations' after-tax profits have grown by 171 percent under Obama, more than under any president since World War II, and are now at their highest level relative to the size of the economy since the government began keeping records in 1947, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. "-Corporate Profits Soar as Executives Attack Obama Policy, Bloomberg.com Jan 17, 2013
clownfish
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 10:05 p.m.
My business has never been better. Profits continue to climb. When I hire a new employee I pay them enough to cover their health insurance, rather than push them into government programs, like Wal Mart does.
dsponini
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 5:12 p.m.
So...which four stores does this guy own? Because I'd like to know which ones to specifically avoid from now on
sHa
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 5:58 p.m.
Thanks for the list.
sayzme
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 5:22 p.m.
Boycott list: David Cesarini Domino's Pizza - 25 Jackson Industrial Drive, #600 Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Ph: (734) 913-8888 Fax: (734) 623-7005 Pizza Delivery/Carry-out.We also cater pizza, salads, chicken, bread. Domino's Pizza - Main St. (Pizza Pride, Inc.) David Cesarini, Franchisee 2282 S. Main St. Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Ph: (734) 332-1111 Delivery or carry-out of Pizza.We also cater pizza, salads, chicken, bread. Domino's Pizza - N. Maple Rd. (Pizza Pride, Inc.) David Cesarini, Franchisee 243 N. Maple Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Ph: (734) 769-4444 Delivery or carry-out of pizza.We also cater pizza, salads, chicken, bread. Domino's Pizza - Plymouth Rd. (Pizza Pride, Inc.) David Cesarini, Franchisee 2715 Plymouth Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48105 Ph: (734) 663-3333 Delivery or carry-out of pizza.We also cater pizza, salad, chicken, bread. Domino's Pizza - Washtenaw Ave. (Pizza Pride, Inc.) David Cesarini, Franchisee 4910 Washtenaw Ave. Ann Arbor, MI 48108 Ph: (734) 528-1111 Delivery or carry-out of pizza.
Bill
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 4:54 p.m.
He needs to go to a Subway and buy a sandwich. While they're fixing it, he will have time to read their calorie counts. They display it well.
Atticus F.
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 2:53 p.m.
Boo Hoo, Millions of Americans are no longer suffering, but I'm suffering because I have to be transparent in my business practices. News flash: If you don't want to run a pizza parlor anymore, I'm sure the OTHER small business owner, who sells pizza down the street would be happy for you to close your doors.
Workerbee2
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 1:34 p.m.
1. If you're ordering a pizza, you are not usually concerned with nutritional information. You know it's bad for you. 2. Small business owners work their tushes off to have what they even have now. If you are willing to work that hard just to serve someone a pizza, hats off to you. 3. This country doesn't seem to want people to succeed. Even the citizens are constantly jumping on people who make money. Unless you're poor, you don't deserve what you have. (This is a rhetorical statement.) 4. I am poor, I can say that. 5. Good luck Mr. Dominoes.
GreenMan
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 3:17 a.m.
I guess there is no shortage of people who think that hard work is owning a Dominoes franchise that provides no value to civilization.
ThinkingOne
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 2:48 p.m.
1. Thank-you for telling me what I am concerned about when I order my pizza. 2. Hats off to everyone who works hard; not just small business owners. 3. I can think of several categories of people who I hope don't succeed (liars, criminals, etc), but it is a bit of a stretch to say the entire country doesn't want anyone to succeed, isn't it? 4. I am sorry to hear that. I hope things improve for you. 5. I do not know who this person is.
Usual Suspect
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 2:30 p.m.
"Even the citizens are constantly jumping on people who make money." Including even people commenting on this column.
mr_annarbor
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 12:30 p.m.
As someone pointed out, Domino's has already done the research, so how could this possibly cost "tens of thousands of dollars"? I have a friend who owns several Hungry Howie's pizza stores. I don't hear him crying about this.
craigjjs
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 11:42 a.m.
"The Ann Arbor Township-based company is rolling out redesigned stores in certain markets across the U.S., including the new location in the Traver Village Shopping Center.[a Cesarini store] "The fact is, better than one in three of our customers come into our stores for carryout," [Domino's CEO] Doyle explained. "We just haven't been very welcoming to those folks in the past." http://www.annarbor.com/business-review/dominos-pizza-is-rolling-out-a-new-look-for-its-stores-starting-in-ann-arbor/ So, adding tables and redesigning a store for customers who come into his stores makes sense, but posting nutritional information for these same customers makes no sense.
Arboriginal
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 3:43 a.m.
If you can't do business then step aside and somebody else will fill the void! It's how we roll.
E Claire
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 5:32 p.m.
We have a right to Government Pizza!
OutfieldDan
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 3:26 p.m.
What we need is Government Pizza.
GreenMan
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 1:16 a.m.
I am genuinely inscensed that government is siding with obese children against job creators ( and millionaires). Where in the constitution does it say that fast food purveyers (I use the term food loosely) must tell people what's in their manufactured concoctions? If parents really cared what their children were eating, Dominoes would be a distant memory.
arborani
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 1:55 p.m.
When/where does this become a constitutional issue? Would that be Fed, State, or body constitution?
GreenMan
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 1:41 a.m.
I agree Walker. Why do we keep treating obese children like there Is something wrong with them? Think of the Social Security savings if children dont live past 45. We could pay Dominoes a bonus.
walker101
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 1:30 a.m.
By the looks of people around here it's the main staple.
walker101
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 12:26 a.m.
Well-intentioned regulators can still hurt Michigan business, oxymoron at it best, the initial draft of 2,000 pages has increased to almost 40,000 pages of mandates, regulations, penalties and the list continues, they also have to hire over 10,000 IRS employees to oversee the program, they still have no idea how much it will cost the working class. The increase for those making $250k will pay more taxes, business owners of 51 employees will be paying penalties for not providing health care premiums that will increase by as much as 80% when it kicks in. Just research any large health care provider. The affordable healthcare act will insure that the economy will take another tail spin or a very modest increase at best.
Arborcomment
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 1:51 a.m.
On April 25th, the IRS Commisioner (he's since been replaced - something happened after that) testified before a Congressional Committee that the number of employees needed for ACA implementation was 1,694. In addition, the IRS budget allocated for ACA implementation would be just shy of $1.2 billion for years FY 12 through FY14.
sHa
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 10:52 p.m.
As far as Obamacare, let's not forget that the electorate has spoken; rather loudly, in fact, in November, 2012.
clownfish
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 10:13 p.m.
Plus, you are incorrect, laws are written by congress, most of whom were elected. The rules for enforcing those laws may be penned by unelected regulators, but they are hired by elected officials and overseen by congress or the Administration. If you are unable to read and understand 906 pages, then please stay away from Stephen King and George Martin novels.
clownfish
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 10:10 p.m.
I understand, now that BO is in charge historical context has no place in discussions of policy. I recall a saying that used to be popular among conservatives... "America, Love it or Leave it". Maybe you could pull a gerard depardieu/Snowden and move to Russia to protest your loss of freedoms?
maallen
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 10:05 p.m.
Clownfish, I am not making this a partisan issue, but a government issue. It is ridiculous that a law gets passed, we as individuals and businesses must abide by it, but we don't know what's in it until years and thousands of pages later. And on top of it, these laws are being written by unelected officials. What's wrong with this picture? These overburdened regulations, regardless from republican or democrat, is getting totally out of hand.
clownfish
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 9:45 p.m.
I find this interesting, I cannot seem to locate a count on the number of pages of regulatory instructions for Medicare Part "D", passed by the GOP and signed by George W Bush. I would think that the GOP would have this pasted all over the net, as they are concerned about this type of thing. Same goes for the PATRIOT Act, No Child Left Behind Act and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (the largest federal government reorganization since the Department of Defense was created via the National Security Act of 1947) . MALLEN, do you know the answer to this?
clownfish
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 9:32 p.m.
MALLEN: you are counting different things, the actual ACA passed by congress is 906 pages, plus 31 for the "Health-Related Portions Of The Health Care And Education Reconciliation Act Of 2010.". What you appear to be counting are the rules and regulatory explanations, which are written to help business negotiate any new laws. For instance, included in the WaPo Factcheck is a reference to GOP passed Medicare reform, and it's TEN OF THOUSANDS of pages of regulatory wording. I don't recall any whining about that socialist program...did I miss it? From Washington Post factchecker: "The documents that turn up are both final rules and proposed rules, as well as "notices" (such as for new funding or committee meetings) and "presidential documents" (mostly news releases). But the proposed rules are often similar to the final rules, except that the final rules include pages of public comments. Looking just at rules, you end up with just 9,625 pages, while proposed rules amount to 7,432 pages. One could argue that this amounts to double counting, since the final regulations, not the proposed rules, are what matters to business. using the same methods used by the McConnell team, we found tens of thousands of pages of regulations for Medicare Advantage and the prescription drug plan (Medicare Part D), which were pushed by Republicans. At the very least, one can point to 10,000 pages of tiny regulatory type regarding the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Frankly, this is to be expected in any large and complex governmental undertaking." ---- What you may be counting is the regulatory
maallen
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 8:50 p.m.
Clownfish, According to the Washington Post Fact Checker the Affordable Care Act comes in at 7,432 pages as of May 15, 2013. That number will just keep growing as Kathleen Sebeilus continues to write regulations in the coming months. Remember, we don't have the final regulations yet. The 1,200 IRS agents needed to for the Affordable Care Act is for up to the year 2013. The final report of June 2012 issued by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration said this "The IRS has not projected staffing needs beyond Fiscal Year 2013. A lack of documentation to support the staffing requirements needed to implement the ACA precluded TIGTA from providing an opinion on Ithe adequacy of staffing requests to support implementation. The IRS did not analyze each provision to determine the amount of staffing necessary to implement the provision." So we know 1,269 IRS employees/agents are needed in the beginning, year 2013. But what happens after 2013? How much will it increase? If 1,200 employees are all that is needed then why do they need another $1 billion on top of the $1 billion they got to implement ACA?
clownfish
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 1:32 p.m.
WALKER, walk down to Downtown Home and Garden, talk to the owner of that business about the ACA. Mr Hodesh says it has been GOOD for his business and his employees.
sHa
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 1:15 p.m.
Thank you, Clownfish, for stating the facts. Walker, as well as Mr. Cesarini, are grasping at any straw they can find. It does get old after awhile.
clownfish
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 12:43 p.m.
This post is full of myth, if not outright lies. The ACA is just over 900 pages...housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf The IRS is not hiring 10,000 (or the usual number cited by the myth driven, 16,000) From Factcheck.org- Q: Is the IRS seeking more than 1,000 new workers to administer the new health care law? A: Yes. But many of them will be needed to deliver tax credits, not dun taxpayers. IRS says it needs 291 agents to enforce the law, including 193 to "ensure accurate delivery of tax credits." Here are the areas, as defined by the IRS, where the new 1,269 FTEs will be needed (see pages 21 through 66): Improve Taxpayer Service, 150 Increase Coverage to Address Tax Law Changes and Other Compliance Issues, 363 Ensure Accurate Delivery of Tax Credits, 504 Administer New Statutory Reporting Requirements, 187 Implement Individual Coverage Requirement and Employer Responsibility Payments, 65 Health insurance premiums will not go up 80% due to the ACA. For some historical, rather than hysterical, reference...from 2000-2010 health insurance premiums went up an average of 130%, BEFORE the passage of Obamacare and it's conservative based mandatory coverage. Why don't you try learning about things you hate, rather than making up stuff? If the ACA was what you claimed I would be against it too, but it is not even close to what you claim it is. Seek out new sources of information, WALKER, you need it!
grye
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 11:39 p.m.
Obvious this is a bunch of whiney dems who want overregulation and have no desire to be in business, to understand how business works, or the costs involved. More government regulations will solve everyone's problems.
John
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 5:46 p.m.
Did those whiney dems want overregulation in West, Texas?! Probably but because Preacher Perry runs the state they didn't get it and next thing ya know ...KABOOM!
sHa
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 1:46 p.m.
Less government regulation, huh? Amazing how quickly people forget companies like the New England Compounding Center, the under-regulated company allegedly responsible for the deaths and/or devastating illnesses of more than a few Americans.
Stuart Brown
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 11:36 p.m.
Another Atlas shrugged! Cry me a river.
hmsp
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 10:57 p.m.
Good that this OP/ED is immediately followed by an article that notes how much healthier the Huron River is with sensible regulations in place. The "Free Market" is not going to help in the slightest in these areas, and needs to be counter-balanced with sensible regulations. Welcome to the real world.
E Claire
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 8:22 p.m.
It's costly and useless. People in this country will keep getting fatter and more unhealthy until they change their lifestyles. A chart of calories will not do that. Yes, I know they've done studies, but has the problem in this country truly gotten better or worse? Go away from the AA area and look around you....it's gotten worse.
John
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 5:41 p.m.
@ E Claire - what's not sensible in asking business to post this info?
E Claire
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 5:30 p.m.
The key word here is "sensible"
Are you serious?
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 10:20 p.m.
aa.com - Please label these type of columns "Opinion Pieces" or something that more accurately describes them.
snark12
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 10:58 a.m.
It was labelled "Guest Column". That doesn't suffice?
Kyle Mattson
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 6:22 a.m.
Hi AYS- This is filed under the opinion section of the site as are all other guest columns.
leaguebus
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 7:24 p.m.
The McDonalds on Stadium has the calorie count of all its sandwiches on the Menu board that you order from in the store. The pdf below has all of Domino's nutrition info. This just does not sound all that hard to post this info in the store somewhere. With this pdf, Foto 1 could print posters with the info for not that much. http://cache.dominos.com/homev8/docs/menu/dominos_nutrition_v2.21.00.pdf
bobslowson
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 5:35 p.m.
Cost would be less than $500
ThinkingOne
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 2:36 p.m.
So how much do you estimate it would cost to print this out and laminate the pages and mount them in plain view?
leaguebus
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 7:31 p.m.
http://tinyurl.com/ybzxap8 The pdf URL was truncated in the original post, above is the tinyurl version. Sorry, keep forgetting to use TinyURL first.
drew_blows
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 7 p.m.
If 90% of your customers will never see the nutritional signs then was it wise to sink all that money in redesigning your Plymouth Rd store? Doesnt make sense if 90% of your customers wont use it.
drew_blows
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 6:55 p.m.
David, I am going to to give you the same advice that those in the private sector give to public employees: no one is forcing you to work there. If you dont like the rules you have to play by go find something else to do. I hear Wal-Mart is hiring. All this opinion piece has done for me is to now research which stores you own and guarantee I never spend my money there.
ManA2
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 12:20 p.m.
So your argument is that citizens should not involve themselves in shaping government so that it serves citizens in the best way possible?
walker101
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 12:28 a.m.
You must be a state or federal mployee.
drew_blows
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 11:15 p.m.
I am a public employee that deals with Fed and State regulations every day.
John of Saline
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 9:49 p.m.
Tell us which businesses you work for. It sounds like you need some additional regulations that you will have no input into forming. The forms will be in triplicate.
Jonathan Blutarsky
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 6:30 p.m.
Sorry - Not biting the 34 million argument. Bottom line is if you don't want to supply nutritional information for your product then you need to get out of the food business - BYE BYE!
Jonathan Blutarsky
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 2:16 p.m.
Sixth paragraph - "For my chain, Domino's, there are 34 million possible combinations (yes, we counted each one)"
ManA2
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 12:19 p.m.
Missed where he said that. He said he wants to provide it when people are actually making their decision.
LXIX
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 6:26 p.m.
The customer should know what is in their food, where it comes from, the health benefit/danger, before they choose to buy it and eat it or not. That said, I wholeheartedly (pun) agree that government regulations are often misguided in their application and should be available on the ordering website or as a handout pamplet for those who want it. If people knew their juicy burgers were really Pink Slime, how many would suddenly have a mac-attack? Maybe the food industry could clean up and police its own human burdonsome practices instead? ...hits your eye like a big pizza pie - That's Amore !
PattyinYpsi
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 12:44 p.m.
"Maybe the food industry could clean up and police its own human burdensome practices instead?" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one, LXIX! Because we all know how diligent industry is about using some profits to clean up its own business practices, don't we? BP, Enbridge, and CF Industries--the owner of that fertilizer plant in Texas that exploded thanks to Texas's notorious lack of business regulation.
walker101
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 12:30 a.m.
Maybe you should tell they FDA to stop approving those injections for back problems.
Nicholas Urfe
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 4:44 p.m.
The majority of fast food joints would refuse to disclose the ingredients in their food. The majority would refuse to provide any nutritional information. Many would still be using cheaper transfats. Except that regulation requires those disclosures. So cry me a river if they don't like being forced to do that. Especially the mega billion corporations like Dominos.
E Claire
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 5:06 p.m.
And, unfortunately, this is what people choose to eat. They know it's bad but they'll eat it anyway. Nutrition information will not change that.
GreenMan
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 3:06 a.m.
Nothing wrong with making money. A lot wrong with poisoning people. Dominoes is not providing nutrician. They provide fat in pan of dough.
E Claire
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 5:28 p.m.
Haven't you heard - people who work hard and make money are evil. We should all just wait for the gov't to take care of us as they know best.
Usual Suspect
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 2:27 p.m.
Twice now you've posted hateful comments based on people making money.
Dirtgrain
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 4:41 p.m.
"For my chain, Domino's, there are 34 million possible combinations (yes, we counted each one). To account for such a customizable product, I would have to provide calorie ranges capturing the lowest to highest possible calorie combination for every pizza." So, it is your understanding that you will have to list the 34 million possibilities (with two calorie figures for each) on a sign? That would be an extremely large sign. I picked a book off of my shelf--it has approximately 340 words per page, with each page being about 7" x 4" (which is 28 square inches). Let's say you need 7 words for the average combination (have no idea how many would really be needed) + two calorie-range figures = 9 words, on average, for each entry (not counting punctuation) 34,000,000 * 9 = 306,000,000 306,000,000 / 340 = 900000 900000 * 28 = 25,200,000 square inches = 175000 square feet Given those hypothetical numbers (and the 34 million combinations that you calculated), you would need a sign that takes up 175,000 square feet. I'm willing to be that some sort of exception is made here--as opposed to restaurants with so many possible combinations having to put up such big signs. "I now face the prospect of spending tens of thousands of dollars for unhelpful menu boards that a tiny fraction of my customers will see." Tens of thousands? For four 175,000 square foot signs? Bargain.
Brad
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 5 p.m.
Of course, we are talking about people who are proud of the fact that they actually *counted* all 34 million possibilities. Should've paid a little more attention during that "permutations and combinations" thing, eh?
SemperFi
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 4:06 p.m.
Mr. Cesarini lost credibility with me when he promoted the, so called, bi-partisan (2 democrats & 45 republicans) "The Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act." If this tiny bit of proposed legislation is the best thing that republicans can roll out then it just shows how little they are offering in the way of good governance. The following is a typical clause from the proposed legislation: (verbatum) (A) by striking `For the purposes of this clause,', inserting the following (and indenting the text that follows appropriately): `(I) IN GENERAL- For the purposes of this clause,'; This is just a case of pathetic political gesturing and nothing else.
arborani
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 1:43 p.m.
@ DonBee - why not both?
DonBee
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 4:14 p.m.
SemperFi - I don't know the last time I walked into a pizza place - probably 25 years ago. I do know my family eats pizza about 1 time a month. Mostly ordered on-line. I would prefer the nutrition information there, not on the walls of a store I will never enter.
Sparty
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 3:21 p.m.
Good luck getting any reasonable modifications on the ACA through Congress. The far right-wing Tea drinkers in the Republican House prevent ANY legislation from passing into law, leading the last two sessions to be the least effective House in US History and making Speaker Boehner the least effective Speaker in History. They have wasted Americas time by trying to repeal the ACA 37 times rather than attempt to compromise on modifications, etc. And for those complaining about the 1 year administrative delay in businesses with fewer than 50 employees (less than 1%) having to report if they offer insurance, try to recall GW Bush and his 700+ Signing Statements in which he indicated which portions of newly enacted laws he would enforce and which he wouldn't before you go off the deep end, ok? Republicans had no problems with those 700+ modifications. Hypocrites.
maallen
Tue, Jul 23, 2013 : 5:48 p.m.
Sparty, I am not denying that for SOME rates are going down 50% in New York. I have said this before. However rates are also going up for SOME in New York and you are denying this because the government never mentioned it. 29 districts in New York will see their rates go up and that is a fact. Two major news outlet reported on this: Forbes and Miami Herald. Other news outlets reported on this as well, but I am too lazy to look up the names. It is a fact that over a million people in California will see their premiums increase under the exchange. The Executive Director of Calilfornia's exchange said this, but you refuse to believe it because it is not on their website announcing that. Again, you have to look deeper than what the government is telling you. It is what they are NOT telling you that you should be worried about. Do you really think the government is going to hold a press conference to announce that over a million people in just one state will receive a premium increase under the exchange or that 29 districts in New York will receive premium increase?
sHa
Sun, Jul 21, 2013 : 11:43 a.m.
Truth never penetrates an unwilling mind. J. L. Borges
Sparty
Sun, Jul 21, 2013 : 2:34 a.m.
The STATES of NY and CA are reporting themselves that their premiums are going down, Maallen. As are the 11 other States. Argue all you like, but the FACTS are the facts. Spin, spin, spin away. I'm done replying as you continue denying reality.
maallen
Sat, Jul 20, 2013 : 6:51 p.m.
Apparently some like to repeat only one side of the story and not dig deeper to see what is going on. It is true that in some areas of New York has rates that are about 50% (in 38 areas/districts) less than what they are normally paying, but Sparty leaves out the fact that 29 districts within New York will be seeing rate increases between 20 to 39%. Gee, I wonder why Obama and/or HHS didn't mention this? Also, New York back in the early 90's already had adopted most of Obama's health coverage mandates into their health insurance including not charging different rates based on age, sex, health, etc and that is why their premiums were 66% higher than the national average. So basically, New York has on average those that are sick on their plans because the healthy people can't afford the high premiums. Carriers are hoping by reducing the premiums in certain areas it will attract the healthy individuals. Also, what is not being pointed out is in order to get lower premiums carriers are also limiting access to their network, meaning less hospitals and less doctors are available to those who buy their insurance through New York's exchange. With that said, most states are not like New York where they already had Obama's mandates in place. In regards to the 11 states that are supposedly coming in with rates lower than what the CBO projected, how did HHS come up with this? What did they compare it to, etc? Without the HHS providing details of how they came up with this, the info is useless for most people. And what about the other 39 states? Indiana's exchange is reporting that their rates are going UP 72% for individuals and about 10% for groups. So, we see rates going up in Indiana, New York, California.... All this when we were promised that our premiums will be lower than what we are paying now.
Sparty
Sat, Jul 20, 2013 : 3:41 a.m.
ROFL. Maallen is all worked up about a Cadillac tax not even going into effect until 2018. It may change, get modified, etc. by then but he likes the oom and gloom and makes all sorts of projections of what MIGHT happen in FIVE years. He also can't accept the fact that 11 States have reported premiums significantly below the CBO's initial projections. Just this past week, NEW YORK said its premiums would be 50% less than prior to ObamaCare. I'm not making up the numbers, I'm just showing the releases from the States or HHS dot gov. Others like to predict, project, assume, suggest, etc.
maallen
Sat, Jul 20, 2013 : 12:25 a.m.
What Sparty failed to mention in his talking points provided by HHS.gov and other governmental departments (whether state or federal level) is that in California they compared individual rates through the exchange to group rates and are saying "See they are lower!" But when compared to individual rates outside of the exchange they are actually higher. The Executive Director of California's exchange admitted over a million people in California will receive sticker shock as their rates will be extremely higher than normal. Also, in California, one of the carriers is only making 1/3 of its network available if you buy through the exchange. As far as Sparty's claims on other states, I will have to research because I am sure once you dig deeper than the PR fluff that the government puts out it isn't as rosy as they would like it to be. One only has to look at California as an example. In regards to the "cadillac tax," it is related to the actual premium and guess what? Premiums are rising just as fast as they had in the past (remember, ObamaCare was to lower our premiums so that the premiums are lower than what we are paying now?) But it is evident that is not what is going to happen so before you know it, many of us will be considered having a cadillac plan in a few short years because our premiums are so high. Employers will be hit with a 40% tax. So what will employers do? They will shift the cost onto the employees. They will raise their deductibles higher, copays higher, prescription copays higher, etc to lower the premiums so they won't get hit with the excise tax. And all of this is exactly what employees are complaining about! Too high of a deductible, too high of copays, etc. Well, now it is all because of Obamacare. Either the companies will drop the coverage to avoid the excise tax, or raise copays and decutibles to lower premiums and put more burden on the working family.......nice, very nice.
Sparty
Fri, Jul 19, 2013 : 6:22 p.m.
Nor can ObamaCare come fast enough for the tens of Millions of Americans who are barred from being able to purchase insurance due to pre-existing conditions, those priced out of being able to purchase it due to bias in pricing due to their gender, age, or health, etc.
sHa
Fri, Jul 19, 2013 : 12:28 p.m.
Our apologies for upsetting your "status quo". If only you could walk in the shoes of many of your fellow Americans...Obamacare cannot come fast enough for those who cannot possibly afford the insane cost of health care for themselves and their families.
Arborcomment
Fri, Jul 19, 2013 : 4:31 a.m.
Then I suggest you direct your comments to: James Hoffa, Teamters Union Joespeh Hansen, Food and Commercial Workers Union D. Taylor, UNITE-HERE Union As a courtesy, you might want notify the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association that they are about to buy a "Cadillac".
Sparty
Fri, Jul 19, 2013 : 3:32 a.m.
The tax on the value of Cadillac level health care plans doesn't begin until 2018, so it's likely not the top priority of HHS which is trying to get the Exchanges ready for operation on Oct 1. The tax is on the amount of insurance above what is considered a Cadillac rate, and is expected to affect very few plans.
Arborcomment
Fri, Jul 19, 2013 : 2:18 a.m.
My! what a happy little kumbaya circle we have here. Meanwhile... On July 12, the leaders of the three large unions in the US wrote to Senate Majority Leader Reid and House Minority Leader Pelosi (cc Obama) that unless "an equitable fix" the ACA "will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week" They also complained that their non-profit plans are subject to the 2-3% health insurance tax and perhaps even more under the "cadillac" health plan surcharges not indexed to inflation. for @ dsponini: technically you can count Wednesday's House action as #38 AND #39. Two bills were debated - #1 was to codify, via legislation, the Obama Administration's July 3 decision (called a "dump" in DC speak - bad news before a holiday) to delay the Employer Mandate. Action #2 was to allow the same delay for the Individual Mandate. Surely, you'll support this - why should big corporations get the benefits and the poor working folks - not? And a perfect illustration, thanks Sparty - a delay is needed by the Administration for the Employer Mandate affecting "1%" of the population. They need a year's delay for 1% - guess we will wait 99 more years for the rest of the program? Train coming folks - bridge is out
Sparty
Thu, Jul 18, 2013 : 12:13 p.m.
Obama is set to give a White House speech in which he is expected to boast how the ACA already is giving 8.5 million Americans an average rebate of about $100 per family this summer, just months before new insurance mandates on individuals take effect.He is expected to crow about how Obamacare policies also helped nearly 78 million consumers save about $3.4 billion in insurance premiums in 2012. The $500 million or so in rebates are related, Aministration officials said, to the ACA rule that compels insurers to give customers money back if they fail to spend at least 80 percent of premium dollars on medical care and heath-care quality improvement, as opposed to administrative costs. In related news, the U.S. HHS Administration on Thursday is releasing data suggesting that some premiums of medium-priced plans that are going on sale in 11 new state insurance exchanges in October are significantly less expensive than had been estimated by the Congressional Budget Office when the law was passed in 2010. The premiums of lowest-cost plan offered in the so-called "Silver" tier level of insurance coverage in those states—including CA,CO, NY, OH, FL, and D.C.—on average was 18 percent lower than the CBO's estimates, according to Obama officials. HHS also found that such premiums available to small employers on ACA marketplaces in six states where data is available are estimated to be an average of 18 percent less expensive than the average premium that small employers would be paying for a pre-ACA silver plan. The trends, if echoed nationwide, could make it less expensive for millions of people to embrace Obamacare, which requires uninsured individuals obtain health insurance next year or face a financial penalty. Open enrollment in state exchanges offering such insurance, which will range in price and benefits levels assigned to escalating bronze, silver, gold and platinum tiers, begins Oct. 1.
sHa
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 10:10 p.m.
Great News!
Sparty
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 9:14 p.m.
Here's the latest update on ObamaCare. I'm sure AC and others will be sure to find fault with these FACTS as the largest States in the Country report huge cost benefits to Americans as a result of ObamaCare: "New York state residents will be able to get health insurance next year on the Obamacare exchange for half the average price available in the state today.Some 17 insurers will offer coverage, which will come in four tiers: bronze (the lowest and cheapest tier), silver, gold and platinum (the most expensive). Each plan will have a standard set of benefits, allowing people to choose between insurers based on price, officials said. The Empire State is the latest to reveal premiums that are lower than current rates. Residents in California and Oregon, among others, will also have offerings that are cheaper than many plans on the market today. The administration and Democrats trumpeted the news, which runs counter to arguments advanced by Obamacare opponents who said that health reform would cause rates to skyrocket."
sHa
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 5:56 p.m.
I suppose the GOP feels the need to keep fighting Obamacare, even if they all know it's pointless. Too bad they refuse to put their energy into making sure that everyone has the security of health insurance, like they and their families enjoy.
dsponini
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 5:42 p.m.
Another vote by the GOP on ACA coming up this week. Making their grand total of 38 times trying to repeal it when they know it has NO CHANCE. Insanity = doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome GOP = insanity
sHa
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 5:23 p.m.
I think we can agree on one thing: Healthcare insurance for ALL is certainly a heated topic. Many, and I would say most people's opinion of Obamacare is influenced by the fact that they either already have the benefit of health insurance, or they do not.
Arborcomment
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 1:56 a.m.
First you say there's "nothing" then you want "something better" - so which is it? Unless you like "train wrecks", even "nothing" may be preferable.
sHa
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 1:30 a.m.
Gee Arborcomment, can't you come up with something a little better than Ryan/Wyden??? Looks like they parted ways over their "Plan". Sorry about that :) http://www.qando.net/?p=13542
Arborcomment
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 11:47 p.m.
"And there you have it." LOL
Arborcomment
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 11:45 p.m.
And left wing dogma walkers tend to think their sponsored legislation somehow becomes sacrosanct. Despite the fact it had ZERO votes by the opposition and even required special deals for passage within the liberal party (including one to a Michigan Congressman). They further spout government propoganda as fact, when independent analysis says otherwise, even ignore one of the liberal drafters of the bill in his warnings of a "train wreck" in implementation. Rarely does a major program require modification of this scope BEFORE implementation and is indicative of a poorly planned program. But they (left wing partisans) will stick with it to the end - how is that A123 stock working out for you? And @sHA and "ESPECIALLY" Sparty, google the Ryan/Weeden bipartisan healthcare proposal for an alternative. Further, if A2.com's comment registry went far enough back, you would discover that this commenter actually did offer alternatives that included - wait for it - actual portions of ACA as part of a solution.
sHa
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 11:50 a.m.
"ESPECIALLY when they had nothing to offer of their own." And there you have it...
Sparty
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 4:58 a.m.
Right-wing partisans fail their history classes: every major piece of legislation with impact the size of ObamaCare has had tweaks, adjustments, modifications, etc. during their rollout. Examples include Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. These programs are not static. Responsible parties should join together to make them better, ease the implementation, not to obstruct, misinform, etc. EESPECIALLY when they had nothing to offer of their own.
Arborcomment
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 2:37 a.m.
@sHA - you have a problem with independent analysis? Or does an attempt at evaluating claims seem too far fetched nowadays.
sHa
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 2:20 a.m.
And when one relies on Politifact for his rebuttal, it can be equally entertaining to the rest of us.
Arborcomment
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 1:36 a.m.
And when you almost exclusviely rely on government web sites for rebuttal... You get government propoganda. But we enjoy it.
Arborcomment
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 1:28 a.m.
All aboard Sparty's Obamacare express. Let's start with the engine: "It isn't the first time Obama has reversed himself on lower premiums. During the 2008 campaign Obama argued at least 15 times premiums would go down, saying for a family the average drop would be $2500. The independent fact-checking site Politifact rates this a "promise broken" citing an Obama campaign economist who helped come up with the $2,500 figure and who disavows its use relating to premiums alone." Then we'll add a few boxcars let's mark them SHOP, CLASS, STAR, Delayed, Etc. Followed by the caboose, the "pass it and then we'll read it" Pelosi special. Which brings up an interesting question Sparty. Why would an opposition party even consider amending, or being associated with this mess? And why would only a four year old bill, not even implemented yet, even need "reasonable modifications"? (answer: see caboose).
sHa
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 11:04 p.m.
Maallen, please tell us what your alternative health insurance plan is for those with pre-existing conditions who are waiting for Obamacare to take effect. Oh that's right, you don't have one.
maallen
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 9:55 p.m.
Sparty, It was temporary in the fact that it was to close down once the exchanges got up and running and then the people were transferred over to the exchanges. It wasn't meant to shut down to people BEFORE the exchanges opened up. That's what TEMPORARY meant. Yes, it had a fixed budget. But that fixed budget was estimated to last until the end of 2013 and to cover a lot more people. End result? It did neither. It didn't cover anywhere near the amount they said it was going to cover and they budgeted miserably to cover the costs of those it did cover. And this is the same government entity we want running the Affordable Health Care? They can't even get something so small as this correct, how can we expect them to get something as huge as ObamaCare correct? Are we to believe the government's FIXED BUDGET figures in implementing and running ObamaCare?
maallen
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 9:46 p.m.
Sparty, You said "under Obama, the Borders fences, technology, and Agents have expanded further than under any president in history." Please tell us which is further expansion: from 9,800 border agents to 20,000 or from 20,000 to 21,444? It's not a trick question. But I do especially like how you conveniently left out the fences and the technology part of Obama's claim too.
Sparty
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 9:25 p.m.
The Temporary High Risk Pool was shut down when it ran out of money. Do you see the word TEMPORARY, @Maallen? It had a fixed budget. Despite the number of participants, it was intended to close down at the point in time that claims were projected to spend the FIXED budget. It was hoped that it would last until ObamaCare was implemented in January, 2014. Those participants considered high-risk, with pre-existing conditions, were thrilled to be able to get insurance given the barriers that prevented them from obtaining it elsewhere. The issue here was the expense, and other eligibility requirements.
Sparty
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 9:19 p.m.
Ah, those partial facts of yours Maallen: "Our ruling Wasserman Schultz said, "President Obama has the most border patrols and border security deployed at the border of any previous president." She is correct that the highest number of border patrol agents has been under Obama: there were 21,444 in 2011. Wasserman Schultz was careful here and said "most" and didn't talk about the growth rate. But it's worth noting that big growth was during Bush's tenure: between 2001 and 2009, the number of agents posted nationally rose from about 9,800 to a little more than 20,000. Other border security measures are not as simple to quantify. The key piece of infrastructure -- the fence -- was launched under Bush. Most work on the fence and other border security improvements continued under Obama. We rate this claim Mostly True."
maallen
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 8:05 p.m.
Sparty, The High Risk Pool was closed down for two reasons: 1) It ran out of money and 2) Had a terrible sign up rate. Sparty, first you say the SHOP program was NOT delayed, but then you go and post a quote saying it was delayed....lol
maallen
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 7:59 p.m.
Sparty, Wish you quit listening to Debbie Wasserman and MSNBC and do some of your own thinking. According Politifact.com Border Patrol went from 9,800 in 2001 to 20,000 by 2009. As of 2012 the number of agents is 21,394. Hardly the greatest expansion of any president is under Obama as you claim. Fencing: Between 2005 and 2010 fencing increased from 120 miles to 649 miles, Obama as president played no part in this increased fencing. In 2011, Obama cancelled an $860 million program that used technology such as sensor, radar, cameras, etc. In October of 2011, KathlSecretary of Health and Human Services said the CLASS Act was financially unsustainable as written. It was repealed under "The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012." However a new 15 member board was created to make recommendations to Congress about how to develop "a plan for the establishment, implementation and financing of a system that ensures the availability of long-term services of individuals in need..."
Sparty
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 2:36 p.m.
Officials announced on July 5 that insurance exchanges could relax how they verify the income of people who apply for federal financial help in the first year. But experts say the temporary change won't necessarily make it easier to scam the system. The subsidies at issue are meant to help people who can't afford to pay full freight for insurance. Generally speaking, the less you make, the bigger the subsidy you get.The purpose of the change is to ease the initial administrative burden on the exchanges, which roll out in October.The new rule doesn't fully excuse exchanges from having to verify income, said Judy Solomon, VP for health policy at the Center on Budget &Policy Priorities.Exchanges must still check the applicant's income against a federal database, which will include information from his federal tax returns and a record of Social Security benefits.The exchanges will be looking for disparities between what the applicant says and what's in the database.If it looks like someone is understating his income by more than 10%, and the exchange doesn't have other sources to quickly check against, the exchange may choose to rely on what the applicant says.In the end, if someone slips through the cracks -and gets more of a subsidy than he is entitled to - he still could be found out.That's because the exchanges are only approving estimated tax credits that a person can use to help pay their insurance, said Larry Levitt, a senior VP of the Kaiser Family Foundation. The final calculation of a subsidy's will be done after the fact by the IRS."Your actual credit will be calculated based on actual income when you file your federal tax return," Levitt explained.And they may owe a penalty, too, since they must attest when applying for subsidies that they are not filing false information.
Sparty
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 5:43 a.m.
"Back in April, federal officials concerned about the potential for possible system glitches put off until 2015 a provision that would offer small businesses owners a way to allow their employees to choose from among a variety of competing plans in the new online marketplace being overseen by the Obama administration. Similar to last week's announcement of a one-year delay in the requirement that businesses with 50 or more workers provide coverage or pay a fine, the move to delay the "employee choice provision" was cited by opponents as an example that the health law was in trouble. Still, the decision at the time relieved insurers, who feared there wasn't enough time left to sort out operational complexities, but proponents lamented a loss of choice for employees. But now, as new marketplaces prepare to open for enrollment Oct. 1, it appears that most of the states creating their own online marketplaces are going ahead with "employee choice" for small business workers, researchers at Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute found in a report Thursday for the Commonwealth Fund".
Sparty
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 4:20 a.m.
HHS dot gov, that is
Sparty
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 4:18 a.m.
@AC: the temporary high risk pool was always just that - temporary, until it's fixed budget was spent. Surely you knew that? The Class Act was not scrapped by Obama, it was repealed by the bipartisan Congress in January 2013, surely you knew that? The choice of insurance plans for small business was not delayed or rolled back - there was never a guarantee of the number of insurers that would participate in the individual Exchanges or the Businesses SHOP Exchanges, surely you knew that? The SHOP program was not delayed until 2015, surely you knew that? Where do you get the info for your claims? HHH dot gov is the official site, presumably it is up to date.
Sparty
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 4:09 a.m.
@Superior Twp: under Obama, the Borders fences, technology, and Agents have expanded further than under any president in history. Further, under Obama, more illegal individuals have been deported than under any president -he spirited more in 3 years than Bush did in his entire 8 year term. Finally, illegals cannot vote. Please!
Arborcomment
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 9:42 p.m.
All Aboard Sparty! Join the Obamacare express... Employer Mandate: delayed until 2015. Small Business "SHOP" program: delayed until 2015. Basic Health Plan (123% of poverty): delayed until 2015. Requirements for income verification and health insurance status for programs and subsidies: delayed or scaled back. "STAR" Quality Ratings for Insurance Plans: delayed or scaled back Choice of Insuance Plans for Small Businesses: delayed or scaled back Requirement that State Medicaid Agencies notify individuals of eligibility for federal assistance: delayed or scaled back. Managed Care Option: delayed until 2015. IRS requirement that businesses fill out IRS form for any purchase over $600: scrapped. "CLASS" act section of Obamacare offering federally-subsidized insurance for long-term care: scrapped. Temporary High Risk Pool: failure and killed. And Congress had nothing to do with this train wreck.
Superior Twp voter
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 6:06 p.m.
Thank heaven for the "far right-wing Tea drinkers in the Republican House" as they clearly see the ACA for the USA societal-destructive albatross it really is. Left unchecked your party would want to control every aspect of every American's life, not to mention open borders to increase forever the count of left-leaning voters. As Mr. John Dingell said, "we must control the people."
Bryan Ellinger
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 2:43 p.m.
Mr. Cesarini expects us to accept that his only option to comply with the regulation is $15K in signage that few will ever see? Spread open some pizza boxes and get to work with a Sharpie, dude.
dsponini
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 5:45 p.m.
He just hates government... This is 'Murikkka!
johnnya2
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 3:09 p.m.
If his signage costs $15k, he is getting ripped off. A division of the company I work for could do this for around $200
Brad
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 2:32 p.m.
"I was surprised and disappointed to learn that the 2010 health care bill specifically targets pizzerias " Not only surprised and disappointed but also paranoid it sounds like. "Specifically targets pizzerias"? C'mon.
Jake C
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 7:21 p.m.
If it has a specific section "targeting pizzerias", there's a very good chance a lobbyist for a food industry group was responsible for drafting that part of the legislation and passing it along to a congressman for insertion into the Bill.
Mark Wilson
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 1:56 p.m.
Government regulations are not free. How much more are you willing to pay for pizza to provide nutritional information that is ignored by nearly everyone? I would like Domino's to display *that* on the menu. Large pizza: $8.99 + $1.12 for taxes and nutritional information.
Jake C
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 7:19 p.m.
Why stop there, why not break down their receipt by all associated costs? How would you like to see this: Large Pizza, $1.50 (ingredients) + $2.00 (labor income) + $0.75 (labor insurance + benefits) + $1.50 (building rent + utilities) + $1.00 (profit) + $1.11 (taxes) + $0.01 (nutritional information display board). That'd be fun.
spaghettimonsters
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 3:40 p.m.
Why would I buy this "pizza" at all? It's junk.
grye
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 11:36 p.m.
That's right KM. Without all that nutritional information and calorie/fat content data, we'd never know that the pizza just tastes pretty darn good. Just try to remember, eat slowly, and don't have 2 more slices when you are full. I do like the idea of posting the additional costs for overregulation.
KMHall
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 4:01 p.m.
Mark Wilson Do a little math and logic. What is the cost, to all of us, of too little regulation? Follow the chain of ramifications.
Sparty
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 3:28 p.m.
Please, like Dominos doesn't provide the nutrional info for the their franchisees? Do they not negotiate national discounts on signage options? The Rule specifically targets pizzerias? Only that type of business? Paranoia setting in? Many States and Cities already independently require this info, regardless of ObamaCare. Duh.
ManA2
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 1:37 p.m.
This man runs a small business and he'd like the regulation to be enacted in a way that will be more efficient and will be seen by his customers. He isn't trying to avoid giving them the information, but give it to them online where they actually order. Seems pretty straight forward.
E Claire
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 8 p.m.
The typical liberal (not Democrat) HATES business owners and anyone who dares to make a profit. Go back and review these posts again, you'll see. What is so wrong with starting a business, working hard and making a good life for your family? If you can't afford a BMW but I can, that on you, not me. I have no obligation to support anyone but myself and the children I brought into this world. What I choose to give to those less fortunate should not be mandated by the government. Bring on the down votes...
E Claire
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 7:51 p.m.
Its a franchise, that means HE owns that store. HE pays the bills and pays for use of the name.
sayzme
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 5:26 p.m.
E Claire - yes those evil "libs", they're diabolical I tell ya!
E Claire
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 5:23 p.m.
It is very straight forward but the libs have done a good job portraying the small business person and rich and evil.
spaghettimonsters
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 3:39 p.m.
This is NOT a small business. It's a franchise of a giant corporation. This guy can cry us a river. Then suck it up and post the information.
dexter resident
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 1:09 p.m.
Domino's owner is going down the same road as Pappa John's Pizza. Complaining about Regulations, etc. Stick with selling pizza Both of you hurt your bottom line when you veil political comments in the news. You do not hear Little Ceasars complaining. They are selling pizza like crazy. One more thought What else do you want to not bother with to insure high standards.
TB
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 6:43 p.m.
Little Caesar's sells $5 hot and readys, either cheese or pepperoni. They don't have nearly as many different menu combinations as most pizzerias. Regardless, do you really want an unfunded mandate to restaurants to provide that level of detailed nutritional information? Whatever it costs for all restaurants to comply with that, I'd think there would be thousands of more effective and efficient ways to spend that money to encourage healthy eating. How would you feel if it were your restaurant that the government was telling you you needed to waste thousands of dollars on signage that provides little to no benefit to your customers?
sHa
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 5:48 p.m.
Yes, of course I understand that many will choose to pay a penalty rather than pay for health insurance. Many are in for a rude awakening when they realize just how much insurance is going to cost them. Believe me, I am self-employed and I know there is no free lunch. The ACA is NOT going to rein in health costs; it is, however, going to help those who have never before been able to afford health insurance coverage. It's going to level out the playing field. Those who have had health insurance never really worried too much about those that didn't. With Obamacare, the tables are turning... All we can do is hope for Universal Healthcare in the future. Getting there is going to be painful.
E Claire
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 5:21 p.m.
How does forcing people, who already can't afford insurance, to either buy a bare-bones policy or pay a fine, providing care to more people? Do you understand how many people are in the middle, don't qualify for any gov't subsidy or medicare, but are now supposed to be able to magically come up with a premium payment each month? You do understand that hundreds of thousands of people will still not be covered, right?
sHa
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 4:17 p.m.
Sorry, Outfield, the insurance exchanges will be up and running October 1. Might as well get used to the idea of health insurance coverage for all, not just some.
OutfieldDan
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 3:15 p.m.
Obamacare is not installed yet. The full impact is forthcoming - if it ever gets implemented.
Sparty
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 3:37 p.m.
Regardless of the spelling, @Dexter is 100% correct. The founder of Papa Johns was a huge opponent of ObamaCare while campaigning heavily for Twit Romney, threatening that he'd have to close down if Obama was re-elected and ObamaCare wasn't repealed. Well, guess what? Obama won overwhelmingly and ObamaCare is the Law of the land and is here to stay despite 37 expensive and time consuming wasteful attempts to repeal it by the least productive House of Representatives in US History led by the least productive Speaker (Boehner).
Brad
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 1:56 p.m.
Three? What's the problem with "Domino's"?
Arborcomment
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 1:39 p.m.
Sadly, "Cottege In" is not involved or we would have a foursome.
Basic Bob
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 1:24 p.m.
Three pizza chains, all misspelled.
Silly Sally
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 12:55 p.m.
This is one of those regulations in the 2,000 page Obamacare bill that was not read until much later. I'm sure that old Dingel never read it. but will love getting credit for fixing a problem that he created.
clownfish
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 9:48 p.m.
MALLEN: you are counting different things, the actual ACA passed by congress is 906 pages, plus 31 for the "Health-Related Portions Of The Health Care And Education Reconciliation Act Of 2010.". What you appear to be counting are the rules and regulatory explanations, which are written to help business negotiate any new laws. For instance, included in the WaPo Factcheck is a reference to GOP passed Medicare reform, and it's TENS OF THOUSANDS of pages of regulatory wording. See below for more information from WaPo factcheckers.
maallen
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 7:07 p.m.
Clownfish, According to the Washington Post Fact Checker the Affordable Care Act comes in at 7,432 pages as of May 15, 2013. That number will just keep growing as Kathleen Sebeilus continues to write regulations in the coming months. Remember, we don't have the final regulations yet. The administration is behind because they went over their budget. The money was there, it's just that the Affordable Care Act has cost more than what it was projected to cost and now they are out of money. So they are requesting more and more money to implement it.
clownfish
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 12:30 p.m.
Congress people don't read most bills passed. This is a Red Herring put out by those that oppose individual responsibility when it comes to paying medical bills. And once again WALKER brings myth to a policy discussion. Not only is the ACA NOT 40,000 pages long, it is NOT even 2,000 pages long. It is 906 pages, with the PDF coming in at 947 with the inclusion of "Health-Related Portions Of The Health Care And Education Reconciliation Act Of 2010." Compare this to Wisconsin's state budget, officially known as Act 32, passed by Scott Walker. It comes in 1t just over 500 pages, approx 409,629 words...versus the ACA's approx 418,779 words. Gee, I wonder why the administration is behind? Could it be the House holding off monies, or states refusing to abide by the laws of the land or passing legislation at the last minute?
Silly Sally
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 2:59 a.m.
Its not his age, Ronald Reagan was wonderful and was our oldest president. It is how long he has been in office. A Dingell has held this seat since 1932, John DIngell since 1955. It is way too long for anyone.
YpsiGirl4Ever
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 1:28 a.m.
If you have a issue with Congressman's Dingell age and live within his District, call up the office and let him know. To type this type of "age discrimination" statement on a news website comment board says more about you than Rep. Dingell.
walker101
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 12:16 a.m.
The 2,000 pages were a draft, it is almost 40,000 pages, it takes 8 pages to describe a simple term that could of been described in one paragraph. People do not understand that the administration is so far behind in implementing program that it is a complete fiasco.
Chase Ingersoll
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 12:51 p.m.
It least when I go to buy a high calorie sandwich, I know what I am paying for. It's unfortunate that a government that is so busy collecting the information from every phone call, and can't even make 1000 page law proposals, available online before they vote on them, want's to dictate that not just what, but how a small business tells their customers. If the government is serious about informing people, why not require all doctors and hospitals to list their procedures and charges and put all of the expenses and credit card statements of every bureaucrat and office holder online. Ask them that and hear them whine about how that would not be possible.
E Claire
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 5:16 p.m.
Holder and Clinton won't even release their travel expenses. Regulations like this are just "feel good" and always seem to include an exemption for anyone but the small business person.
drew_blows
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 11:51 p.m.
So I guess you are against Government regulating/overseeing attorneys too?
Mark Wilson
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 1:37 p.m.
Congress doesn't even read most bills before they vote on them much less make them available to the public to read. This was especially true with the 2000+ page Affordable Care Act and the 363 page Patriot Act.
Peter
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 12:41 p.m.
Decrying regulation in the same article that laments a financial crisis brought about by lack of regulation.
PattyinYpsi
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 12:36 p.m.
Thank you. Exactly.
sHa
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 12:39 p.m.
"The Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act. It provides restaurants like mine the flexibility to provide their customers with important nutritional information on our website, using innovative tools like the Cal-O-." I am puzzled as to what is Mr. Cesarini's problem?
E Claire
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 5:14 p.m.
Nice stats clownfish. Why should the rest of us be penalized for these obese peoples irresponsible behavior? A chart will not change what they eat
clownfish
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 12:21 p.m.
He is looking to blame someone, so he is going after the easy target, the big bad government. Next will come complaints about high insurance premiums, premiums that are high partly due to the cost of treating millions upon millions of obese Americans. "Obese men rack up an additional $1,152 a year in medical spending, especially for hospitalizations and prescription drugs, Cawley and Chad Meyerhoefer of Lehigh University reported in January in the Journal of Health Economics. Obese women account for an extra $3,613 a year. Using data from 9,852 men (average BMI: 28) and 13,837 women (average BMI: 27) ages 20 to 64, among whom 28 percent were obese, the researchers found even higher costs among the uninsured: annual medical spending for an obese person was $3,271 compared with $512 for the non-obese."
craigjjs
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 11:26 a.m.
His problem is he hates guvmunt.
grye
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 11:32 p.m.
Guess you didn't read the part about 30+ million combinations.
1bit
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 1:27 p.m.
He is lobbying for passage of the Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act. It is not law yet.
sHa
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 12:43 p.m.
Meant to say "Cal-O-Meter".
Tano
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 12:04 p.m.
What utter nonsense. He needs to put up a chart with nutritional information, like any other comparable business. And no, he will not have to list 34 million separate options, so he is being disingenuous there. And he doesn't even need to pay for the research, since Dominos does that for him. I think he loses himself a bit of business with this whine.
E Claire
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 5:10 p.m.
Spoton Outfield. People also seem to be missing the point that the cost for all of this falls right back on the consumer. I guess if the gov't is already paying one's way, it's not a problem.
OutfieldDan
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 3:11 p.m.
Yes, it is the cost of doing business. That's the problem. Protecting people from using their own common sense is not the function of government. Eat less, exercise more, as another poster puts it. Incidentally, Obamacare is not installed YET.
Silly Sally
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 3:03 a.m.
@jonnyA2 - good point
YpsiGirl4Ever
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 1:24 a.m.
Agreed. It's called the costs of doing business.
johnnya2
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 3:06 p.m.
@ Silly Sally. WRONG! The fact is they have a specified number of products that can be added to pizza. They do NOT have to account for every permutation. You can saya plain cheese pizza is X calories. If you add pepperoni you add Y calories and if you add mushrooms it is Z calories. The information is easy to give. As for the "expensive in-store menu boards, I would suggest he see how McDonalds ,Panera, and many others are already providing this service. You can easily find foam board menu boards for an entire Dominos Pizza menu for under $200.
Silly Sally
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 12:54 p.m.
Really, there are many, many different types of options when ordering a pizza, and each one will have a different calorie value. You surely must have never been inspected by a government inspector who just lover to nitpick. Yes, this is one of those little things that they will find and make your fix. He is correct.
1bit
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 11:41 a.m.
Some facts first: 1. Americans are getting fatter. Not by a little, but by a lot. Estimates are currently that over the next several years the obesity rate will be 40%. 2. Obesity, and health conditions that are associated/caused by it, are some of the top drivers in the cost of healthcare in the U.S. Other than smoking, it is probably the top modifiable problem that would have significant impact in driving down cost. 3. Labeling calorie counts has been shown to help people reduce their caloric intake (i.e. they make smarter choices when presented with the information that they could choose a 400 kcal product versus one that is 800 kcal). 4. The PPACA (Obamacare) extended nutrition labeling requirements from places like McDonalds to include convenience stores, groceries and large chain pizza establishments as many people are getting prepared meals from those locations. 5. No law is perfect. This is a nicely worded guest column. I've read the amendment and it allows for businesses that have most of their food purchased off premise to provide calorie information online. If you search on the internet, you'll see some opposition to the amendment from those who want labeling on menus or other parts of industry who want a "level playing field". For me, I don't need the calorie count in my face but as long as I could access it easily that would be fine.
grye
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 11:31 p.m.
Eat less, exercise more. You won't get fat. Tano: Should he also be required to identify the calorie count based upon the size bite taken? The information is out there. It doesn't need to be displayed in it's entirety.
KMHall
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 3:57 p.m.
Silly Sally Nutritional information should be in everyone's face all the time. We all pay heavily for national obesity.
Silly Sally
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 12:51 p.m.
allow people to access a web site if they really care, I for one do not want a cold pizza while they go figure out which is the correct sheet to place with my order, and pay the passed on costs. Oh, how silly
Nicholas Urfe
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 11:31 a.m.
Summary: The guy owns 12 dominos stores and he is whining about the burden of providing nutrition information. Cry me a river over the likely millions of profits a year.
spaghettimonsters
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 3:34 p.m.
Absolutely, Nicholas! Besides which: why, exactly, should any of us be sad about someone losing (part) of such a terrible business?
grye
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 11:28 p.m.
Typical response from someone who has absolutely no business experience, thinks all business owners make million each year, and deserves the calorie count for 1/2 an olive.
ManA2
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 1:34 p.m.
Come on Nicholas. Really? Read the article again. He used to have 12 stores and lost 8 of them in the downturn, highly doubtful he is making millions in profits per year. He isn't trying to avoid giving the information, he's trying to do it in a way that is more efficient and in a place where his customers might actually see it. It sounds very rational to me.
DonBee
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 12:52 p.m.
Mr Urfe - OWNED 12, has 4 that survived the downturn. Average Domino's store does $10,000 a week in gross income, profit from that is less than $750 on average. Call is $3,000 a week with 4 stores in profit. So he and his family probably (before taxes) gross about $150,000 a year - not bad, but not the millions you talk about.
Silly Sally
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 12:46 p.m.
He owns 4 stores, he once owned 12 stores. If you think about it, these costs will be passed on to customers as higher prices, as regulation do to all businesses.
GoNavy
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 11:14 a.m.
What this sounds like is another misguided attempt by highly educated technocrats to come up with "one-size-fits-all solutions" to problems few of us realized existed. It is "shadow" regulations such as these ("shadow" in quotes because, while the regulations exist, they are hiding in plain sight, buried 4205 sections into a document you won't ever read) which have a pernicious on the efficient function of an economy. Though individually each regulation often serves as nothing more than a bureaucratic nuisance to be dealt with, cumulatively such "regulations" serve only to depress overall economic activity in this country, rather than to foster such activity in our citizenry. "The Business of America is Business."
E Claire
Mon, Jul 15, 2013 : 5:06 p.m.
This isn't about "regulating the food industry", it's about how expensive yet useless many of these regulations are. If one hasn't figured out that eating cheesy pizza all the time is not healthy, a calorie board isn't going to change much. This regulation will not change consumer behavior, it'll just make pizza cost more.
SemperFi
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 : 2:34 p.m.
"shadow regulations" indeed! Regulating the food industry is a vital function of local, state and federal government. Get off the "all government is bad" wagon. So, a business that serves food to the public finds it a "bureaucratic nuisance" to provide nutritional information about their product. Too bad. Proper regulations do not depress economic activity. "The business of America is business." Weird that you would paraphrase Calvin Coolidge whose leadership brought on the Great Depression. Typical neocon thinking.