This is something that wasn't really being discussed. We were talking about the idea that employees have some moral obligation to provide health insurance to their employees. If they "freeload" by not providing it then they must have some sort of obligation to do so.
Do you have anything to add to the conversation that is relevant?
Your picture isn't an argument.
How many jobs would there have been if there was no Bush tax cuts? Do you have any figures?
Actually you are the one saying employers are "freeloading" if they don't provide health care insurance to their workers. How can they be freeloading unless they have some sort of moral obligation to provide insurance?Actually the only person who ever mentioned morals was you, it was in no way the topic of conversation. He just basically repeated the argument I gave to you. If you are okay with people dying in the gutter from treatable illnesses your point is coherent, if horrible. If not, you're just absolving a business owner of personal responsibility for his business model that depends on charity.
Actually you are the one saying employers are "freeloading" if they don't provide health care insurance to their workers. How can they be freeloading unless they have some sort of moral obligation to provide insurance?
If you're saying that they have no moral obligation to provide health care insurance then your point has been debunked by your own statements.
So please once and for all explain how employers are "freeloading" but have no moral obligation to provide health care insurance for their workers.
O'Bamma is just Robin Hood in a suit.
The nerve to suggest the nephew is to blame. That pos obama has no right to put in obamacare and stuff like this is going to become more common
This is something that wasn't really being discussed. We were talking about the idea that employees have some moral obligation to provide health insurance to their employees. If they "freeload" by not providing it then they must have some sort of obligation to do so.
Do you have anything to add to the conversation that is relevant?
Wow...a business not providing HC to its employees, who freely choose to work there or not knowing the terms, is tantamount to owning slaves.
Just when one thinks they've heard it all on P&N, a gem like this gets posted...
Wow...a business not providing HC to its employees, who freely choose to work there or not knowing the terms, is tantamount to owning slaves.
Just when one thinks they've heard it all on P&N, a gem like this gets posted...
When you have no argument, duh-vert into false attribution & hyperbole.
"Freely choosing to work there" is bullshit terminology, considering an 8%+ unemployment rate, increasingly rare full time employment, & the necessity of having a job or few to support oneself & family. People will take whatever jobs they can get & keep.
"Conservatives" used the same arguments to defend usurious child labor in mines & textile mills 150 years ago along with the same terms applied to sharecropping. It had nothing to do with economic reality then, nor does it today.
Talk about duh-version, I'm not the one comparing owning slaves to businesses having employees working there of their own free will not having employer provided HC. Wowzers, and you doubled down on it. Keep blabbing, at the rate you're going you might be a good comedic stand in for JKWhiteGuilter...
"Moral obligation" is a loaded & slippery term, considering the past. Owning slaves was considered by many to be a "moral obligation", as was segregation & Jim Crow for 100 years after the end of slavery in this country. Birth control of any sort was immoral & illegal. Miscegenation was immoral. Denying women the vote was moral. Prohibition was a moral crusade. The list goes on from there.
I made no such comparison, merely pointed out that right wing "morality" has allowed for, even demanded a lot of injustice over time. Buckshot's "morality" is no different.
Obviously, you'll avoid the other examples I mentioned as if they were the plague, choosing instead to work up a little faux outrage over something I didn't actually say, returning to it like a dog eating his own puke.
Chow down!
You can't "freeload" when you aren't supposed to be buying what you're "freeloading" in the first place. You can't shirk your responsibilities by not providing something you aren't responsible for in the first place. You're assuming some sort of obligation on the part of employers whether it's moral or something else.Where on earth did you come up with this nonsense? Freeloading is defined as taking advantage of the generosity or charity(!!) of others. It has no reference to shirking a moral obligation, you just decided it did in mid post one time and declared that's what we were talking about.
The employer must have some sort of responsibility/obligation to provide health care insurance to his workers otherwise he can't take advantage of anything by not providing it.To take advantage of the charity, generosity, or hospitality of others.
No, its just that you broadened the discussion where it wasn't at at the moment.Just because you have no counter doesn't mean it's not relevant.
Even jobs that are meant for teenagers? Country club should provide health insurance for their caddies? If somebody is working at McDonald's at age 40 then that can't be the employers fault.Employers who pay low wages & offer no healthcare insurance push the burden off onto the rest of us.
The people who do not have health insurance are responsible not the employers.Their employees can't afford insurance, end up receiving care in the emergency room where the cost of delivery is very high. Hospitals inflate the charges for those of us who have insurance, and the govt pitches in as well.
No I'm trying to discuss whether employers should have an obligation to provide health insurance. What the law says isn't at debate.You're just trying to frame it all in terms of Rightie "morals", which is meaningless. I pointed out other examples where legal obligations have been imposed in spite of those faux arguments, and the ACA is no different.
You just jumped the shark."Moral obligation" is a loaded & slippery term, considering the past. Owning slaves was considered by many to be a "moral obligation", as was segregation & Jim Crow for 100 years after the end of slavery in this country. Birth control of any sort was immoral & illegal. Miscegenation was immoral. Denying women the vote was moral. Prohibition was a moral crusade. The list goes on from there.
So you want to make employing people more expensive so there are less jobs? Liberals can be so fucking stupid. Listen to yourself.When you have no argument, duh-vert into false attribution & hyperbole.
"Freely choosing to work there" is bullshit terminology, considering an 8%+ unemployment rate, increasingly rare full time employment, & the necessity of having a job or few to support oneself & family. People will take whatever jobs they can get & keep.
How about you discuss what is being discussed instead of your stupid diversions? Slavery, child labor whats next?"Conservatives" used the same arguments to defend usurious child labor in mines & textile mills 150 years ago along with the same terms applied to sharecropping. It had nothing to do with economic reality then, nor does it today.
You just don't know what the fuck you're talking about.I made no such comparison, merely pointed out that right wing "morality" has allowed for, even demanded a lot of injustice over time. Buckshot's "morality" is no different.
Obviously, you'll avoid the other examples I mentioned as if they were the plague, choosing instead to work up a little faux outrage over something I didn't actually say, returning to it like a dog eating his own puke.
Chow down!
MMmm, yesssss....keep going. You are getting to be as entertaining as JKWhiteGuilter. If you could throw in some profanity and slang that'd be great, it's what made his posts that much better.
Don't hold back now, so far you've been doing him justice! :thumbsup:
You're the one bringing in bullshit! The water isn't only muddy now its full of your bullshit.Straight to denial & obfuscation.
I always thought you were just a far left lib, now I think you're a fucking loon and a prick. My "morality" wouldn't support slavery, child labor, or Jim Crow."Conservatives" still believe in the same sort of "morality" they expressed 150 years ago. They've recently called for an end to child labor laws & minimum wage, modified forms of Jim Crow & a rollback of the rather thin social safety net in this country, all to satisfy their own egos & justify that same defective morality.
You're being an idiot. You have to be smarter than this.When I point that out, and when I point out that Righties aren't the sole arbiter of "morality" any more, the denial comes out like a swarm of angry bees.
Straight to denial & obfuscation.
"Conservatives" still believe in the same sort of "morality" they expressed 150 years ago. They've recently called for an end to child labor laws & minimum wage, instituted modified forms of Jim Crow & demanded a rollback of the rather thin social safety net in this country, all to satisfy their own egos & justify that same defective morality.
When I point that out, and when I point out that Righties aren't the sole arbiter of "morality" any more, the denial comes out like a swarm of angry bees.
Women's suffrage, Social Security, Workmen's comp, UI, Medicare, collective bargaining, non-discrimination & even affirmative action have all become part & parcel of the fabric of America over the same moralistic objections expressed by today's conservatives over the ACA.
You lost those fights, and you'll lose this one, because your morality isn't moral at all, and because your ideological worship of the Wealthy is no better.
The minimum wage is harmful and I'd like to see that abolished. It isn't because I want people to starve and the rich to get fatter and richer but you probably can't understand that.
If the job is meant for teenagers, perhaps McDonald's would like to 'voluntarily' not hire any adults into those jobs. If they can do that, I'll buy the argument for exemption.No, its just that you broadened the discussion where it wasn't at at the moment.
Even jobs that are meant for teenagers? Country club should provide health insurance for their caddies? If somebody is working at McDonald's at age 40 then that can't be the employers fault.
This is a weak argument. If I know my wages will not allow my staff to be insured, and I know people (in aggregate) get sick, then I know my business is freeloading from the emergency care system. I'm very sorry that you don't want to believe this, but what's the way around it?The people who do not have health insurance are responsible not the employers.
No I'm trying to discuss whether employers should have an obligation to provide health insurance. What the law says isn't at debate.