My nephew denied a job because of Obamacare!

[openwheel]

hilarious, so your nephew can't get a job, so it's Obama's fault.

I am about to interview some engineers for an opening my company needs. I will just tell them I must hire temp-to-hire so I don't have to worry about fringe and benefits.

Thanks for the idea!!!

 

[buckshot24]

Teenagers would be fine w/a minimun wage job as they should still be under their parent(s) care. Teenagers do not have the expenses of an adult trying to raise a family. It is also a good thing to see if they (teenagers) will be happy flipping burgers for the rest of their lives.

Yeah but $5 an hour is an illegal wage.

 

[Darwin333]

I'm sorry, we are going to stick with the real definitions of words as opposed to ones you make up to try and save your failing argument. Freeloading does not contain an obligation anywhere in its definition. Period. End of story.

The business owner gains labor value by having healthy employees. His employees' health is maintained by the state. Now we are forcing him to stop freeloading off state health care. This is not a complicated argument. As you have been asked repeatedly and refuse to answer, do you support allowing people to die if they are unable to pay? If the answer is no you have implicitly accepted our system. If you accept the system and design your business to exploit it, you are freeloading. It might be a good business choice, but itd bad public policy. Color me not at all shocked that you don't want to get rid of moochers when they are businessmen instead of brown people.

Your business "gains labor value" from having a workforce that is not stressed which has recently been proven to cause all sorts of health issues. Therefore an employer "gains" every time his employee has an opportunity to relieve stress. Is it the employers job to hire hookers for his employees if that is what is required to alleviate said stress?

Business also gains value from a healthy workforce that has drinking water, electricity, shelter, food, etc.... Should the employer directly provide all of those things regardless of what the employee wishes to do with his compensation? What if there is a disagreement on what temperature the employee wants his employer provided house and electricity to be at? What about allergies to certain foods the employer should be providing to their employees to ensure a healthy workforce?

All sorts of shit makes a "better" and more productive workforce. Just because an employer does not provide that does not make them "freeloaders".

 

[Darwin333]

So let the workers die?

Or continue to subsidize low-wage businesses?

I'm not one for false dichotomies; so explain the middle option that I just don't see.

So let the business die and force the ex-workers to be subsidized even more?

I'm not one for false dichotomies; so explain the middle option that I just don't see.

 

[buckshot24]

For the record, this above is a bit of a rant, and you're putting a lot of words in my mouth.

You've been presented with a significant dichotomy, but you are deliberately avoiding it.

Should American citizens who do not have Health Insurance, and cannot afford to directly pay for care, be left on the street to die when they are sick?

If your answer is "Yes" then the discussion is over.

If your answer is "No" then someone has to pay.

This whole thing started when Eskimo pie said employers were "freeloading" when they didn't provide health insurance. The dichotomy described above was never a part of what I was talking about. It's totally different and deserves its own discussion.

I'm just pushing back on the "freeloading" portion. I just don't think an employer is ultimately responsible for their employees health care or that they should be. Employees are. If you're forty and working a job washing dishes that isn't the restaurant owner's fault.

 

[Jhhnn]

So let the business die and force the ex-workers to be subsidized even more?

I'm not one for false dichotomies; so explain the middle option that I just don't see.

You have no evidence that the business will die, it's mere speculation. All the competitors will face the same requirements.

 

[Jhhnn]

This whole thing started when Eskimo pie said employers were "freeloading" when they didn't provide health insurance. The dichotomy described above was never a part of what I was talking about. It's totally different and deserves its own discussion.

I'm just pushing back on the "freeloading" portion. I just don't think an employer is ultimately responsible for their employees health care or that they should be. Employees are. If you're forty and working a job washing dishes that isn't the restaurant owner's fault.

Still dodging the question, obviously.

 

[buckshot24]

I'm sorry, we are going to stick with the real definitions of words as opposed to ones you make up to try and save your failing argument. Freeloading does not contain an obligation anywhere in its definition. Period. End of story.

You have to be trolling.

The business owner gains labor value by having healthy employees. His employees' health is maintained by the state. Now we are forcing him to stop freeloading off state health care.

You just keep repeating the same bullshit over and over. You haven't established this point at all.

Employers labor value by their employees having cars too. They can schedule them to work anytime without worrying about public transportation. Are employers "freeloading" by not providing cars?

The bottom line is that people are responsible for their own health care not their employers.

This is not a complicated argument. As you have been asked repeatedly and refuse to answer, do you support allowing people to die if they are unable to pay? If the answer is no you have implicitly accepted our system.

No it isn't complicated, its fucking stupid. It has nothing to do with people dying or living. You threw that canard in there when all I wanted you to do is support your bullshit "freeload" assertion. You haven't you just keep saying it over and over.

What responsibility do the workers have for their own health care?

If you accept the system and design your business to exploit it, you are freeloading.

People aren't dying in the streets with the current system!

It might be a good business choice, but itd bad public policy. Color me not at all shocked that you don't want to get rid of moochers when they are businessmen instead of brown people.

Way to throw in racism right at the end. Although it is good evidence that you have lost the argument.

Next time you go to McDonalds or Taco Bell or Burger King or Tim Hortons or Red Lobster why don't you put your money where your mouth is and pay 4 times the bill so they can start paying their teenage dishwasher a living wage with full benefits.

 

[buckshot24]

Still dodging the question, obviously.

Why the hell do you think it's kryptonite to me? It is another subject entirely.

Our current system doesn't have people dying in the streets.

 

[buckshot24]

You have no evidence that the business will die, it's mere speculation. All the competitors will face the same requirements.

And everything will go through the fucking roof. Poor people will have to pay $5 for a loaf of bread if you got your way.

Get it through your thick liberal skull, utopia doesn't exist. We can't make this world perfect where nobody suffers, it's simply impossible. But in striving for it you make it much much worse in the meantime.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why the hell do you think it's kryptonite to me? It is another subject entirely.

Our current system doesn't have people dying in the streets.

And everything will go through the fucking roof. Poor people will have to pay $5 for a loaf of bread if you got your way.

Get it through your thick liberal skull, utopia doesn't exist. We can't make this world perfect where nobody suffers, it's simply impossible. But in striving for it you make it much much worse in the meantime.

Heh. still dodging, quite desperately.

The current system doesn't allow people dying in the streets because somebody pays for their care, as I pointed out way back on page 4. Currently, that's people who have insurance & whose premiums are jacked up by hospitals trying to recoup their expenses, and by govt. What they lose in caring for the uninsured they get back by overcharging everybody else & by govt largesse.

Which puts us back at the central issue, employees not being paid enough to afford healthcare insurance out of pocket, and business owners who push the care of their low pay employees & their families off onto the rest of us. That's what really happens, whether you care to admit it or not.

Despite your faux moralizing & fearmongering, that's not reasonable at all, considering that business owners profit from their employees, wouldn't have profits w/o them. People will work for astoundingly low wages & benefits when forced to do so by circumstances beyond their control, and are ruthlessly exploited as a consequence.

Modern society places burdens on business & all of us that didn't exist 200 years ago, when capitalists regarded employees as disposable commodities. If employees worked themselves to death for pennies, they'd just hire somebody else to replace them. Problem? No problem.

Righties' attitudes are pretty much like that, if expressed in less callous terms. Let somebody else take care of it, like the govt, "our current system", as you put it, but deny govt the revenues to do so, pretend that's not really what you're saying. Meanwhile, assert that the financial elite, people who have more money than they can possibly use, deserve to have even more, apparently because they're already rich.

The ACA attempts to address those issues by placing responsibility for it onto employers, who are the people who profit from the work of employees in the first place, while allowing private enterprise to run it & profit in the current structure of employer based healthcare.

Alternatively, we could adopt a single payer or modified single payer system, or continue with a system where fewer & fewer people are actually covered by health insurance, which is what the system prior to the ACA was accomplishing, a big part of the reason insurance costs have skyrocketed. Or we could just let people die who can't afford to pay.

These are the real choices, something your meandering faux morality addresses not at all.

 

[3chordcharlie]

So let the business die and force the ex-workers to be subsidized even more?

I'm not one for false dichotomies; so explain the middle option that I just don't see.

These business relies on (indirect) subsidy to exist.

OR

Sick people should not receive care.


You decide

 

[buckshot24]

Heh. still dodging, quite desperately.

You really are pathetic.

The current system doesn't allow people dying in the streets because somebody pays for their care, as I pointed out way back on page 4. Currently, that's people who have insurance & whose premiums are jacked up by hospitals trying to recoup their expenses, and by govt. What they lose in caring for the uninsured they get back by overcharging everybody else & by govt largesse.

Then why have you two libs been pushing the false dichotomy for the last two pages? Is it because you're dishonest or stupid?

Which puts us back at the central issue, employees not being paid enough to afford healthcare insurance out of pocket, and business owners who push the care of their low pay employees & their families off onto the rest of us. That's what really happens, whether you care to admit it or not.

Again you're just assuming that it is the employers responsibility in the first place. If people make bad choices in their lives and cannot afford health insurance it isn't the fault of some restaurant owner for hiring a 40 year old dishwasher.

Despite your faux moralizing & fearmongering, that's not reasonable at all, considering that business owners profit from their employees, wouldn't have profits w/o them. People will work for astoundingly low wages & benefits when forced to do so by circumstances beyond their control, and are ruthlessly exploited as a consequence.

"Ruthlessly"? Man you are a fucking joke. Look, I'm sorry you hate your boss for exploiting you "ruthlessly" but we can't make public policy on your personal vendettas.

The truth of the matter is that people like cheap goods and a fast food restaurant can't charge $15 for a combo number 1. People just aren't going to pay that. People like to pay 99 cents for a loaf of bread, people just are not going to pay $5 a loaf so the guy who swept the floor has a living wage and full boat health insurance.

If you're working at a fast food restaurant at the age 40 then you've either messed your life up or you're working their until you find a real job. In either case the manager/owner isn't "freeloading" for simply offering you a job.

I have no interest in debating Obamacare with you so I'll leave that tabled.

All of this tripe and we still are just assuming that employers are the ones ultimately responsible for people's health care instead of the worker's themselves.

The truth of the matter is that businesses are not going to be able to just start providing health coverage without raising prices on their goods and services. Poor people are more effected by higher prices than rich people and Obamacare is going to cause either higher prices or lower wages or fewer jobs, maybe a combination of all three.

Whats obvious is that you have never ran a business.

 

[buckshot24]

These business relies on (indirect) subsidy to exist.

OR

Sick people should not receive care.


You decide

OR

It isn't the employer who is responsible for their workers health care.

 

[3chordcharlie]

OR

It isn't the employer who is responsible for their workers health care.

So the taxpayer should continue to pay? The reason we don't have people dying in the streets is the government picks up the tab. This is indirectly, but substantially subsidizing business models that depend on adult non-student labor at rock-bottom wages to succeed.

This is a freeloader issue.

BTW You're welcome to apply the same argument the next time city council wants to put in bike lanes that 'cyclists don't pay for', because they don't put gasoline in their bikes, and therefore don't pay 'road taxes'.

 

[Jhhnn]

You really are pathetic.

Then why have you two libs been pushing the false dichotomy for the last two pages? Is it because you're dishonest or stupid?

Again you're just assuming that it is the employers responsibility in the first place. If people make bad choices in their lives and cannot afford health insurance it isn't the fault of some restaurant owner for hiring a 40 year old dishwasher.

"Ruthlessly"? Man you are a fucking joke. Look, I'm sorry you hate your boss for exploiting you "ruthlessly" but we can't make public policy on your personal vendettas.

The truth of the matter is that people like cheap goods and a fast food restaurant can't charge $15 for a combo number 1. People just aren't going to pay that. People like to pay 99 cents for a loaf of bread, people just are not going to pay $5 a loaf so the guy who swept the floor has a living wage and full boat health insurance.

If you're working at a fast food restaurant at the age 40 then you've either messed your life up or you're working their until you find a real job. In either case the manager/owner isn't "freeloading" for simply offering you a job.

I have no interest in debating Obamacare with you so I'll leave that tabled.

All of this tripe and we still are just assuming that employers are the ones ultimately responsible for people's health care instead of the worker's themselves.

The truth of the matter is that businesses are not going to be able to just start providing health coverage without raising prices on their goods and services. Poor people are more effected by higher prices than rich people and Obamacare is going to cause either higher prices or lower wages or fewer jobs, maybe a combination of all three.

Whats obvious is that you have never ran a business.

Nice to see you're still dodging, still predicting gloom & doom on the basis of motivated reasoning. Prices will likely go up, if only incrementally, certainly not to the tune of your fearmongering hyperbole.

Let's take a look at that 40 year old dishwasher you reference so disparagingly, and all of the other people who perform necessary work for low wages & no healthcare benefits. Who pays for the care they'll get if they suffer a stroke, or heart attack, or are seriously injured in an auto accident? If their knee gives out from a lifetime of toil?

You've acknowledged that they will be cared for, and we've established who really pays for it- those of us who are better compensated through higher insurance premiums & our tax money.

Who benefits from not paying for it? Cheapskate employers.

Your drivel about "bad choices" is remarkable, considering that somebody needs to do that stuff & that the availability of higher paying jobs is quite limited, even in good times. You act as if there's unlimited opportunity for everybody & as if what service workers do isn't necessary. Quite the contrary.

Or world would suffer more if nobody would carry off the trash than if the top tier of Fortune 500 execs all died in their sleep tonight.

 

[buckshot24]

So the taxpayer should continue to pay? The reason we don't have people dying in the streets is the government picks up the tab.

Tax payers are going to be paying for this anyway. You think employers are just going to eat the extra cost? But now we have the IRS poking into our health care. Great trade off!

People are going to have less money to buy stuff and things are going to be more expensive all in the name of providing people health care insurance that don't want it or don't need it. The vast majority of uninsured people do not go into the emergency room and stiff the bill.

This is indirectly, but substantially subsidizing business models that depend on adult non-student labor at rock-bottom wages to succeed.

What sort of businesses are these?

This is a freeloader issue.

Yes by employees who need health care insurance but aren't skilled enough to get jobs where they can pay for it. Not by employers.

 

[buckshot24]

Let's take a look at that 40 year old dishwasher you reference so disparagingly, and all of the other people who perform necessary work for low wages & no healthcare benefits. Who pays for the care they'll get if they suffer a stroke, or heart attack, or are seriously injured in an auto accident? If their knee gives out from a lifetime of toil?

Who pays if the employee has to pay? The customers. There is no free lunch John. You act like all business owners are eating caviar sitting on their 60 foot yachts.

 

[buckshot24]

Your drivel about "bad choices" is remarkable, considering that somebody needs to do that stuff & that the availability of higher paying jobs is quite limited, even in good times. You act as if there's unlimited opportunity for everybody & as if what service workers do isn't necessary. Quite the contrary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiRGRvE_Wqg

 

[piasabird]

Nobody is getting any free Health Care. What does O'Bammacare actually do? Of course an emergency room has to take you if you show up. There are also low cost health clinics. This actually works better than O'Bammacare. My wife lost her job and we just pay as you go right now. Forget the Utopia Crap. Forget the facism. Forget the bullshit.

And Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[Jhhnn]

Who pays if the employee has to pay? The customers. There is no free lunch John. You act like all business owners are eating caviar sitting on their 60 foot yachts.

More dodging via false attribution, which is expected behavior from you.

 

[buckshot24]

More dodging via false attribution, which is expected behavior from you.

Jeez John its exactly on point. Employers are going to pass the cost down to their customers OR reduce workforce. Why would they not?

You're fantasizing if you think that employers are just going to eat the extra cost. Somebody is going to pay for it.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Tax payers are going to be paying for this anyway. You think employers are just going to eat the extra cost? But now we have the IRS poking into our health care. Great trade off!

People are going to have less money to buy stuff and things are going to be more expensive all in the name of providing people health care insurance that don't want it or don't need it. The vast majority of uninsured people do not go into the emergency room and stiff the bill.

What sort of businesses are these?

Yes by employees who need health care insurance but aren't skilled enough to get jobs where they can pay for it. Not by employers.

This post has to be a joke.

Do you recognize that you are redefining words on the fly, making grossly inappropriate assumptions, and denying reality?

Let's pretend that anyone with half a brain could be convinced by this and believe you are right.

What's your end-game here? The status quo?

 

[fskimospy]

Your business "gains labor value" from having a workforce that is not stressed which has recently been proven to cause all sorts of health issues. Therefore an employer "gains" every time his employee has an opportunity to relieve stress. Is it the employers job to hire hookers for his employees if that is what is required to alleviate said stress?

Business also gains value from a healthy workforce that has drinking water, electricity, shelter, food, etc.... Should the employer directly provide all of those things regardless of what the employee wishes to do with his compensation? What if there is a disagreement on what temperature the employee wants his employer provided house and electricity to be at? What about allergies to certain foods the employer should be providing to their employees to ensure a healthy workforce?

All sorts of shit makes a "better" and more productive workforce. Just because an employer does not provide that does not make them "freeloaders".

What a terrible argument. You can't argue this point directly because you would lose, so you attempt a reductio ad absurdum. Just because society can identify certain areas where there are direct identifiable costs and burdens that should be shared doesn't mean that we must do that for every cost or burden.

Papa John's has a business model that implicitly uses public assistance in order to make its work force function correctly. There really isn't much argument about that I don't think. If you think that such a business model is something we should promote and defend, do it.

 

[fskimospy]

You have to be trolling.

You just keep repeating the same bullshit over and over. You haven't established this point at all.

Employers labor value by their employees having cars too. They can schedule them to work anytime without worrying about public transportation. Are employers "freeloading" by not providing cars?

The bottom line is that people are responsible for their own health care not their employers.

No it isn't complicated, its fucking stupid. It has nothing to do with people dying or living. You threw that canard in there when all I wanted you to do is support your bullshit "freeload" assertion. You haven't you just keep saying it over and over.

What responsibility do the workers have for their own health care?


People aren't dying in the streets with the current system!

Way to throw in racism right at the end. Although it is good evidence that you have lost the argument.

Next time you go to McDonalds or Taco Bell or Burger King or Tim Hortons or Red Lobster why don't you put your money where your mouth is and pay 4 times the bill so they can start paying their teenage dishwasher a living wage with full benefits.

You need to go re-read my post and try answering again. You are embarrassing yourself.

Start with 'People aren't dying in the streets with the current system'.

It's pretty clear that you're in over your head on this message board, which is a pretty sad thing to say considering the state of this message board. You have made an ass of yourself more times more quickly than anyone I can remember.