My nephew denied a job because of Obamacare!

[umbrella39]

So has Obama been impeached yet?

Has your set dropped yet?

 

[umbrella39]

How many of his youtubes have you got banned?

I am talking about his future boss, not Black Magic Kenyan you motherfucking racist.

Post a pic of your nephew and his resume so we can decide if he should have been hired.

It'll never happen. He'd have to admit he made this entire story up. Honesty... not a fanboi's strongest suit...

 

[Pr0d1gy]

How are they calculating productivity?

Are you saying that working people would have more money if they were less productive?

The graph, wherever it's from, doesn't contradict what I said at all.

What did you say? The American worker has gotten the shaft for the last 30+ years? That is the only thing you could have said that would have been verified by that graph.

 

[xj0hnx]

Your prior had nothing to do with health care.

We're only running in circles because you refuse to comment on anything of substance.

I'll make it easier: do you agree that in the current environment people are not held responsible for their own health care? Note that I am not asking if they should be, but if they actually are.

Yes, they are. Even if you have government subsidized health care INSURANCE, you still have to take care of yourself, schedule you doctor visits, and make it to appointments, take any medication given to you, etc ...

 

[Ausm]

What did you say? The American worker has gotten the shaft for the last 30+ years? That is the only thing you could have said that would have been verified by that graph.

It's amazing any Rightists in here would actually admit it even though there is a plethora of statistics to prove it.

 

[actuarial]

Yes, they are. Even if you have government subsidized health care INSURANCE, you still have to take care of yourself, schedule you doctor visits, and make it to appointments, take any medication given to you, etc ...

Since that is not the entirety of receiving medical care, all you've shown is that they have partial responsibility. No one has advocated that Walmart (or any employer) ought to be forcing employees to take care of themselves, schedule their doctor visits, ensure they go to appointments, ensure medication is taken care of etc.

If you think people are held 100% responsible for their medical care today, then of course there's no freeloader problem. You're getting the result you want (no freeloading) by using faulty assumptions though. The burden of care is not put wholly on individuals.

You may as well be arguing that in Canada people are responsible for own health care, since we still have to take care of ourselves, schedule our doctor visits, make it to appointments and take our medication. Who knew single payer health care was actually all about personal responsibility?

 

[xj0hnx]

Since that is not the entirety of receiving medical care, all you've shown is that they have partial responsibility. No one has advocated that Walmart (or any employer) ought to be forcing employees to take care of themselves, schedule their doctor visits, ensure they go to appointments, ensure medication is taken care of etc.

If you think people are held 100% responsible for their medical care today, then of course there's no freeloader problem. You're getting the result you want (no freeloading) by using faulty assumptions though. The burden of care is not put wholly on individuals.

There's nothing "faulty" about it. The faulty is trying to pass of people's individual responsibility to take care of themselves onto employers, so you can scapegoat them instead of putting the blame where it belongs.

 

[buckshot24]

What did you say? The American worker has gotten the shaft for the last 30+ years? That is the only thing you could have said that would have been verified by that graph.

I said the graph didn't contradict what I said. I never said that productivity and wages will always align perfectly. If the workforce as a whole was more productive than it is currently then they would be making more money than they are now. The graph has nothing to do with that statement.

 

[actuarial]

There's nothing "faulty" about it. The faulty is trying to pass of people's individual responsibility to take care of themselves onto employers, so you can scapegoat them instead of putting the blame where it belongs.

But it's not entirely a person's responsibility. Unless you think using Medicaid (or in Canada, UHC) is an exercise in personal responsibility.

Take away Medicaid, and allow hospitals to turn away those without the means to pay, and then you'll have true personal responsibility. Until then, someone has to pay the bill. As you said earlier, we should not be forcing doctors to treat people without compensation.

So who should be paying the bill for a Walmart workers health care?

 

[buckshot24]

But it's not entirely a person's responsibility. Unless you think using Medicaid (or in Canada, UHC) is an exercise in personal responsibility.

Its only because we as a moral society have said we will help people when they can't help themselves. Primarily, it is the individuals responsibility to care for themselves. The employers are already paying their "fair share" to help them.

 

[actuarial]

Its only because we as a moral society have said we will help people when they can't help themselves. Primarily, it is the individuals responsibility to care for themselves. The employers are already paying their "fair share" to help them.

And you believe that the definition of 'people who can't help themselves' should include full time workers?

 

[buckshot24]

And you believe that the definition of 'people who can't help themselves' should include full time workers?

What are the alternatives? A shit job is better than no job.

 

[blankslate]

Your nephew very likely already didn't have the job regardless of Obamacare.

They probably just thought it would be fun to troll him and give him a reason that might make him dislike someone they don't like anyways.

 

[xj0hnx]

But it's not entirely a person's responsibility. Unless you think using Medicaid (or in Canada, UHC) is an exercise in personal responsibility.

People voting their responsibility to pay away doesn't change that it is their responsibility.

Take away Medicaid, and allow hospitals to turn away those without the means to pay, and then you'll have true personal responsibility. Until then, someone has to pay the bill. As you said earlier, we should not be forcing doctors to treat people without compensation.

So who should be paying the bill for a Walmart workers health care?

If it's anyone's it's still the people that voted to have those agencies handle it, it is not employers.

 

[xj0hnx]

And you believe that the definition of 'people who can't help themselves' should include full time workers?

Someone stuck in a dead end, low wage job is still responsible for their health. Even if they wanted to, not every job can be a great, or even good job. Sometimes things just need to be done that don't require any skill set. I also think people like to confuse the term "living wage" My family could "live"(survive) on $15K, we'd live in a ghetto, and have jack shit, but we would be "living".

If I wanted health insurance I would try to get a better job to pay for it, or look for a job that provided it, but in no way would I expect that as a part time corner store janitor that the corner store should, or could afford to provide it for me, it's be nice, but it isn't their responsibility.

 

[FelixDeCat]

It'll never happen. He'd have to admit he made this entire story up. Honesty... not a fanboi's strongest suit...

You are a moron. Nothing has been made up. I dont care if you believe me or not as you are obviously on your knees for the Black Magic Kenyan (and his voodoo healthcare schemes).

As far as that other moron (whom I have on ignore until 2016) who asked for a resume (as if!), he can GTFO with that stick he has up his nose.

If you have nothing constructive to add to this pertinent topic, you should probably just keep your opinion to yourself. ()

 

[actuarial]

What are the alternatives? A shit job is better than no job.

There's lots of alternatives. Single payer health care. Raise the minimum wage. Force employers to provide health insurance. Stop providing subsidized care to anyone that has a job (and let the employment market sort it out).

 

[actuarial]

Someone stuck in a dead end, low wage job is still responsible for their health. Even if they wanted to, not every job can be a great, or even good job. Sometimes things just need to be done that don't require any skill set. I also think people like to confuse the term "living wage" My family could "live"(survive) on $15K, we'd live in a ghetto, and have jack shit, but we would be "living".

You keep saying they are responsible, but if they can't pay they'll still get the care.

If I wanted health insurance I would try to get a better job to pay for it, or look for a job that provided it, but in no way would I expect that as a part time corner store janitor that the corner store should, or could afford to provide it for me, it's be nice, but it isn't their responsibility.

Someone has to work at Walmart. If the only problem was part time corner store janitors, you'd hear a lot less bitching from me. We're talking about a system where it is nearly guaranteed that the government will be providing free health care to full time employees.

So you wouldn't expect your employer to pay for your health care, but you would expect your neighbour to? Why bother getting a job that has HI when you know your neighbour will just pick up the tab?

 

[buckshot24]

Raise the minimum wage.

You can't raise the minimum wage without increasing costs of goods. As soon as you say $15 is the new minimum wage it won't have the buying power it did before you enacted the change. Would also increase unemployment. Teenagers wouldn't be able to find jobs either.

Force employers to provide health insurance.

Prices would go up and fewer people would have a job.

Stop providing subsidized care to anyone that has a job (and let the employment market sort it out).

I see, you'd rather the government cover all of their expenses instead of just their health care.

 

[xj0hnx]

You keep saying they are responsible, but if they can't pay they'll still get the care.

And? If I can't pay my light bill one month, no one magically pays it for me, I still have to go to someone and get the money for it, I am responsible for making sure it gets paid, whether I pay it or not, same if I go to the doctor.

Someone has to work at Walmart. If the only problem was part time corner store janitors, you'd hear a lot less bitching from me. We're talking about a system where it is nearly guaranteed that the government will be providing free health care to full time employees.

So you wouldn't expect your employer to pay for your health care, but you would expect your neighbour to? Why bother getting a job that has HI when you know your neighbour will just pick up the tab?

That doesn't even make sense. Why would anyone do anything if they could just get someone else to pay for it? If someone doesn't have a job and gets sick, who is responsible for getting them to a doctor, and making sure they have a way to pay for it? They are, it certainly isn't the job they don't have's, or their friend's.

 

[blankslate]

You are a moron. Nothing has been made up. I dont care if you believe me or not as you are obviously on your knees for the Black Magic Kenyan (and his voodoo healthcare schemes).

I believe you and I believe your nephew accurately related his experience to you...

but consider this possibility

Your nephew very likely already didn't have the job regardless of Obamacare.

They probably just thought it would be fun to troll him and give him a reason that might make him dislike someone they don't like anyways.


Remember that saying "it's not what you know but who you know"?

Maybe it applied in this instance. Perhaps someone who's a relative of someone who is on friendly terms with person hiring needed work too. Who's he going to hire the relative of the friend? or your nephew?

It could be that they already had a person with the right connections that they always call first.

I think that while you told us all of the story as you know it there's that possibility that there's more that you or your nephew don't know.

 

[xj0hnx]

Blah, blah, blah, on topic

Your sig's Reagan quote is funny considering his firing of PATCO workers.

 

[blankslate]

Your sig's Reagan quote is funny considering his firing of PATCO workers.

I think it illustrates his (and by extension many republicans', but not all) hypocrisy.

btw I am addressing the topic of the original post as well as the OP's assertion that he is related the story accurately.

As for other tangential offshoots of the original conversation....

Blah, blah, blah, on topic

 

[FelixDeCat]

I believe you and I believe your nephew accurately related his experience to you...

but consider this possibility

Your nephew very likely already didn't have the job regardless of Obamacare.

They probably just thought it would be fun to troll him and give him a reason that might make him dislike someone they don't like anyways.


Remember that saying "it's not what you know but who you know"?

Maybe it applied in this instance. Perhaps someone who's a relative of someone who is on friendly terms with person hiring needed work too. Who's he going to hire the relative of the friend? or your nephew?

It could be that they already had a person with the right connections that they always call first.

I think that while you told us all of the story as you know it there's that possibility that there's more that you or your nephew don't know.

Meh. Could be.