My nephew denied a job because of Obamacare!

[buckshot24]

I'll say the same thing that most of the people here say about Walmart employees....tell the guy to get an education and upgrade his career if he wants a better (or even a) job.

No, they should be able to support a family on a single paycheck no matter where they work and no matter what level of skills they have.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not having it either way. I'm just telling you the effect of what you just described.

If you insist. It shouldn't be the responsibility of employers to provide health insurance in the first place. That isn't a subsidy.

If it is the responsibility of the employer to provide health insurance then you may have a point but why the fuck should it be? I completely reject the whole premise of your point, why should I pick a "side"?

And don't start in on other things that increase costs employers that I may be in favor of because I'm not the "higher employment" no matter what guy.

Right, and I'm telling you that your point about the effect was stupid. I'm not aware of anyone who is in favor of higher employment no matter what, so the simple fact that a job might be gone is a worthless argument.

We as a society long ago decided on a minimum standard of health care for our citizens; all citizens must be treated at the emergency room regardless of ability to pay. People in low wage jobs without insurance are frequently those who cannot pay at emergency rooms, but that tab is picked up by people with insurance and government subsidies. Our good friend the small business owner was employing workers without health insurance with the obvious conclusion that were they to become injured or ill, they would seek out this health care that was subsidized by others and the government. Therefore the health and well being of his work force was being propped up by the rest of us. He was a freeloader.

Now he's being forced to take responsibility for his part of the bargain and stop freeloading. If his business was predicated on freeloading maybe we're better off with sending that work to someone else's business that isn't. Personal responsibility, right?

 

[stormkroe]

Imagine how many fewer of these 'obamacare layoffs' there would be if some worker protection agency forced the employer to PROVE the numbers behind it or face a huge fine. I respect caution, but how much could costs have raised so far since it hasn't even officially started yet? Just start with warnings of POSSIBLE troubles to your employees until everything is more concrete.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yep, looks like I called it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Imagine how many fewer of these 'obamacare layoffs' there would be if some worker protection agency forced the employer to PROVE the numbers behind it or face a huge fine. I respect caution, but how much could costs have raised so far since it hasn't even officially started yet? Just start with warnings of POSSIBLE troubles to your employees until everything is more concrete.

How about if the work was done properly first by experts who were tapped to examine what was going on and what was needed in this context? Na that would have been prudent.

 

[buckshot24]

Right, and I'm telling you that your point about the effect was stupid. I'm not aware of anyone who is in favor of higher employment no matter what, so the simple fact that a job might be gone is a worthless argument.

Just an observation of the result of the government stopping "subsidies" to employers. Wasn't really a point.

We as a society long ago decided on a minimum standard of health care for our citizens; all citizens must be treated at the emergency room regardless of ability to pay. People in low wage jobs without insurance are frequently those who cannot pay at emergency rooms, but that tab is picked up by people with insurance and government subsidies. Our good friend the small business owner was employing workers without health insurance with the obvious conclusion that were they to become injured or ill, they would seek out this health care that was subsidized by others and the government. Therefore the health and well being of his work force was being propped up by the rest of us. He was a freeloader.

Now he's being forced to take responsibility for his part of the bargain and stop freeloading. If his business was predicated on freeloading maybe we're better off with sending that work to someone else's business that isn't. Personal responsibility, right?

Nowhere in this diatribe do you support the idea that employers are responsible for their employees health care. What you are describing is the exact opposite of personal responsibility. The employee is responsible for his/her health care.

Am I a freeloader as an employer if I don't buy food for my employees? Am I being subsidized if the government or charities are helping my employees feed themselves? When do individuals have responsibility for themselves?

Instead what you're advocating is subsidies to individuals who aren't taking care of their own shit. These are REAL subsidies not your imaginary ones.

 

[fskimospy]

Just an observation of the result of the government stopping "subsidies" to employers. Wasn't really a point.

Nowhere in this diatribe do you support the idea that employers are responsible for their employees health care. What you are describing is the exact opposite of personal responsibility. The employee is responsible for his/her health care.

Am I a freeloader as an employer if I don't buy food for my employees? Am I being subsidized if the government or charities are helping my employees feed themselves? When do individuals have responsibility for themselves?

Instead what you're advocating is subsidies to individuals who aren't taking care of their own shit. These are REAL subsidies not your imaginary ones.

Of course you're being subsidized, that's not even really open for argument. If your workers are working full time for you and are unable to feed themselves because of your wages but are able to continue to work at those wages because of public assistance the simple, inescapable conclusion is that your business model is subsidized by the government/charity.

1+1 = 2

This is not an either/or statement of personal responsibility, the employees can also be viewed as not being responsible for themselves. That in no way absolves the business owner of freeloading off the rest of us by reaping benefits he's not paying his share of. Pretty simple, really. This is a common thing however, where conservatives ignore personal responsibility for freeloading business owners but focus on it for their employees. An ideological blind spot of sorts.

 

[buckshot24]

Of course you're being subsidized, that's not even really open for argument. If your workers are working full time for you and are unable to feed themselves because of your wages but are able to continue to work at those wages because of public assistance the simple, inescapable conclusion is that your business model is subsidized by the government/charity.

1+1 = 2

Seeing as you put the stipulation that it was because of the wages themselves you sort of make some assumptions that I wasn't granting. But I will now grant those assumptions that I was hiring somebody who couldn't feed themselves solely because of the shit wages I was offering them. Don't you think this worker has more responsibility for his own life than I as an employer does? This worker agreed to take the job under the wages I offered him. Now what if this worker was only producing enough to be worth the wage I was paying him. In other words what if by me raising his wage I would start losing money on the work he does. Should I just eat the cost? If this employee figures out that he can't make ends meet working for me he has every right to find other employment but if I continue his employment I'm some how taking advantage of him or somebody else?

Maybe the job my employee is working should normally be held by students who are being subsidized by their parents? I shouldn't hire a person who isn't subsidized by their parents even if they are willing to work the job?

This is not an either/or statement of personal responsibility, the employees can also be viewed as not being responsible for themselves. That in no way absolves the business owner of freeloading off the rest of us by reaping benefits he's not paying his share of. Pretty simple, really. This is a common thing however, where conservatives ignore personal responsibility for freeloading business owners but focus on it for their employees. An ideological blind spot of sorts.

You keep avoiding establishing an employers moral obligation to provide health care for his/her employees. Why should we assume that there is one? Until then there is no "freeloading" going on.

 

[fskimospy]

Seeing as you put the stipulation that it was because of the wages themselves you sort of make some assumptions that I wasn't granting. But I will now grant those assumptions that I was hiring somebody who couldn't feed themselves solely because of the shit wages I was offering them. Don't you think this worker has more responsibility for his own life than I as an employer does? This worker agreed to take the job under the wages I offered him. Now what if this worker was only producing enough to be worth the wage I was paying him. In other words what if by me raising his wage I would start losing money on the work he does. Should I just eat the cost? If this employee figures out that he can't make ends meet working for me he has every right to find other employment but if I continue his employment I'm some how taking advantage of him or somebody else?

Maybe the job my employee is working should normally be held by students who are being subsidized by their parents? I shouldn't hire a person who isn't subsidized by their parents even if they are willing to work the job?

You're basically asking me if I think it's a problem that you've built a business model that is only sustainable by having your work force externally subsidized. The answer to that is yes, you're a freeloader. How is this hard to grasp? Your business could not exist without the largesse of people unconnected to your business activity.

You keep avoiding establishing an employers moral obligation to provide health care for his/her employees. Why should we assume that there is one? Until then there is no "freeloading" going on.

I'm not establishing any moral right, nor do I care about a moral right. I'm talking about freeloading within our system as it exists. Unless you're advocating for people to be left to die if they are unable to pay for their health care, you accept it too. Now that we're past that... back to the freeloading business owner.

 

[Sonikku]

I tried to get a Pizza at Papa John's the other day, but couldn't. They had no money left for ingredients.

It all went to Obamacare.

 

[buckshot24]

You're basically asking me if I think it's a problem that you've built a business model that is only sustainable by having your work force externally subsidized. The answer to that is yes, you're a freeloader. How is this hard to grasp? Your business could not exist without the largesse of people unconnected to your business activity.

What sort of jobs should teenagers have? College students? According to you only freeloaders could hire them. I'll ask parents of college kids who work part time going through school if they think I'm a freeloader or if I'm helping them by providing employment for their kid.

I'm not establishing any moral right, nor do I care about a moral right. I'm talking about freeloading within our system as it exists.

Well how the fuck can somebody "freeload" when they have no moral obligation to provide the benefit in the first place?

 

[buckshot24]

I tried to get a Pizza at Papa John's the other day, but couldn't. They had no money left for ingredients.

It all went to Obamacare.

I ordered one and it had no crust. Thanks OBAMA!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I ordered one and it had no crust. Thanks OBAMA!

I roll my own these days, so to speak.

 

[FelixDeCat]

I roll my own these days, so to speak.

I predict an underground market for pepperoni and mushrooms in the next few years.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well how the fuck can somebody "freeload" when they have no moral obligation to provide the benefit in the first place?

So you either have to accept or deny the concept that people who can't afford insurance should be left to die.

If you accept it, you've made a coherent argument, even if it is morally reprehensible. If you deny it, then you must accept the fact that somebody has to pay for it. Currently, that's the taxpayers.

OTOH, if we insist that employers provide healthcare insurance, then the taxpayers don't pay, not directly, and business owners remain on an equal footing with each other, none gaining any competitive advantage.

The same argument as yours was used against unemployment insurance, employers paying part of SS, even employers conforming to basic safety requirements.

 

[EXman]

right. blame Obamacare.

Perhaps your nephew should re-invest in a more modern skill set?

Maybe we do not need forklift drivers? someone has to do it.

This will be the "NEW NORM" work at two jobs 29 hours each!

 

[Newbian]

I tried to get a Pizza at Papa John's the other day, but couldn't. They had no money left for ingredients.

It all went to Obamacare.

Was that before or after they gave millions of free pizza away for nfl season?

 

[sigurros81]

If your nephew is anything like you, he probably didn't get hired because he is a fucking idiot bible thumping racist.

 

[wirelessenabled]

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

The Congress "put in" "Obamacare".

Do you not believe in The Constitution?

Congress passes a bill and the President signs it to become a law.

Where does your "pos obama" come in to the equation besides President Obama being the President and having to sign or not sign the bills Congress sends to him?

 

[CrackRabbit]

Got tired of trolling OT so you decided to come in here where the real trolls are?

 

[Yreka]

PBS... INDEPENDENT LENS:
Park Avenue: Money, Power and The American Dream.

WATCH IT! PBS.

Pretty interesting watch, thanks for sharing... I wonder why we don't hear as much about the Schumer/Blackstone circle jerk as we do about the Koch bothers in traditional media and pop culture

 

[buckshot24]

So you either have to accept or deny the concept that people who can't afford insurance should be left to die.

If you accept it, you've made a coherent argument, even if it is morally reprehensible. If you deny it, then you must accept the fact that somebody has to pay for it. Currently, that's the taxpayers.

OTOH, if we insist that employers provide healthcare insurance, then the taxpayers don't pay, not directly, and business owners remain on an equal footing with each other, none gaining any competitive advantage.

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?

 

[SheHateMe]

Papa Johns can't afford ObamaCare but they can afford to eat the cost of giving away MILLIONS of free pizzas for some contest.

 

[Yreka]

Papa Johns can't afford ObamaCare but they can afford to eat the cost of giving away MILLIONS of free pizzas for some contest.

Well THAT is actually Peyton Manning's fault

 

[HomerJS]

That won't happen. The libs will see our economy crash and burn before they admit they're wrong.

And the rigities know their stuff since they haven't caused the economy to crash and burn.....oh I forgot