My nephew denied a job because of Obamacare!

[buckshot24]

Hahahaha. Man, if only people could get paid LESS that would solve this country's woes.

Is the minimum wage anywhere close to livable as it stands?

 

[Brutus04]

You got it... Businesses are already laying people off. Did you vote for the O?

 

[Brutus04]

Is the minimum wage anywhere close to livable as it stands?

No. That's why it is called minimum. You have to work for a living, minimum not so much.

 

[lotus503]

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:

Do you know the difference between an example and comparison?

 

[buckshot24]

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.

I see, so McDonald's should discriminate against adults. The fact of the matter is that many people make bad life choices. I don't think McDonald's should make it worse by refusing to hire adults.

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.

Why the fuck should employers be responsible? You're assuming that they are without a shred of argumentation to support it.

I'm very sorry that you don't want to believe this, but what's the way around it?

I don't want to believe what?

Shouldn't you be blaming the adults who work shit jobs where either health insurance isn't provided or that they can't afford to purchase health insurance? Aren't they the ones that are ultimately responsible for their own shit?

In your world if somebody loses their real job (with benefits and good pay) employers can't hire them at all unless they give them the same level of benefits because they'd be "freeloading" by doing so. Don't you think a shit job is better than no job? Would you rather they become a ward of the state instead of chipping in at a poor paying job that doesn't provide insurance?

I'm sorry but some jobs are not designed to be careers. Dishwashers should not be making enough to support their family. Flipping burgers should not entitle you to employer provided health care. Unless you're fine with paying $15 dollars for a Big Mac meal you should probably shut the fuck up. You have no idea how many "freeloader jobs" you support with your purchasing every single day.

When you fill up your tank at the gas station you're supporting "freeloader jobs".
When you go to walmart to buy a bread you're supporting "freeloader jobs".
When you go to the car wash you're supporting "freeloader jobs".
When you go to Red Lobster you're supporting "freeloader jobs".
When you go to Best Buy you're supporting "freeloader jobs".
When you buy an ipod you're supporting "freeloader jobs".

The price you "freeloader" supporting do-gooding liberals are willing to pay for goods and services are what create "freeloader" jobs but you don't want anybody to work these jobs.

 

[Ausm]

Is the minimum wage anywhere close to livable as it stands?

Your're arguing about wages and don't have a clue about this??? LMAO

 

[chucky2]

Do you know the difference between an example and comparison?

If this were a normal headed poster, I'd see your point, but, it's Jhhnnn...

Chuck

 

[buckshot24]

No. That's why it is called minimum. You have to work for a living, minimum not so much.

Since it isn't a livable wage anyway we shouldn't have a minimum.

Do you think it would be better for teenagers to have a job paying them $5 an hour or have no job?

 

[buckshot24]

Your're arguing about wages and don't have a clue about this??? LMAO

Its called rhetorical, genius.

 

[Brutus04]

Do you think it would be better for teenagers to have a job paying them $5 an hour or have no job?

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.

 

[werepossum]

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.

Agreed, but that should be a special program for teenagers, not a reason to abolish the minimum wage. And in this shitty economy, probably not a good idea to give companies a reason to hire teenagers rather than adults.

 

[Smoblikat]

right. blame Obamacare.

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

YA!! Its his fault for working hard and trying to earn an honest living, he needs to get a job replacing hard drives in computers for 50$/hr like everyone else on here.

 

[SheHateMe]

YA!! Its his fault for working hard and trying to earn an honest living, he needs to get a job replacing hard drives in computers for 50$/hr like everyone else on here.

And everyone has an equal opportunity to learn how to do that...

 

[3chordcharlie]

I see, so McDonald's should discriminate against adults. The fact of the matter is that many people make bad life choices. I don't think McDonald's should make it worse by refusing to hire adults.

Why the fuck should employers be responsible? You're assuming that they are without a shred of argumentation to support it.I don't want to believe what?

Shouldn't you be blaming the adults who work shit jobs where either health insurance isn't provided or that they can't afford to purchase health insurance? Aren't they the ones that are ultimately responsible for their own shit?

In your world if somebody loses their real job (with benefits and good pay) employers can't hire them at all unless they give them the same level of benefits because they'd be "freeloading" by doing so. Don't you think a shit job is better than no job? Would you rather they become a ward of the state instead of chipping in at a poor paying job that doesn't provide insurance?

I'm sorry but some jobs are not designed to be careers. Dishwashers should not be making enough to support their family. Flipping burgers should not entitle you to employer provided health care. Unless you're fine with paying $15 dollars for a Big Mac meal you should probably shut the fuck up. You have no idea how many "freeloader jobs" you support with your purchasing every single day.

When you fill up your tank at the gas station you're supporting "freeloader jobs".
When you go to walmart to buy a bread you're supporting "freeloader jobs".
When you go to the car wash you're supporting "freeloader jobs".
When you go to Red Lobster you're supporting "freeloader jobs".
When you go to Best Buy you're supporting "freeloader jobs".
When you buy an ipod you're supporting "freeloader jobs".

The price you "freeloader" supporting do-gooding liberals are willing to pay for goods and services are what create "freeloader" jobs but you don't want anybody to work these jobs.

For the record, this]]e 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.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

Taking the definition of freeloader from here.

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.

Does a baby "freeload" by being fed by his/her parents? No, because the baby has no responsibility to feed itself. All of the responsibility rests solely upon his/her parents. You can't "freeload" when you aren't responsible for providing the thing you're supposedly freeloading in the first place.

Also how can you "take advantage" of something by not providing what you're not responsible for in the first place and then somebody else provides it instead?

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.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

He's been dodging that for two pages, with a lot of obfuscational ranting all along the way.

I doubt that'll change, because addressing that point collapses all his arguments.

 

[IGBT]

wait till the "employer mandate" kicks in. There will be a mud slide of people getting laid off and go from full time to part time.

 

[Ausm]

nm

 

[Darwin333]

right. blame Obamacare.

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

Whats wrong with being a forklift driver?

 

[Ausm]

Whats wrong with being a forklift driver?

Nothing I know a few Union forklift drivers who make good money!

 

[Darwin333]

nm

It was phrased as a question, even had a question mark at the end....... js

Edit: Bah, you call someone else a dumbass in your post you should at least leave it up when you are wrong.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Whats wrong with being a forklift driver?

Nothing.

It's currently trendy to represent the value of anyone who does actual physical work as being zero.

That way we can all be filthy rich and eat computer code.

I'm fairly certain zinfamous was being sarcastic.

 

[Darwin333]

Employers who can only pay low wages while being profitable, otherwise they would not be an employer at all & offer no healthcare insurance because it is often much more expensive than the "labor" is worth push the burden off onto the rest of us. Their employees can't afford insurance and their employers can't afford to give it to them for free, 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 which is black letter law illegal in just about every other field, and the govt pitches in as well.

The bolded is completely 100% mine and changes the meaning/intent of Jhhnn's post. The above should not be taken as Jhhnn's actual viewpoints. /end legal disclaimer

Now Jhhnn, since when is it a companies obligation to provide their employers with healthcare? Would you prefer that your employer, as part of your salary (as in reduced from) provide you with a home that you do not need? Shelter is far more necessary than healthcare. What about water? Electricity? Food? Should an employer provide all of this to their employees or should they simply pay them and allow the employees to decide how much they will spend on each?

I get the entire healthcare issue, I really do. However, the vast majority of employers aren't some huge walmart and simply couldn't afford to provide healthcare to their employees if it was their lifes goal. Throw in the fact that healthcare costs rise well above inflation every year while your workers productivity or "value" to your business likely does not rise as fast and you have a serious issue. Would you honestly prefer to see 10% more people insured and 30% more people unemployed anduninsured?

It is not nearly as cut and dry as everyone makes it out to be, especially with the insane costs and worse the completely unsustainable costs that anyone with a calculator can project in 10 or 15 years.

If you hired someone today and as part of their compensation agreed to pay their health insurance as long as they were employed, using data from the last 30 years, that cost would double in 8 years. In 16 years it would quadruple and so on..... And in that time period I would bet the employee would expect some sort of increase in actual pay above the rate of inflation, how does one make their labor force THAT much more productive OR go bankrupt leaving the employees with no pay AND no healthcare?

 

[Darwin333]

Nothing.

It's currently trendy to represent the value of anyone who does actual physical work as being zero.

That way we can all be filthy rich and eat computer code.

I'm fairly certain zinfamous was being sarcastic.

Ahh, need to check the batteries in my meter then. Carry on

 

[3chordcharlie]

The bolded is completely 100% mine and changes the meaning/intent of Jhhnn's post. The above should not be taken as Jhhnn's actual viewpoints. /end legal disclaimer

Now Jhhnn, since when is it a companies obligation to provide their employers with healthcare? Would you prefer that your employer, as part of your salary (as in reduced from) provide you with a home that you do not need? Shelter is far more necessary than healthcare. What about water? Electricity? Food? Should an employer provide all of this to their employees or should they simply pay them and allow the employees to decide how much they will spend on each?

I get the entire healthcare issue, I really do. However, the vast majority of employers aren't some huge walmart and simply couldn't afford to provide healthcare to their employees if it was their lifes goal. Throw in the fact that healthcare costs rise well above inflation every year while your workers productivity or "value" to your business likely does not rise as fast and you have a serious issue. Would you honestly prefer to see 10% more people insured and 30% more people unemployed anduninsured?

It is not nearly as cut and dry as everyone makes it out to be, especially with the insane costs and worse the completely unsustainable costs that anyone with a calculator can project in 10 or 15 years.

If you hired someone today and as part of their compensation agreed to pay their health insurance as long as they were employed, using data from the last 30 years, that cost would double in 8 years. In 16 years it would quadruple and so on..... And in that time period I would bet the employee would expect some sort of increase in actual pay above the rate of inflation, how does one make their labor force THAT much more productive OR go bankrupt leaving the employees with no pay AND no healthcare?

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.