My nephew denied a job because of Obamacare!

[Jhhnn]

LOL, your own link proves what I said. Look at the line on the graph throughout the 1920s and what do you see, Stevie Wonder? Declining interest rates! Cheap money! Look how low interest rates were in 1929 right before the crash!

Can you say, "ooops"?

Heh. The graph starts in 1929. The slash marks on the bottom line are cut lines, discontinuity.

reference figure 5-

http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/econrev/pdf/4q03sell.pdf

This chart-

http://www.google.com/url?url=http:...s+1929&usg=AFQjCNFInp-U-sxECiojNVoEz0S8VBqd9Q

And this-

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/03/200-years-of-us-government-bond-yields/

This-

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/PRIME.txt

It's unfortunate that people still go hungry in this country, but we need to identify the reason. It's not a production problem, at all- there's more than enough food to go around, thanks to the programs described earlier, but rather a distribution problem created by "free market" forces & lack of employment.

Synthetic opiate painkillers can kill you? Not when you follow the instructions, not when using them as prescribed rather than using them to seek nirvana, washing them down with moonshine. One needs to work at it. It's not like the time when laudanum was advertised for colicky infants.

 

[fskimospy]

That is a complete, and utter 100% load of bullshit. Employees need to get to work, are employers "freeloading" because Timmy's mom and dad bought him a car, and gave him a gas card? You don't get to just pick and choose a facet of people's lives and assign responsibility of it to someone just because it fits your world view.

Their business model is not reliant upon people getting to work in a way that is substantially different than the average business. The same is not true for health care. It really blows my mind that the same people who hate hate hate subsidizing poor people love love love subsidizing pizza shop owners. Really fantastic doublethink here.

 

[buckshot24]

Their business model is not reliant upon people getting to work in a way that is substantially different than the average business. The same is not true for health care. It really blows my mind that the same people who hate hate hate subsidizing poor people love love love subsidizing pizza shop owners. Really fantastic doublethink here.

You've only asserted that businesses such as pizza shops are being subsidized. You haven't presented any argument or evidence that comes close to establishing it.

I for one hate subsidizing poor decisions as we all know when you subsidize something you get more of it. I'm all for helping people temporarily to get their lives together. Liberals seem to want to subsidize failure and irresponsibility on an ongoing basis. If you simply cannot care for yourself then that is another topic entirely. Obviously we can't move them from "welfare to work".

 

[actuarial]

You didn't really explain anything you just made some statements. To be honest I had no idea what you were trying to say. Are you saying employers aren't freeloading by having employees that use public transit or not?

There's a primary difference between public transit and health care that you're missing: when employees take public transit to work they are using the system as intended. It was decided long ago that a purely private system of transportation wasn't ideal for the economy. It is not freeloading because the system was set up that way. I would say it's a subsidy, but all parties agreed to that subsidy.

With health care, Medicaid and the inability to turn people away at the emergency room (as well as food stamps and other programs but those are tangential to this discussion) were supposed to be a safety net. I doubt you'll get many people (including the Liberals you so dread) thinking that these are supposed to apply to people who are employed full time.

If you're looking at single payer health care (like we have in Canada) then you're back to the public transit example. This isn't freeloading because it was agreed that the burden to provide health insurance was public, not private.

 

[Jhhnn]

You've only asserted that businesses such as pizza shops are being subsidized. You haven't presented any argument or evidence that comes close to establishing it.

I for one hate subsidizing poor decisions as we all know when you subsidize something you get more of it. I'm all for helping people temporarily to get their lives together. Liberals seem to want to subsidize failure and irresponsibility on an ongoing basis. If you simply cannot care for yourself then that is another topic entirely. Obviously we can't move them from "welfare to work".

You act as if there are no structural constraints on people's ability to make a living, as if a plenitude of good jobs are going begging. That's simply not true. Automation, offshoring & concentration of income have all taken a toll on employment opportunities. We don't need for everybody to work, to produce. Quite the contrary. If that happened, we'd have over production & falling prices, cutting the margins & incomes of America's wealthiest.

People who make better decisions, and the lucky, will obviously fare better within the system, but that doesn't mean everybody can all fare better at the same time, regardless of their decision making prowess. The only way that can happen is through structural change, something conservatives oppose on basically religious grounds.

If working people had a larger share of national income, they'd create greater demand for more production & more jobs, but the financial elite would have to give up part of their own hoarded incomes for that to happen. Not likely, huh?

The current system of the welfare state exists because it's the way the financial elite made it. There's more profit in offshoring, automating, buying off conservative politicians for low taxes & loaning money to the govt to support the welfare state than there is in hiring Americans. It's a small price for them to pay for what they get.

 

[fskimospy]

You've only asserted that businesses such as pizza shops are being subsidized. You haven't presented any argument or evidence that comes close to establishing it.

I for one hate subsidizing poor decisions as we all know when you subsidize something you get more of it. I'm all for helping people temporarily to get their lives together. Liberals seem to want to subsidize failure and irresponsibility on an ongoing basis. If you simply cannot care for yourself then that is another topic entirely. Obviously we can't move them from "welfare to work".

So which one of these premises are you challenging?

1.) People who work at Papa John's generally do not have health care through their employer.
2.) People who work at Papa John's generally make low wages (like $30k or below... often well below).
3.) People who make such wages are frequently unable to purchase their own health insurance on their own wages, making them either the recipients of government subsidized health insurance or what ends up being free or drastically reduced cost of health care at hospitals.

I'm really interested to see that, because unless you are denying one of those there's simply no way you can argue that our good friends at Papa John's aren't having their employees' health subsidized. Or wait, maybe the economic data is being skewed because they aren't accounting for party ID, right?

Does anyone else find it funny that this guy is simultaneously saying he hates subsidizing poor decisions on an ongoing basis while arguing that we should keep allowing Papa John's to freeload off our health care system? Are you seriously this blinded by ideology or are you just arguing more so that you don't have to admit that you're wrong?

 

[buckshot24]

There's a primary difference between public transit and health care that you're missing: when employees take public transit to work they are using the system as intended. It was decided long ago that a purely private system of transportation wasn't ideal for the economy. It is not freeloading because the system was set up that way. I would say it's a subsidy, but all parties agreed to that subsidy.

Sure there are differences but the subsidy is all I'm talking about. Whether it was agreed to is beside the point.

With health care, Medicaid and the inability to turn people away at the emergency room (as well as food stamps and other programs but those are tangential to this discussion) were supposed to be a safety net. I doubt you'll get many people (including the Liberals you so dread) thinking that these are supposed to apply to people who are employed full time.

This is where the government subsidizes poor decisions. If you have more kids than the job that you have can support you will be able to get food stamps, medicaid whether you work full time or not. An employer shouldn't be demonized for their employee having six kids that he can't support.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sure there are differences but the subsidy is all I'm talking about. Whether it was agreed to is beside the point.

This is where the government subsidizes poor decisions. If you have more kids than the job that you have can support you will be able to get food stamps, medicaid whether you work full time or not. An employer shouldn't be demonized for their employee having six kids that he can't support.

Nice way to conflate issues, steer discussion into a perspective of no import. An employee's dependents have no bearing on the issue.

 

[buckshot24]

You act as if there are no structural constraints on people's ability to make a living, as if a plenitude of good jobs are going begging. That's simply not true. Automation, offshoring & concentration of income have all taken a toll on employment opportunities. We don't need for everybody to work, to produce. Quite the contrary. If that happened, we'd have over production & falling prices, cutting the margins & incomes of America's wealthiest.

Not really. I act as if more people applied themselves instead of not doing so the overall economy would be better. The workforce would be more productive.

Do you have a problem with automation itself or are you just listing it as a challenge to modern workers?

People who make better decisions, and the lucky, will obviously fare better within the system, but that doesn't mean everybody can all fare better at the same time, regardless of their decision making prowess. The only way that can happen is through structural change, something conservatives oppose on basically religious grounds.

If there are more productive workers available then it will be easier for enterprises to succeed.

If working people had a larger share of national income, they'd create greater demand for more production & more jobs, but the financial elite would have to give up part of their own hoarded incomes for that to happen. Not likely, huh?

If working people were more productive then they would have more income. It would simply be foolish to keep an employee at a low wage and lose him/her when that employee is productive enough to justify the higher wage.

The current system of the welfare state exists because it's the way the financial elite made it.

It's how Democrats get elected unfortunately.

There's more profit in offshoring, automating, buying off conservative politicians for low taxes & loaning money to the govt to support the welfare state than there is in hiring Americans. It's a small price for them to pay for what they get.

So you would have taxes raised so there would be even more profit in offshoring?

Simply put, if we can't produce a good at a price competitive with another country then we shouldn't be producing it. If we can use automation to produce a good at cheaper price we should be doing it. Artificially creating jobs by not using automation sets us back, it won't propel us forward.

We could create more jobs by outlawing bulldozers and have people manually remove dirt and clear a section of land but that would be stupid.

 

[fskimospy]

If working people were more productive then they would have more income. It would simply be foolish to keep an employee at a low wage and lose him/her when that employee is productive enough to justify the higher wage.

lol, no. Basic understanding of history and economics failure.

Apparently I suck at images. It is a chart showing that productivity increases and compensation have not increased at anything even remotely the same rate.

 

[buckshot24]

So which one of these premises are you challenging?

1.) People who work at Papa John's generally do not have health care through their employer.
2.) People who work at Papa John's generally make low wages (like $30k or below... often well below).
3.) People who make such wages are frequently unable to purchase their own health insurance on their own wages, making them either the recipients of government subsidized health insurance or what ends up being free or drastically reduced cost of health care at hospitals.

I'm not challenging any of those. I'm simply saying that health care shouldn't be the responsibility of the employer. You are assuming that it is, why should it be? The burden of proof is on you.

I'm really interested to see that, because unless you are denying one of those there's simply no way you can argue that our good friends at Papa John's aren't having their employees' health subsidized.

Unless health care insurance isn't the responsibility of employers? Why is it? Support your assertion that it is.

Or wait, maybe the economic data is being skewed because they aren't accounting for party ID, right?

I don't think I was making that argument but in any case it has zip to do with this issue.

If you'd like to keep assuming that employers are somehow responsible for their employees health care then you should finally support it. All you've done is say that employers gain benefits by healthy employees. You haven't established that employers should therefore be responsible to provide it for their workers.

Employees gain benefits by having their employees get a full nights rest or by them eating healthy or by them having a car. Does that make it the responsibility of the employer to make sure they have all of those things? Sure these things aren't being subsidized so that isn't the argument in raising them. They are benefits which you claim is reason for employers to be supply them. So supplying them with a car, healthy food and a comfortable bed should be the employers responsibility.

Does anyone else find it funny that this guy is simultaneously saying he hates subsidizing poor decisions on an ongoing basis while arguing that we should keep allowing Papa John's to freeload off our health care system? Are you seriously this blinded by ideology or are you just arguing more so that you don't have to admit that you're wrong?

Whats funny is that you are assuming the very thing that I am asking you to support in supporting it.

There is no wrong or right here. I'm not wrong by thinking that employers should not be the ones responsible for health care for their employees. You aren't wrong in thinking that it is.

 

[buckshot24]

Nice way to conflate issues, steer discussion into a perspective of no import. An employee's dependents have no bearing on the issue.

Why not?

How many dependents should the employer be responsible for? Zero? 2? 4?

 

[fskimospy]

I have never argued that providing health care is intrinsically an employers responsibility. What I did say was that I oppose people freeloading as their business model, and remember that by the actual definition and not one that you just make up, freeloading has nothing to do with who is responsible.

You keep trying to change this argument because you know your position on this one is retarded.

 

[buckshot24]

1.) People who work at Papa John's generally do not have health care through their employer.
2.) People who work at Papa John's generally make low wages (like $30k or below... often well below).
3.) People who make such wages are frequently unable to purchase their own health insurance on their own wages, making them either the recipients of government subsidized health insurance or what ends up being free or drastically reduced cost of health care at hospitals.

Are you as a consumer willing to pay double for your pizza? If consumers were willing then this wouldn't be a problem but they aren't. A pizza maker job is just not going to provide enough money for somebody to live comfortably and afford health insurance on their own because the market won't allow it.

You may as well be complaining about the consumers other than the employers.

 

[buckshot24]

I have never argued that providing health care is intrinsically an employers responsibility. What I did say was that I oppose people freeloading as their business model, and remember that by the actual definition and not one that you just make up, freeloading has nothing to do with who is responsible.

To take advantage of the charity, generosity, or hospitality of others.

So employers aren't responsible for health care insurance yet they take advantage of the charity, generosity, or hospitality of others by not providing it? And you say my argument is retarded?

You keep trying to change this argument because you know your position on this one is retarded.

I've been consistent in what I have been arguing. I think it is ridiculous to call somebody a freeloader when they aren't responsible in the first place.

Besides you did make a comment about employers not showing "personal responsibility" by not providing health care insurance. So would you like to take that back now?

 

[fskimospy]

No, you just don't understand what is being argued. Nowhere in any definition of 'take advantage' or anywhere else is responsibility required. You keep desperately trying to invent new definitions for words because you keep losing with the actual terms. Give it up.

People need to take responsibility for what they take from others, not that they have a responsibility for health care. These pizza franchises, as already established, are freeloaders. They need to stop being such moochers. You of course will continue to defend moochers so long as its a business mooching instead of an individual. Again, impressive doublethink.

 

[buckshot24]

No, you just don't understand what is being argued.

Maybe but only because you aren't making any fucking sense.

Nowhere in any definition of 'take advantage' or anywhere else is responsibility required. You keep desperately trying to invent new definitions for words because you keep losing with the actual terms. Give it up.

Lets assume that I buy it that employers are "mooching", "freeloading", being "free riders" by not supplying health care to their employees. You say that employers get value for having healthy employees but do they get enough value to make up the difference it would cost to supply health insurance to their employees?

If not then you would have them lose money by providing health insurance so that they aren't "freeloading" any longer.

If you say they exactly make up for the cost invested in health care insurance in value to their company I'd say you're full of shit. (with all due respect)

So what cost are you, personally, willing to pay to these companies so that they provide health care to their employees and that they can make a living?

$4 loaves of cheap bread? $15 for a Hot n Ready pizza at Little Caesars? ($5 pizzas for those who don't have them). Do you think the poor people you are trying to help by providing them with HCI will be able to afford the higher costs your policies would cause?

People need to take responsibility for what they take from others, not that they have a responsibility for health care. These pizza franchises, as already established, are freeloaders. They need to stop being such moochers.

So what would you pay for pizza if their workers are being taken advantage of currently?

It hasn't been established that they are freeloaders, you simply keep saying it in different ways without establishing it.

You of course will continue to defend moochers so long as its a business mooching instead of an individual. Again, impressive doublethink.

Keep pulling the string and you might just convince somebody.

Here's the thing, what are you liberals prepared to do to help these poor employees working these jobs? Are you prepared to spend more for everything? If you're prepared to do so do you think the working poor are going to be able to spend more for everything they buy?

 

[fskimospy]

Maybe but only because you aren't making any fucking sense.

Lets assume that I buy it that employers are "mooching", "freeloading", being "free riders" by not supplying health care to their employees. You say that employers get value for having healthy employees but do they get enough value to make up the difference it would cost to supply health insurance to their employees?

If not then you would have them lose money by providing health insurance so that they aren't "freeloading" any longer.

If you say they exactly make up for the cost invested in health care insurance in value to their company I'd say you're full of shit. (with all due respect)

So what cost are you, personally, willing to pay to these companies so that they provide health care to their employees and that they can make a living?

$4 loaves of cheap bread? $15 for a Hot n Ready pizza at Little Caesars? ($5 pizzas for those who don't have them). Do you think the poor people you are trying to help by providing them with HCI will be able to afford the higher costs your policies would cause?


So what would you pay for pizza if their workers are being taken advantage of currently?

It hasn't been established that they are freeloaders, you simply keep saying it in different ways without establishing it.
Keep pulling the string and you might just convince somebody.

Here's the thing, what are you liberals prepared to do to help these poor employees working these jobs? Are you prepared to spend more for everything? If you're prepared to do so do you think the working poor are going to be able to spend more for everything they buy?

This is showing a pretty hilarious lack of understanding. This is you also attempting to (yet again) change the conversation. We are already paying the cost of this health care, just in a different way. You might think that's better, but I don't.

I have already established why they are freeloaders and you declined to challenge a single one of my premises. You appear to wish that we continue to publicly subsidize the pizza industry's health care so that the cost of a pizza is artificially low. Well I don't. What I really do love however is that you just made up a whole ton of massively inflated costs for pizzas when Papa Johns themselves estimated the increased cost at $0.11 per pizza. You can't even argue coherently or remember what you're talking about within the confines of a single thread.

If other threads are any indication you will keep flailing in this thread until people get too exhausted to bother with you any more. If you plan on doing this can you just tell me now so I can start ignoring you?

 

[buckshot24]

This is showing a pretty hilarious lack of understanding. This is you also attempting to (yet again) change the conversation. We are already paying the cost of this health care, just in a different way. You might think that's better, but I don't.

No, I was granting your premise for further discussion. There didn't seem to be any point in going back and forth over the same subject disagreeing.

I have already established why they are freeloaders and you declined to challenge a single one of my premises.

No you didn't. I'm saying your premises can be all granted and you still aren't able to establish the "freeloading" status of employers who don't provide health care insurance. Non sequitur is the correct term for your argument.

You appear to wish that we continue to publicly subsidize the pizza industry's health care so that the cost of a pizza is artificially low.

Prices for pizzas are established through demand in the market place. If there was demand for higher priced pizzas of the same quality then the market would have produced them. If you raise prices for pizzas less people would buy them and there will be less pizza shop jobs available.

Well I don't. What I really do love however is that you just made up a whole ton of massively inflated costs for pizzas when Papa Johns themselves estimated the increased cost at $0.11 per pizza. You can't even argue coherently or remember what you're talking about within the confines of a single thread.

I'm talking more of a living wage and healthcare vs just for health care. $8 an hour with health care is still going to come up short to try and support yourself (let alone a kid or kids). How much do you think is a living wage and how much would you be willing to pay for a pizza to facilitate this? I don't think 11 cents would cover everything I'm talking about.

If pizza shop employees can't afford to feed their family then they will get food stamps or some other form of assistance. Since these employees need to be subsidized by the tax payer just to feed themselves the employer would be "freeloading" in the exact same way that you're complaining that they do for health care.

So for you to be consistent you'll have to make sure that pizza shop employees aren't only able to get health care insurance but food as well and be able to put a roof over their heads without any government assistance.

So once again, what are you willing to pay for a pizza so the people making them can have health care coverage, be able to pay for their food and have a roof over their head all without any government assistance?

 

[fskimospy]

Oh so your argument is 'if we change a whole bunch of things and add a bunch of extra conditions I might be less wrong'? You are so completely tiresome. Just like in the polling thread no matter how obviously you are shown to be an idiot you just keep on plowing ahead.

If my argument was a non sequitur please tell me what part didn't follow. Be specific.

Actually, don't bother. You are exhausting.

 

[buckshot24]

Oh so your argument is 'if we change a whole bunch of things and add a bunch of extra conditions I might be less wrong'? You are so completely tiresome. Just like in the polling thread no matter how obviously you are shown to be an idiot you just keep on plowing ahead.

The polling was all skewed towards Romney as it turned out. So the polls were wrong.

I don't think adding in food and shelter into the discussion is adding "extra conditions". People need these things, they are more important than HCI. If they can't provide these for themselves then the government will have to kick in to help. In other words employers are "freeloading" in the exact same way that they are for health care.

What price are you willing to pay for a pizza so the pizza shop stops "freeloading" on all the necessities that their employees need?

If my argument was a non sequitur please tell me what part didn't follow. Be specific.

Actually, don't bother. You are exhausting.

suit yourself.

 

[lotus503]

Are you as a consumer willing to pay double for your pizza? If consumers were willing then this wouldn't be a problem but they aren't. A pizza maker job is just not going to provide enough money for somebody to live comfortably and afford health insurance on their own because the market won't allow it.

You may as well be complaining about the consumers other than the employers.

I just not from Maui, people do pay double for pizza often.

 

[buckshot24]

I just not from Maui, people do pay double for pizza often.

But it costs more to live in Hawaii, right?

 

[Buxaroo]

My nephew has been applying for a forklift job but has been told that they are only hiring temps right now on occassion as needed because its too expensive to hire with Obamacare looming.

The Black Magic Kenyan is going to run up another trillion in debt and force people to work as temps. :'(

Wow, seriously wow. Black Magic Kenyan.......trillions in debt....lol. You really are misinformed aren't you? You do know that Obamacare won't increase the debt right? Here are some facts for you :Congressional Budget Office' report on Obamacare's repeal.

If you don't know what the CBO is, then your opinion on these matters don't matter. And if you can't be bothered to read some of the key points and read them in context, then that's your problem. I know "ejewcashun" is a hard thing to get when one suffers from mental deficiencies, as evidenced by your racist remark of him being "Kenyan", but that's not my problem.

Hint for those who can't do math: repealing Obamacare would most likely ADD 109 billion per year to the debt.

Also, forklift driver? Hardly a "career" even worth mentioning. Forklift driving is not something one should aim for as a permanent work, I did it, and it's not something I wanted to stick to that's for damn sure.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why not?

How many dependents should the employer be responsible for? Zero? 2? 4?

All of them. It doesn't matter because it dodges the central issue in an attempt to besmirch low pay employees. The few employees who do have large families add very little to the cost of group insurance, anyway, regardless of their rate of pay. Other factors, like group age & utilization rates make a much greater difference.