My nephew denied a job because of Obamacare!

[Jhhnn]

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

False. Only the polls Repubs wanted to believe were skewed towards Romney, They claimed all the rest were skewed, & disregarded them. That's how truthiness works.

 

[actuarial]

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

It's not beside the point as it has everything to do with freeloading. No one has argued that receiving a subsidy is the only requirement for freeloading. It's the difference between someone actively looking for a job while receiving unemployment and a person who doesn't even bother to start looking until their unemployment is about to end.

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.

This argument only makes sense if the only people who need the subsidy are those that made poor decisions, which you know isn't true.

 

[buckshot24]

False. Only the polls Repubs wanted to believe were skewed towards Romney, They claimed all the rest were skewed, & disregarded them. That's how truthiness works.

No that is just not correct. Look at just about every battleground state poll aggregate and Obama outperformed the polls.

 

[buckshot24]

All of them. It doesn't matter because it dodges the central issue in an attempt to besmirch low pay employees.

I am not trying to besmirch low paying employees at all.

The few employees who do have large families add very little to the cost of group insurance, anyway, regardless of their rate of pay.

It adds cost to whoever is paying for the insurance premiums. If you have 4 kids and working a job where you would otherwise be able to support yourself and afford health insurance if you were alone then the employer would become a "freeloader" under your definition and reasoning.

Other factors, like group age & utilization rates make a much greater difference.

Are the premiums higher or lower if you have 6 people on your plan vs 1?

 

[Jhhnn]

No that is just not correct. Look at just about every battleground state poll aggregate and Obama outperformed the polls.

Oh, please. Romney never led in aggregated battleground state polls, only in the minds of wishful thinkers & those affected by motivated reasoning.

I suppose you could say that Obama outperformed the polls in some of them, but that's really misleading. If Obama was favored to win Florida by 1 point but won by 2, it doesn't make a bit of difference, and certainly doesn't justify Repubs' POV about the polls, at all.

Romney actually outperformed the polls in Ohio & Pennsylvania, for example, but he still lost those states as predicted.

 

[Jhhnn]

I am not trying to besmirch low paying employees at all.

It adds cost to whoever is paying for the insurance premiums. If you have 4 kids and working a job where you would otherwise be able to support yourself and afford health insurance if you were alone then the employer would become a "freeloader" under your definition and reasoning.

You're attempting to use the exception to the rule as the rule. Very few people earn enough to support themselves and pay for their own health insurance w/o employer provided coverage, regardless of their marital status or number of dependents.

Are the premiums higher or lower if you have 6 people on your plan vs 1?

With group plans, family coverage is the same price regardless of the number of children. AFAIK, insurers base those premiums on average family size.

You could argue that people with more children get a better deal, but that doesn't affect the employer's share.

 

[buckshot24]

Oh, please. Romney never led in aggregated battleground state polls, only in the minds of wishful thinkers & those affected by motivated reasoning.

Dude, I didn't say he did. Obama under polled in almost all of them.

I suppose you could say that Obama outperformed the polls in some of them, but that's really misleading. If Obama was favored to win Florida by 1 point but won by 2, it doesn't make a bit of difference, and certainly doesn't justify Repubs' POV about the polls, at all.

I didn't say it justified the pre election POV at all. All I was saying is the polls weren't that accurate generally. If Romney outperformed his polling like Obama did then Romney would most likely be president elect.

Romney actually outperformed the polls in Ohio & Pennsylvania, for example, but he still lost those states as predicted.

Not by the spread in Pennsylvania.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/pa/pennsylvania_romney_vs_obama-1891.html

Ohio the margin was closer than what the polls were saying. Agreed.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Quote:





Originally Posted by Jhhnn


False. Only the polls Repubs wanted to believe were skewed towards Romney, They claimed all the rest were skewed, & disregarded them. That's how truthiness works.




No that is just not correct. Look at just about every battleground state poll aggregate and Obama outperformed the polls.

Buckshot you are really full of it dude!!

Even Paul Ryan said they shouldn`t have listened to their own polling people!! You get what you pay for...ie --- you want to hear your going to win==thats what you get...rofl....Buckshot still crying over losing..lolol

 

[buckshot24]

You're attempting to use the exception to the rule as the rule. Very few people earn enough to support themselves and pay for their own health insurance w/o employer provided coverage, regardless of their marital status or number of dependents.

They would if it wasn't customary for an employer to provide HCI in the first place. They could pay them a higher wage.

With group plans, family coverage is the same price regardless of the number of children. AFAIK, insurers base those premiums on average family size.

You could argue that people with more children get a better deal, but that doesn't affect the employer's share.

Ok if a family of 4 vs a family of 10 cost the same then that helps. I'll take your word for it because I just don't know. Don't group plans cost more than single plans though?

 

[buckshot24]

Buckshot you are really full of it dude!!

Even Paul Ryan said they shouldn`t have listened to their own polling people!! You get what you pay for...ie --- you want to hear your going to win==thats what you get...rofl....Buckshot still crying over losing..lolol

I'm not crying about anything dummy. I'm simply pointing out the facts. Obama generally outperformed just about every poll out there. That is simply true and I leave it at that.

I don't care about their pollsters or whatever I'm talking about the public polls.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/pa/pennsylvania_romney_vs_obama-1891.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_romney_vs_obama-1883.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_romney_vs_obama-1922.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/mi/michigan_romney_vs_obama-1811.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nv/nevada_romney_vs_obama-1908.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_romney_vs_obama-2030.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nc/north_carolina_romney_vs_obama-1784.html

 

[Jhhnn]

They would if it wasn't customary for an employer to provide HCI in the first place. They could pay them a higher wage.

"Could" is a non-functional term in context. You also ignore the fact that healthcare benefits are non-taxable, so employees come out ahead dollar for dollar w/ employer provided benefits.

Ok if a family of 4 vs a family of 10 cost the same then that helps. I'll take your word for it because I just don't know. Don't group plans cost more than single plans though?

Group plans are cheaper than individual plans when comparing apples to apples. One person coverage is cheaper than family plans in either case. Many group plans offer that. Currently, employees can even opt out entirely in some situations, say if their spouse's employer offers what they consider to be a more advantageous plan. Otherwise, only fools opt out.

 

[Jhhnn]

RCP, Buckshot? A decidedly Repub leaning site?

Try 538.com, the most accurate of any of them.

Or these guys-

http://election.princeton.edu/history-of-electoral-votes-for-obama/

 

[3chordcharlie]

I'm not sure if it was you or that eskimo dude or maybe Jhhhhn who said that I must be for people dying in the streets or something to that effect. Death has been a large part of the rhetoric in this thread. I'm not so sure that I took it out of context. If you were just being hyperbolic then I apologize.

Etc.

First of all, we need to address, and put to rest, the ridiculous treatment of the term 'freeloader' in this thread. Nearly every post from the right-wing/libertarians in this thread has attempted to shift this term in to the moral realm, and then ridicule it. This is simply, completely inappropriate given the context we have been using. It turns out that a decade (and the rest!) out of school has made me forget some things. But fortunately, the only thing I've forgotten here is that I should have referred to a 'free rider' not a 'freeloader'.
The free rider problem is a question of externalities, and it's solution involves pricing the externality into existing markets. In many cases this means either regulation, or taxes.

Wikipedia has a rather poor article on the free rider problem specifically, but a decent one on externalities.

Mises.org has an accurate description of the free-rider problem. It is written from a dismissive perspective, with a very trivial example that makes it easy to dismiss the problem altogether via a pretty transparent 'beg the question' line of argument.

For the most part, this problem has been accurately described in this thread already.
Importantly, low-wage employees are not the only free riders in this situation. Notably, those who 'can afford' care by any reasonable yardstick, yet rely on care at no cost, are also part of the problem. Of course these folks are likely to be hit with a large bill should they ever receive significant care. So more accurately they are making a gamble between saving money today, and having to declare bankruptcy if they are unfortunate. These people in aggregate still receive care for which they have not paid.


Now back to Health Care:

The reason that death is part of this thread is that it's part of the debate. It is a valid position to say that those who cannot afford to pay for care in the private market (whether that is insurance or pay-as-you-go) should receive no care. This is precisely how the market for Ferraris, guitars, and Grade AAA sirloin works.

It is not valid to hold this position, and refuse to acknowledge that this means people will die of conditions which need not cause death. This facet can be abused to create an appeal to emotion, but the fact of it is correct, and unavoidable.

There's no point having this discussion if we disagree at this first question; we would need to have an entirely different debate. So to continue this thread, I've had to assume that we choose to provide health care to everyone, one way or another. Now we have to sort out the question of who pays.

The basic existing system in the USA is 'patient pays if they can', but there is a large part of the population that falls on the wrong side of that 'if' for one reason or another. The fact that there is a safety net that applies in more than very limited cases becomes a market distortion. It means I can now purchase the labor of an employee for less than the cost of 'keeping that employee alive', because someone else is paying for their healthcare. In an ordinary market, we know there are conditions that can temporarily cause goods to be sold above or below marginal cost, but that the market will return to an equilibrium. But here we have a case where this distortion is permanent.

Forcing the cost of Health Care into the labor market is one solution to this distortion. It isn't the only one. It's not a terribly elegant solution, and it isn't the one that I would choose or advocate. But it is a valid solution, and it is a solution that respects the notion of markets and commerce.

 

[xj0hnx]

It's always possible that I'm wrong.

But no, the argument isn't retarded.

Yes, it absolutely is. Your health is your responsibility. You are responsible for keeping yourself healthy so you can live life, and part of living is working, and providing for yourself and you family. Employers are in no way "freeloading" if they don't offer you health care insurance ...that's insane.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Yes, it absolutely is. Your health is your responsibility. You are responsible for keeping yourself healthy so you can live life, and part of living is working, and providing for yourself and you family. Employers are in no way "freeloading" if they don't offer you health care insurance ...that's insane.

How very clever.

You don't need the "..." around freeloading. Also if you bother reading you'll have noted that I did misspeak: the term should have been 'free rider' not 'freeloader'. Otherwise the description and reasoning, which you have of course ignored, is quite accurate.

You can start with the same question as everyone else: If someone can't afford health care, should they get none?

If the answer is "Yes, they should get none" then you aren't really part of this discussion, and can feel free to leave.

 

[xj0hnx]

How very clever.

You don't need the "..." around freeloading. Also if you bother reading you'll have noted that I did misspeak:

Was I talking to you?

the term should have been 'free rider' not 'freeloader'. Otherwise the description and reasoning, which you have of course ignored, is quite accurate.

They aren't getting a "free ride" because health care insurance isn't a requirement to employ someone.

You can start with the same question as everyone else: If someone can't afford health care, should they get none?

Here's a question for you. If no doctor on Earth would render their services without compensation, hypothetical here, should they be forced to do so?

If the answer is "Yes, they should get none" then you aren't really part of this discussion, and can feel free to leave.

If the answer is "No, they should be free to render their services or not" then congratulations, you are on your way to sanity.

 

[randomrogue]

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. :'(

I have a forklift license. Got it so that I could help the guys out when needed and I wanted to be able to do everything anyone out there could. It took me about 2 hours to get the license.

I would never hire a full time fork lift operator. I get people who have other skills AND can drive a forklift. Your nephew is next to useless in the work place and even more so with an economy like this. Hiring temps is a good idea if they need some extra man hours to only move things around. I'd highly suggest your nephew find other skill sets such as shipping and receiving, running inventory, or other manual labor skills like running machinery.

 

[xj0hnx]

I would never hire a full time fork lift operator.

Well you don't own a business that requires one, but guess what Einstein, there are plenty of jobs out there that do.

 

[Strk]

I have a forklift license. Got it so that I could help the guys out when needed and I wanted to be able to do everything anyone out there could. It took me about 2 hours to get the license.

I would never hire a full time fork lift operator. I get people who have other skills AND can drive a forklift. Your nephew is next to useless in the work place and even more so with an economy like this. Hiring temps is a good idea if they need some extra man hours to only move things around. I'd highly suggest your nephew find other skill sets such as shipping and receiving, running inventory, or other manual labor skills like running machinery.

There are jobs out there that require full-time forklift operators.

 

[randomrogue]

Did the OP's nephew get one?

 

[Slammy1]

I get people who have other skills AND can drive a forklift.4.

Same in my industry, but I can see warehouse operations.

Looking for manual labor position in a border town. There are probably a limited number of positions with good pay/benefits at that level of laborer; larger companies that have contracts outside the area. People don't leave those jobs once they get them.

There's so much entitlement in the OP it seems this is probably just a troll thread, but it still reached 19 pages.. so far.

 

[sportage]

What a funny thread.
I used the same excuse to stop a girl at work from hitting on me day after day.
Said I could never go out with her because of Obamacare.
Now she hates Obama.

I believe this has also become the number one excuse used by school kids for not doing their homework. Obamacare ate my homework.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Was I talking to you?



They aren't getting a "free ride" because health care insurance isn't a requirement to employ someone.



Here's a question for you. If no doctor on Earth would render their services without compensation, hypothetical here, should they be forced to do so?



If the answer is "No, they should be free to render their services or not" then congratulations, you are on your way to sanity.

Either make an actual argument, or fuck off.

 

[Ausm]

Either make an actual argument, or fuck off.

In regard to that putz,I would go with the latter.

 

[TheVrolok]

What a funny thread.
I used the same excuse to stop a girl at work from hitting on me day after day.
Said I could never go out with her because of Obamacare.
Now she hates Obama.

I believe this has also become the number one excuse used by school kids for not doing their homework. Obamacare ate my homework.

I luld.