She's joking, right?

[Korriken]

Pelosi says death of the 40 hour work week means more freedom to follow your passion.

Even James Hoffa Jr, union thug and loyal democrat argues that as Obamacare stands, it will destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week.

maybe if I was a multimillionaire like Nancy Pelosi, I wouldn't need to work 40 hours a week. As it stands, if I was forced to work part time, I would have to find a 2nd or even 3rd job to make ends meet. That would not only rob me of my free time, it could very well rob me of my health due to destruction of any semblance of a sleep pattern and depending on how schedules come up, could end with me being forced to stay awake 24-30 hours at a time due to scheduling.

Maybe this woman should put aside her fortune. get a real job and try to make ends meet with part time work and see how it turns out for her.

[Camarohusky]

Another example of conservatives who are far too willing to harm the small people in order to make a political point. Disgusting.

[Korriken]

At 9/24/13 01:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Another example of conservatives who are far too willing to harm the small people in order to make a political point. Disgusting.

Another example of a shill who will say anything to defend his party against any and all criticism.
Disgusting.

Hoffa is a registered democrat and even served as a superdelegate in the 2008 democratic primaries and support Obama's election campaign. This guy is as blue as they come. How the hell is he a conservative?

[Camarohusky]

At 9/24/13 02:01 PM, Korriken wrote: Hoffa is a registered democrat and even served as a superdelegate in the 2008 democratic primaries and support Obama's election campaign. This guy is as blue as they come. How the hell is he a conservative?

You missed the entire point of the statement.

Hoffa was merely stating what he saw. What he saw is a calculated move by conservative business owners to intentionally harm their employees to make a political statement about Obamacare.

[Feoric]

Reminder: Obamacare is a law and has zero chance of being repealed.

[Feoric]

Another reminder: the Obama administration has delayed implementation of the employer mandate for a year, and that Congress would likely getrid of it or amend it to make it more practical, except that Republicans insist on a full repeal, which isn't going to happen. That is what Hoffa is writing about. So, what exactly is this thread about?

[Korriken]

At 9/24/13 04:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

You missed the entire point of the statement.

Hoffa was merely stating what he saw. What he saw is a calculated move by conservative business owners to intentionally harm their employees to make a political statement about Obamacare.

becausl be alusiness owners are right wing nutjob conservatives who are cold and calculating and will do anything in their power to hurt Obama, right? Or it may have more to do with insurance rates climbing because of Obamacare and companies are unwilling to absorb these costs so they do what they have to do in order to keep their profits in order.

He also piles PLENTY of blame on Obamacare, here's one tidbit you'd probably with everyone would overlook:

"Second, millions of Americans are covered by non-profit health insurance plans like the ones in which most of our members participate. These non-profit plans are governed jointly by unions and companies under the Taft-Hartley Act. Our health plans have been built over decades by working men and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the Administration, our employees will treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status and shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance plans."

yup that's a pretty hard kick square in the ass of the unions by Obamacare. Must hurt to know the person who worked hard to get elected would do something like that to you.

so yeah it's all the conservatives fault.

[Korriken]

At 9/24/13 11:16 PM, Korriken wrote:

becausl be alusiness owners are right wing nutjob conservatives..

how in the world did that get messed up? it was right when I hit the post button..

Because all business owners are... is what it should say.

[Korriken]

At 9/24/13 09:15 PM, Feoric wrote: Another reminder: the Obama administration has delayed implementation of the employer mandate for a year, and that Congress would likely getrid of it or amend it to make it more practical, except that Republicans insist on a full repeal, which isn't going to happen. That is what Hoffa is writing about. So, what exactly is this thread about?

horse shit. He laid out changes he wants to see, only you and Camaro manage to segue it into "omfg republicans are at fault here!"

Also, Obama's not going to get rid of the employer mandate, that's one of the crowning jewels of the act to begin with. I would hope though that they at least change it to where non profit insurance plans will be covered as well.

If you want to pin the blame on anyone, I can give you a vote list of those who voted the abomination of a bill into law without reading it.

[Feoric]

At 9/24/13 11:16 PM, Korriken wrote: becausl be alusiness owners are right wing nutjob conservatives who are cold and calculating and will do anything in their power to hurt Obama, right?

Strawman, but also mostly true. See: Papa John's.

Or it may have more to do with insurance rates climbing because of Obamacare and companies are unwilling to absorb these costs so they do what they have to do in order to keep their profits in order.

Citation needed.

He also piles PLENTY of blame on Obamacare, here's one tidbit you'd probably with everyone would overlook:

I'm glad you brought this up. In a nutshell, union health care plans are set up under the Taft-Hartley Act. They are jointly run by a nonprofit health care provider and the union for that particular industry. Union health plans are currently not eligible for tax subsidies under PPACA; however, in spite of this, they still have to pay extra taxes as dictated by the law. The reason for this is that many of these Taft-Hartley plans fall under 'Cadillac' health plans and are categorized as multi-employer plans.

Basically, unions are afraid that the PPACA will undermine union benefits by taking away what union leaders see as a big reason why people pay union dues in the first place: they are great at getting affordable health care to people who otherwise could not afford it. With the exchanges opening, unions are afraid that because union plans aren't eligible for income based subsidies, people will just get health care on their own and have it be federally subsidized rather than pay dues and have the union do it for them.

Here's a good write up about the topic:

"Instead of teaming up with big private insurers, some employers and unions have for years jointly run their own, non-profit group plans. These so-called Taft-Hartley plans function for many purposes like regular employer-sponsored insurance, and are treated as such in the tax code: employer contributions to premiums are tax deductible, and employee contributions are pre-tax. Nevertheless, unions are beseeching Democrats to reinterpret or change the law so that these particular beneficiaries also benefit from new tax credits intended to subsidize individuals who will be purchasing their own insurance in the exchanges. A double subsidy.

"Under the ACA as interpreted by the Administration, our employees will [be] treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens," the letter reads. "As such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status and shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance plans."

The comparison is apples to oranges. The ACA is quite clear that workers with access to tax-preferred, affordable group coverage won't be eligible for new subsidies that will be provided to uninsured people on the exchanges.

"If you're eligible for a Taft-Hartley plan you're treated as if you have employer health care, and you can't get a premium tax credit," explains Timothy Jost, an ACA expert at Washington and Lee University law school. "They're not happy about that, because they want premium tax credits."

But that would be double dipping. The ACA was designed to dissuade managers of group plans from dumping their workers on to the exchanges. It thus largely preserves existing tax subsidies for those who provide and receive group insurance -- including Taft-Hartley plans. It separately establishes new pooled markets for individuals, and creates a new tax subsidy so that middle class people in those markets can afford to purchase insurance. Nobody in the exchanges gets to exclude their premium contribution from their income taxes; andnobody in a group plan gets to supplement their tax exclusion with a new exchange subsidy.

The authors of the letter want workers in Taft-Hartley plans to get both benefits.

For unions, the idea is a solution to a largely unrelated problem. They're concerned that the ACA will entice employers -- particularly small employers with unionized, low-income workers -- to abandon the Taft-Hartley funds they contribute to, and place their workers into state-based exchanges instead causing the funds themselves to disintegrate.

If the funds disintegrate, some workers will get a good deal in the exchanges, while others -- temporary workers with sporadic pay, for instance -- grapple with temporary hardships, if their subsidies don't fully cover the cost of their insurance. (In a February 2012 article for Benefits Magazine [PDF], employee benefit lawyers at the firm Seyfarth Shaw concluded there are "compelling reasons why bargaining parties may choose to continue to maintain multiemployer plans even if they cannot operate within the exchanges.")

The solution unions are seeking, though, would effectively amount to taxpayer subsidization of unions and their employer partners at unknown cost. And it wasn't part of the final version of the ACA, or publicly debated during the legislative process.

"Who knows what was discussed with whom when the law passed, but there was nothing on the face of the statute suggesting anyone other than people who aren't offered affordable group coverage will be eligible for premium tax credits," explains Gary Claxton, vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation and director of the Health Care Marketplace Project. "I don't see how when reading that how anybody with Taft-Hartley would be eligible for tax credits. I don't see the legal argument. Maybe there's some memo or some legal interpretation. Maybe they thought that there was a provision that they wanted in there that didn't make it in. But it's difficult to see."

"What the unions are saying is 'We have a problem here, can you help us fix it,'" explains Jared Bernstein, a liberal economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities who served as Vice President Joe Biden's chief economist. "They're saying 'can you help us here, can you bend the rules,' and it's a tough ask for the government."

Yeah, he's wrong. I'm not sure what else to tell you.

yup that's a pretty hard kick square in the ass of the unions by Obamacare. Must hurt to know the person who worked hard to get elected would do something like that to you.

Thank god we have the GOP who unsuccessfully attempted to defund Obamacare 43 times instead of actually attempting to fix the flaws in the bill.

so yeah it's all the conservatives fault.

Another strawman, but again mostly true.

horse shit. He laid out changes he wants to see, only you and Camaro manage to segue it into "omfg republicans are at fault here!"

Again, more strawmen, but yet again mostly true.

Also, Obama's not going to get rid of the employer mandate, that's one of the crowning jewels of the act to begin with. I would hope though that they at least change it to where non profit insurance plans will be covered as well.

That may be what you'd like to believe because it's such an obvious flaw, but no that is not true. If it was a crowning achievement it would not have been delayed and would be effective immediately on October 1st.

If you want to pin the blame on anyone, I can give you a vote list of those who voted the abomination of a bill into law without reading it.

Boo hoo.

[Korriken]

At 9/24/13 11:57 PM, Feoric wrote:

Strawman, but also mostly true. See: Papa John's.

you mean the pizza corporation complete with board of directors who answer to stockholders? Yeah, I can't imagine any conceivable reason why they would want to hold onto profits.

Basically, unions are afraid that the PPACA will undermine union benefits by taking away what union leaders see as a big reason why people pay union dues in the first place: they are great at getting affordable health care to people who otherwise could not afford it. With the exchanges opening, unions are afraid that because union plans aren't eligible for income based subsidies, people will just get health care on their own and have it be federally subsidized rather than pay dues and have the union do it for them.

so basically, it piles on more taxes to make it no longer viable, and that's a GOOD thing. Way to go Obama, gut shot your own soldiers and leave them to die. I bet Hoffa feels nothing but joy to know he was played like a fiddle and is being rewarded with a bullet to the gut for his loyal service.

Here's a good write up about the topic:

"Instead of teaming up with big private insurers, some employers and unions have for years jointly run their own, non-profit group plans...

Tax, tax, tax their benefits and give them nothing in exchange. Sounds like typical politics to me. The easier solution would be to not hike the taxes on their non-profit plans. Then again, what do the Democrats care? As long as the unions quietly obey and support them come election time, there's no need for them to give the unions any consideration.

"If you're eligible for a Taft-Hartley plan you're treated as if you have employer health care, and you can't get a premium tax credit," explains Timothy Jost, an ACA expert at Washington and Lee University law school. "They're not happy about that, because they want premium tax credits."

It's a FORTY PERCENT tax! I'd be pretty pissed off myself if I worked for years and paid into a healthcare plan just to have a bunch of millionaires in empty suits in Washington who haven't done a hard day of work, probably in their entire life, just up and snatch it from me in order to fund their half baked schemes.

But that would be double dipping. The ACA was designed to dissuade managers of group plans from dumping their workers on to the exchanges.

by taxing "generous" plans by 40%, making them insanely expensive in order to force people on the exchanges. Who can afford a 40% tax on health care? no one who works for a living. What this "tax" does it punish those who want to have better health care and create a health care ceiling. Your plan too good? Eat this massive tax as a punishment.

The authors of the letter want workers in Taft-Hartley plans to get both benefits.

Or maybe they don't want to be forced onto the exchanges because Obama decided to reward his loyal minions with a massive tax to their health care plans, which will either force them to lower their plans to an "Obama deems acceptable" level or pay an excessive tax for "being wealthy".

For unions, the idea is a solution to a largely unrelated problem. They're concerned that the ACA will entice employers -- particularly small employers with unionized, low-income workers -- to abandon the Taft-Hartley funds they contribute to, and place their workers into state-based exchanges instead causing the funds themselves to disintegrate.

The 40% tax will disintegrate the non profit plans on it's own. No one can afford that who isn't already a multimillionaire.

The solution unions are seeking, though, would effectively amount to taxpayer subsidization of unions and their employer partners at unknown cost. And it wasn't part of the final version of the ACA, or publicly debated during the legislative process.

There was a debate? That's news to me. All I saw was a political orgy, and the ACA is the monster that rose from the reproductive juices left on the floor.

yup that's a pretty hard kick square in the ass of the unions by Obamacare. Must hurt to know the person who worked hard to get elected would do something like that to you.

Thank god we have the GOP who unsuccessfully attempted to defund Obamacare 43 times instead of actually attempting to fix the flaws in the bill.

Thank god we have the Democrats who passed this horribly flawed bill without even making sure it worked. If a game developer put out a game as loaded with problems as the ACA, the dev team would be fired.

so yeah it's all the conservatives fault.

Another strawman, but again mostly true.

Mostly false, given I think 3 of them voted for it.

The democrats voted it into law, the president signed it. any damage done is solely the fault of the Democrats who voted for it along with the I think 3 republicans who voted for it. Instead of having a political orgy and creating this mess, they should have taken a more methodical look at it and made sure it worked before ramming it through. What we have is a hellacious mess of a bill which is causing all manner of problems. If I was a Republican,I would basically say, "You voted for it. you own it."

That may be what you'd like to believe because it's such an obvious flaw, but no that is not true. If it was a crowning achievement it would not have been delayed and would be effective immediately on October 1st.

the delay's reason is obvious. to implement it now would cause massive losses come 2014 election time as employers would be forced to layoff and slash hours in order to not go out of business, and I doubt even MSNBC could twist the facts hard enough to make it look like the GOP's fault. As it is now, the Democrats can trumpet half truths about Obamacare to their benefit. The employer mandate is a lustrous diamond on the Obamacare crown because once it's been set, it will siphon billions from the private sector in order to keep Obamacare somewhat afloat for a while longer. It will be delayed again and again until the economy picks up, then it'll be implemented which will drive the economy back down, but at that point the Democrats can say, "The economy is up, it's just them damned employers being stingy!"

Then again, I can't help but wonder how many people who voted for Obamacare has actually HAD a regular job. Being a lawyer doesn't count.

Boo hoo.

Don't cry, It'll be alright.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/25/13 01:42 AM, Korriken wrote: you mean the pizza corporation complete with board of directors who answer to stockholders? Yeah, I can't imagine any conceivable reason why they would want to hold onto profits.

Costco is proof that high wages and good benefits actually creates better work output from the employees than the benefits cost the company.

[Feoric]

At 9/25/13 01:42 AM, Korriken wrote: you mean the pizza corporation complete with board of directors who answer to stockholders? Yeah, I can't imagine any conceivable reason why they would want to hold onto profits.

Yes, that one. The pizza corporation with an all time high stock price and record profits. Speaking of shareholders, let's see what John Schnatter said to them:

"If Obamacare is in fact not repealed, we will find tactics to shallow out any Obamacare costs and core strategies to pass that cost onto consumers in order to protect our shareholders best interests."

This is what I find so funny about this debate in this country. You and other like you are adamantly defending a business' decision to treat its workers like shit in order to maximize profits. Forget raising prices, they can just not make as much profit each year. You'd rather see a 50 million profit instead of a 42 million profit, except with the latter the employees can actually go to the doctor without being terrified of bankruptcy or coughing all over your pizza. It's like as if having healthy productive workers is a bad thing. And yet being a greedy piece of shit is somehow the fault of Obama. So what exactly are you trying to say here? Was that a smart move? I don't think so.

so basically, it piles on more taxes to make it no longer viable, and that's a GOOD thing.

Here's what's going to happen. You're going to stop strawmanning and misrepresenting what I'm saying and the issue at hand here, because I'm really sick and tired of arguing with petulant manchildren arguing in bad faith. There's plenty of people here who like to learn a thing or two about this topic. I'm more than happy to take the time out of my day to answer questions about this and debate it. Don't ruin it for yourself and others.

It's a FORTY PERCENT tax! I'd be pretty pissed off myself if I worked for years and paid into a healthcare plan just to have a bunch of millionaires in empty suits in Washington who haven't done a hard day of work, probably in their entire life, just up and snatch it from me in order to fund their half baked schemes.

by taxing "generous" plans by 40%, making them insanely expensive in order to force people on the exchanges. Who can afford a 40% tax on health care? no one who works for a living. What this "tax" does it punish those who want to have better health care and create a health care ceiling. Your plan too good? Eat this massive tax as a punishment.

Or maybe they don't want to be forced onto the exchanges because Obama decided to reward his loyal minions with a massive tax to their health care plans, which will either force them to lower their plans to an "Obama deems acceptable" level or pay an excessive tax for "being wealthy".

The 40% tax will disintegrate the non profit plans on it's own. No one can afford that who isn't already a multimillionaire.

Way to be maudlin. First of all, the Cadillac tax is not effective until 2018. You're right, it's extremely unpopular with unions, and they certainly have a good case to make. That is why I'm expecting to see it stripped out of the law before 2018. I expect there to be stronger push back as we get closer and closer to when it gets implemented, and not just from unions. The Cadillac tax also affects businesses that provide expensive benefits. These are typically if not exclusively big businesses, and I'm sure they will lobby against it. Second, the tax is 40% of the cost of the plan above the threshold. For individual plans the threshold is $10,200; family plans are $27,500. For example, let's say there is a family plan that costs $30,000 a year. The tax would be 40% of $2500. This would be a $1000 tax. The tax is paid by the insurance provider, not the insured. Also, there are exemptions for plans belonging to people over 55, and people in high risk professions.

Thank god we have the Democrats who passed this horribly flawed bill without even making sure it worked. If a game developer put out a game as loaded with problems as the ACA, the dev team would be fired.

Yes, the Democrats passed a healthcare bill which has some flaws. Having a flawed healthcare bill is better than none at all. Unfortunately nobody seems to be trying to tweak the bill. Because, y'know, repealing Obamacare. 43 times. Call on your local union chapter and tell them to hold Obama and the Dems to the fire, seeing as they seem to be the only ones intent on trying to get shit done. Maybe call some GOP congressman and tell them to stop holding the economy hostage over an impossible demand and actually start fixing the bill they keep saying doesn't work. I dunno. That would make a whole lot of sense.

If I was a Republican,I would basically say, "You voted for it. you own it."

The entire country owns it. Because it is a law. That Congress voted on. And passed. Congress, the institution that represents the citizens of the United States of America. The cognitive dissonance is astounding. You're upset about the bill and its flaws, yet you support Republicans doing jack shit to fix it. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

The employer mandate is a lustrous diamond on the Obamacare crown because once it's been set, it will siphon billions from the private sector in order to keep Obamacare somewhat afloat for a while longer. It will be delayed again and again until the economy picks up, then it'll be implemented which will drive the economy back down, but at that point the Democrats can say, "The economy is up, it's just them damned employers being stingy!"

You don't understand how the business/employer mandate works. The businesses mandate states that any business over a certain size will be required to provide insurance. If they do not comply, they pay a fine per employee beyond the first 50. Businesses also have the option to provide vouchers to their employees, which they can then use to pick a plan of their liking from the exchanges. There is no fine for this. Any business with more than 50 full time equivalent employees are mandated to provide health insurance. Full time equivalent just means that the business takes the number of hours worked by all employees in a month and then divides it by 130 (which is roughly 30 hours a week). Simply hiring part time workers does not avoid the mandate.

You saying that it will "siphon billions from the private sector" is a bunch of bullshit. It's the other way around. The big criticism is how arbitrary the wording is and the way it punishes businesses. If you really wanted to penalize businesses for not providing their workers with health insurance, then how those penalties should be defined should be based on total labor hours worked in one month, not this silly "equivalent full time employee" nonsense. That way the penalties grow or contract dynamically with the business instead of creating these clunky arbitrary limits that businesses try to stay under anyway. Why does it have to be 50 employees? Why not 60? 40? 100? There is no reason. It just feels nice. It's between 0 and 100. It's not a magic number for businesses.

The latter part of your post is quite telling how your mind operates. Is it not possible that Obama and Congressional Democrats also feel the same way about the business mandate? Does it not cross your mind that the mandate was delayed because Obama wants more time to fix it? No, of course not, you dive directly into this asinine conspiracy theory about how Democrats are intent on crashing the economy with a provision within the ACA which does not exist and then blaming the aftermath on Republicans. As if Republicans this whole time really wanted to fix the bill instead of trying to repeal it 43 fucking times.

[Korriken]

At 9/25/13 11:28 AM, Feoric wrote:

"If Obamacare is in fact not repealed, we will find tactics to shallow out any Obamacare costs and core strategies to pass that cost onto consumers in order to protect our shareholders best interests."

in other words, doing their job to protect their shareholders' best interests, like they're supposed to.

This is what I find so funny about this debate in this country. You and other like you are adamantly defending a business' decision to treat its workers like shit in order to maximize profits.

businesses don't exist to provide jobs. They exist to make money for its investors.

Forget raising prices, they can just not make as much profit each year. You'd rather see a 50 million profit instead of a 42 million profit, except with the latter the employees can actually go to the doctor without being terrified of bankruptcy or coughing all over your pizza. It's like as if having healthy productive workers is a bad thing. And yet being a greedy piece of shit is somehow the fault of Obama. So what exactly are you trying to say here? Was that a smart move? I don't think so.

"you'd rather see..." good job projecting things onto me for making your point. What a business does is its business, not mine. If they want to quadruple their prices, let them. If they want to treat their workers like shit, let them. If the worker doesn't like it the worker can develop the ambition to move up in life. No one forces anyone to work at any particular job. It's not like they're trapped there.

Here's what's going to happen. You're going to stop strawmanning and misrepresenting what I'm saying and the issue at hand here, because I'm really sick and tired of arguing with petulant manchildren arguing in bad faith.

says the person who derailed the topic, which was about Nanci Pelosi to begin with. I'm just playing your little game.

There's plenty of people here who like to learn a thing or two about this topic. I'm more than happy to take the time out of my day to answer questions about this and debate it. Don't ruin it for yourself and others.

Way to be maudlin. First of all, the Cadillac tax is not effective until 2018. You're right, it's extremely unpopular with unions, and they certainly have a good case to make. That is why I'm expecting to see it stripped out of the law before 2018.

We'll see. I don't really expect it to, but then again, it wouldn't be the only provision that would "in theory" fund Obamacare and be "deficit neutral" that gets stripped out of it.

The tax is paid by the insurance provider, not the insured. Also, there are exemptions for plans belonging to people over 55, and people in high risk professions.

Yes, the Democrats passed a healthcare bill which has some flaws. Having a flawed healthcare bill is better than none at all.

I don't see the logic. ACA has more issues than Playboy. But I suppose, they had to force something through immediately and put in plenty of throwaway provisions in order to make it appear "deficit neutral".

Unfortunately nobody seems to be trying to tweak the bill.

Because, y'know, repealing Obamacare. 43 times.

What can I say? A bunch of out of touch political power mongers pushed through a patchwork bill of provisions that don't work despite the best efforts of their rival out of touch power mongers, and signed into law by an out of touch power monger, and was upheld 5 out of touch power mongers in the supreme court. Now a bunch of out of touch power mongers are trying to repeal it for a short term political win.

Call on your local union chapter and tell them to hold Obama and the Dems to the fire, seeing as they seem to be the only ones intent on trying to get shit done. Maybe call some GOP congressman and tell them to stop holding the economy hostage over an impossible demand and actually start fixing the bill they keep saying doesn't work. I dunno. That would make a whole lot of sense.

The entire country owns it. Because it is a law. That Congress voted on. And passed.

Congress, the institution that represents the citizens of the United States of America. The cognitive dissonance is astounding. You're upset about the bill and its flaws, yet you support Republicans doing jack shit to fix it. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

Since when has congress actually cared what the people want? I can't remember. If they REALLY 'represented' us, Obamacare would have never been passed because of the majority of America not wanting it. But of course, they don't represent us, they simply rule over us.

Also, I don't support them. I don't support either party. They're just 2 sides of the same authoritarian regime. Both sides know the truth. They are each others default. The republicans aren't too worried about it. Eventually the Democrats will screw up big time and the Republicans will regain power. This is the vicious cycle that is destroying America more than anything.

I don't like Obamacare because I don't like the government telling me I have to buy something unconditionally. Car insurance, I can understand. I already have health insurance, so I'm not worried about it either way. I still don't like having Uncle Sam commanding me to buy something.

You don't understand how the business/employer mandate works. The businesses mandate states that any business over a certain size will be required to provide insurance. If they do not comply, they pay a fine per employee beyond the first 50.

You can either give your employees insurance, which will be used as a club to smash the Democrats' political opponents in the face any time they mention Obamacare, or they can pay a fine which goes into the government coffers, and thus, fund Obamacare. It'll make for interesting rhetoric later, "vote for me, because my opponent will steal your health care!"

You saying that it will "siphon billions from the private sector" is a bunch of bullshit. It's the other way around.

we'll see.

Why does it have to be 50 employees? Why not 60? 40? 100? There is no reason. It just feels nice. It's between 0 and 100. It's not a magic number for businesses.

Actually, 50's not a bad number. Many small businesses like plumbing companies only have maybe 10-15 workers tops. The mandate goes after bigger fish like retail stores and corporations. I can't think of many businesses that would have more than 20 and less than 50. Some restaurants maybe.

Is it not possible that Obama and Congressional Democrats also feel the same way about the business mandate?

Some, maybe. but it's quite telling when a politician who is worth 35 million is going to tell me that the destruction of the 40 hour work week simply means i'll have more free time on my hands to pursue my passions too. Apparently she doesn't know what "making ends meet" means. Also, it was passed, what, 4 years ago? Where is the sense of urgency on fixing it? I don't see much, if any. All I see are delays.

Does it not cross your mind that the mandate was delayed because Obama wants more time to fix it?

Not really. They've had years to fix it, they don't seem too concerned about it. Just keep pushing it back. Of course, it could make for an interesting tool should Clinton not win in 2016, but somehow the democrats maintain a majority in one of the houses... Just a thought.

As if Republicans this whole time really wanted to fix the bill instead of trying to repeal it 43 fucking times.

Why would they? they didn't vote for it and fixing it wouldn't be a political win for them. You're blaming politicians for being politicians. Oddly enough, you seem to have this delusion that the people who get elected actually represent us. How quaint.

[aviewaskewed]

At 9/25/13 05:39 PM, Korriken wrote: in other words, doing their job to protect their shareholders' best interests, like they're supposed to.

Did you read the statement? Because take the corporate speak out and what you have is this: "We are comitted to fucking over our customers by charging them MORE for this product because of a law we don't like that forces us to treat our workers better and allow them to have a better quality of life and health, which would then theoretically mean less time spent away from the job. We don't care about the bad press this creates, we just assume the public are nit wits and we can continue to make obscene amounts of money for ourselves that you the investor get a small piece of". Yep, makes perfect sense.

businesses don't exist to provide jobs. They exist to make money for its investors.

First, not all businesses have investors, that's a flaw in your argument. Second, any business above a certain size or selling a certain product DOES need to provide jobs because it needs other hands to make it run. They in turn provide those employees with a living wage, which they then spend propping up the economy. If you're argument is "businesses shouldn't give a fuck about creating jobs to provide income" then you don't understand even the most basic way an economy works.

What a business does is its business, not mine.

Frankly, that is the stupidest argument I've ever heard, and it's dangerous as hell. Under this logic you'd let polluters pollute, unsafe conditions prevail, a whole host of abuses really.

It's not like they're trapped there.

Ok, I think I have finally decided not to reply to any of your posts, or just flat out ignore you now because with this statement you prove you have no grasp of the realities of American life. You have bought into the Repub lie that class divide is merely there because some people are lazy, willfully stupid, etc. and if they'd just work a little harder a better life is just around the corner. Money isn't an object! Where you live isn't a factor! None of these things matter, ignore all facts to the contrary!!!

Ugh..done...

[LazyDrunk]

At 9/25/13 07:08 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Did you read the statement? Because take the corporate speak out and what you have is this: "We are comitted to fucking over our customers by charging them MORE for this product because of a law we don't like that forces us to treat our workers better and allow them to have a better quality of life and health, which would then theoretically mean less time spent away from the job. We don't care about the bad press this creates, we just assume the public are nit wits and we can continue to make obscene amounts of money for ourselves that you the investor get a small piece of". Yep, makes perfect sense.

When you think like a liberal, I'm sure it hurts to understand that others don't actually care how you feel. If you honestly believe fucking over customers is their endgame, you're delusional. The other stuff you wrote isn't too stupid . . . but still, obscene amounts of money mean nothing when they aren't YOUR obscene amounts of money. If they were, you'd hire a good lawyer to tell you how much moolah you can legally keep using government-endorsed pogroms and loopholes. Spending other people's money is easy, which is a large part of why we have a record debt and deficit... the federal government doesn't actually produce anything; it's supposedly still around to protect our borders (open-border policy, contrary to states' attempted enforcement) and regulate interstate commerce. Does this mean bailing out bankrupt states who've chosen to empty their coffers on campaign promises? Maybe, but using universal healthcare as the cover and making that coverage mandatory is, in my view, an overreach.

Also, why do you think bad press isn't a concern?

businesses don't exist to provide jobs. They exist to make money for its investors.

First, not all businesses have investors, that's a flaw in your argument. Second, any business above a certain size or selling a certain product DOES need to provide jobs because it needs other hands to make it run. They in turn provide those employees with a living wage, which they then spend propping up the economy. If you're argument is "businesses shouldn't give a fuck about creating jobs to provide income" then you don't understand even the most basic way an economy works.

Not every job pays a living wage, there's the flaw in your argument. I see you conveniently ignored his opening post talking about that. Maybe you didn't notice all the businesses cutting hours and hiring more part-time employees. You are an internetter though, so maybe you don't get out much. What do you do for your living wage, if I may ask?

What a business does is its business, not mine.

Frankly, that is the stupidest argument I've ever heard, and it's dangerous as hell. Under this logic you'd let polluters pollute, unsafe conditions prevail, a whole host of abuses really.

We do import from China. Alot. How do you level that with your current worldview?

It's not like they're trapped there.

Money isn't an object! Where you live isn't a factor! None of these things matter, ignore all facts to the contrary!!!

Ugh..done...

k, bye

[Feoric]

At 9/25/13 05:39 PM, Korriken wrote: in other words, doing their job to protect their shareholders' best interests, like they're supposed to.

You don't have a point because Obamacare does not threaten the interests of its shareholders. Camarohusky brought up Costco, which also has an all time high stock price and still managed to rake in 1.7 billion dollars of pure profit for FY 2012 despite not treating their workers like shit. John Schnatter isn't doing jack for his shareholders by being spiteful. He' fusing politics with his company. He since then had to go into damage control because everyone except you apparently saw right through it.

businesses don't exist to provide jobs. They exist to make money for its investors.

Any executive's primary fiduciary duty is to enhance the real value of their company, not to generate returns to shareholders. CEOs who focus on enhancing shareholder value are taking part in an unethical business practice, which ultimately leads to a massive conflict of interest. You cannot increase your real value without expanding, which must result in hiring more workers. When you are raising the value of shareholders (which in turn means higher stock prices, which in turn means more net worth for yourself and your buddies) instead of focusing on your obligation to enhance the real value of the company itself then I see no reason why I should ever give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to certain issues, like, say, Obamacare threatening your business. You've bought into a toxic business culture, the same culture where fat cats on Wall Street get multi million dollar severance packages after wrecking companies or entire economies.

"you'd rather see..." good job projecting things onto me for making your point. What a business does is its business, not mine. If they want to quadruple their prices, let them. If they want to treat their workers like shit, let them.

The point isn't whether or not we should allow companies to treat workers like shit. The point is that, with respect to Papa John's, they don't have to in order to remain profitable, nor do they have to in order to keep shareholders happy. If your business model depends on fucking over your workers, chances are you do not have a sustainable business model.

If the worker doesn't like it the worker can develop the ambition to move up in life. No one forces anyone to work at any particular job. It's not like they're trapped there.

For million of people, yes, people are very much trapped where they are. It's called economic mobility, and it's not very high right now in this stagnant economy.

says the person who derailed the topic, which was about Nanci Pelosi to begin with. I'm just playing your little game.

Yeah ok Puppet Master. You linked an article about where Hoffa Jr. (who you graciously called a union thug) talked about Obamacare, and then completely misunderstood what he was saying. If you didn't want to discuss this then you shouldn't have brought it up in your OP.

We'll see. I don't really expect it to, but then again, it wouldn't be the only provision that would "in theory" fund Obamacare and be "deficit neutral" that gets stripped out of it.

It wouldn't help fund Obamacare until 2018 anyway. We wouldn't be losing any revenue stream if it was yanked before it was implemented. It doesn't matter what effect it would have on the deficit if it never goes online.

I don't see the logic. ACA has more issues than Playboy. But I suppose, they had to force something through immediately and put in plenty of throwaway provisions in order to make it appear "deficit neutral".

The deficit is not an issue. CBO projects that Medicare payments will be cut at around roughly 25-30%, and then cut an additional 1-3% a year, every year, for the next 10 years. The deficit is simply a means to an end (austerity) for Republicans. It should not be a major concern. We can run a sizable deficit without it posing any threat to our economy. In fact we should, since we're still in a slump.

What can I say? A bunch of out of touch political power mongers pushed through a patchwork bill of provisions that don't work

Actually Obamacare is beating expectations, which is why the GOP is desperate to get rid of it now. God forbid people actually start liking it.

Since when has congress actually cared what the people want? I can't remember. If they REALLY 'represented' us, Obamacare would have never been passed because of the majority of America not wanting it. But of course, they don't represent us, they simply rule over us.

Obamacare passed because citizens elected a Congress to pass it. You're right, Congress doesn't care what "The People" want. They care about what their constituents want. A majority of the members of Congress at the time of passing represented people in their respected congressional districts who wanted Obamacare. It's as simple as that.

Also, I don't support them. I don't support either party. They're just 2 sides of the same authoritarian regime. Both sides know the truth. They are each others default. The republicans aren't too worried about it.

No, they are worried about it. They are terribly worried about it. Are you joking? Have you been listening to the GOP the past several years? They're scared shit. They fired up the base to no avail. The Tea Party is unhinged. There's threats of primaries. The ACA is beating expectations. Rates are coming out lower than expected. The GOP is going to be fucked once the exchanges open up and coverage starts in 2014. People are going to like it. There's no turning back at that point. You can't campaign on killing a popular program. They've campaigned on it for how many years now? They are screwed and they know it. That's why we have this fucking debacle in Congress right now.

Actually, 50's not a bad number. Many small businesses like plumbing companies only have maybe 10-15 workers tops. The mandate goes after bigger fish like retail stores and corporations. I can't think of many businesses that would have more than 20 and less than 50. Some restaurants maybe.

Okay, fair enough, but that's not really the main point. The real issue is that it is arbitrary and static. Businesses are not.

Also, it was passed, what, 4 years ago? Where is the sense of urgency on fixing it? I don't see much, if any. All I see are delays.

Please tell me how anything at all can get done with respect to Obamacare right now. You do know we are currently under threat of a government shutdown because an amendment to defend Obamacare was slipped into a CR as a poison pill, right?

Why would they? they didn't vote for it and fixing it wouldn't be a political win for them.

Okay. You answered all your questions and refuted all your other points with this. I'm not simply blaming politicians for being politicians. I'm telling you why nothing is getting done. You just made my own point. By the way, politicians can be politicians without holding the entire world financial markets hostage. This is completely unprecedented.

[aviewaskewed]

At 9/25/13 07:30 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: When you think like a liberal, I'm sure it hurts to understand that others don't actually care how you feel.

Ad hominem aside...what hurts me is not so much that a rich guy like Papa John doesn't care how I feel, I understand that to a degree since he's no different then the owner of every other big business. What "hurts" is that average joe workers like myself will gleefully and continually side with these assholes who don't care about them, who prey on them and fuck them over and then use them as the mouth pieces to go "how can I be the bad guy? Joe average over here is agreeing!". That's what hurts. That people continue to rail against their own best interest.

If you honestly believe fucking over customers is their endgame, you're delusional.

I never said it was their endgame. Their endgame is more profit, I know that, you know that. The endgame is the fundamental problem with unchecked capitalism "he who dies with the most toys wins...me me me, fuck everybody else". What I said was the CONSEQUENCE which is CLEARLY evident in the statement when you remove the corporate speak is that the consumer will be harmed (or at the least, inconvenienced) by price increases in their goal to do that. But hopefully the consumer will do the simplest solution: Not buy the product for the increased price. It's what I plan to do myself.

The other stuff you wrote isn't too stupid . . .

You're too kind...*eye roll*

but still, obscene amounts of money mean nothing when they aren't YOUR obscene amounts of money. If they were, you'd hire a good lawyer to tell you how much moolah you can legally keep using government-endorsed pogroms and loopholes.

You don't know me, and you don't know how I would handle "obscene amounts of money". You don't know how I'd run a business, you don't know my value system, and you don't know what I hold dear and what I don't. In short, you made an assumption you can't back, and that is why this part was singled out to be highlighted for dismissal.

Spending other people's money is easy, which is a large part of why we have a record debt and deficit...

Oh wonderful, another conservative economic expert that continues to ignore debt can actually be an asset...

the federal government doesn't actually produce anything;

Military, postal service, jobs related to those and other departments and services but...yeah, when I ignore all that, the government does nothing and gives me nothing. They just steal all my money down a hole...those fucks.

it's supposedly still around to protect our borders (open-border policy, contrary to states' attempted enforcement) and regulate interstate commerce.

Our borders are in fact being secured. Illegal immigration is down to just about (if not) zero right now...straw man that isn't even straw since it's just factually untrue.

Does this mean bailing out bankrupt states who've chosen to empty their coffers on campaign promises?

Who? Where? When? I haven't heard of any states declaring bankruptcy and getting bailouts lately myself.

Maybe, but using universal healthcare as the cover and making that coverage mandatory is, in my view, an overreach.

Cover? Cover for what? For this bankruptcy fantasy talk? Has anyone on your side considered that the simple reason Obama championed health care in his campaign, then passed the healthcare law is because he honestly just wanted people to have access to healthcare? That he actually believed it was the right thing to do? That's not to say there aren't flaws (they've been pointed out very well elsewhere in the thread by folks smarter about the law then me), but they can be corrected. I mean, it's kind of like how a lot of the left in demonizing Bush forget all the aid he gave to Africa for famine relief and such.

Also, why do you think bad press isn't a concern?

They seem willing to brace it and deal with it...if they weren't, they never would have released the memo (which anytime you put communication in writing there is a risk of a leak). Maybe I shouldn't have said it isn't a concern at all, but it certainly isn't a big one since they aren't suggesting this as a course of action but making it very clear that it is the decided course of action.

Not every job pays a living wage, there's the flaw in your argument.

I never claimed it did. I think that's a major problem too, but I honestly didn't see the relevance of that to what we were discussing. Nor do I see the relevance now.

I see you conveniently ignored his opening post talking about that.

There you go assuming again. You could have just asked me why it wasn't brought up instead of assuming I had a bad intention.

Maybe you didn't notice all the businesses cutting hours and hiring more part-time employees.

I have! My job has been doing it for years. Most jobs are tending towards that. That trend was prior to Obamacare though, so please don't try to do the patently false math of saying the two are not only related, but that one caused the other.

You are an internetter though, so maybe you don't get out much.

I get out quite a bit actually. I just hang around here in my spare time. Geez, you have a lot of assumptions and prejudices in you don't you?

What do you do for your living wage, if I may ask?

You may not because it's a straw man and has no bearing on our discussion :)

We do import from China. Alot. How do you level that with your current worldview?

What do imports have to do with Korriken's assertion that business should be allowed to do whatever it wants? Explain that please and then we can happily deal with how I feel about imports.

k, bye

I just meant with him. But if you don't want to talk to me then...why reply to my post to begin with? Or was that just an attempt to try and be witty?

[Korriken]

At 9/25/13 07:08 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Did you read the statement? Because take the corporate speak out and what you have is this: "We are comitted to fucking over our customers by charging them MORE for this product because of a law we don't like that forces us to treat our workers better and allow them to have a better quality of life and health, which would then theoretically mean less time spent away from the job. We don't care about the bad press this creates, we just assume the public are nit wits and we can continue to make obscene amounts of money for ourselves that you the investor get a small piece of". Yep, makes perfect sense.

Neither Papa Johns, nor any business has any obligation to anyone, except for its investors. If it wants to charge more and treat its customers like shit, so be it. If people still work there and people still buy the pizza, then guess what, it was a smart business move. You can hate Papa Johns all you want, but in the end, if you don't like their business practices, then don't buy their pizza.

businesses don't exist to provide jobs. They exist to make money for its investors.

First, not all businesses have investors, that's a flaw in your argument.

name 1 business that opened up with no investment from anyone. Without capital a business could never get anywhere, even if the initial investment came from the person who started it. At this point, the business exists to make a living for the person who made it. No one else. Businesses do not have an obligation to it's workers beyond what has been agreed upon.

Second, any business above a certain size or selling a certain product DOES need to provide jobs because it needs other hands to make it run.

It only needs to provide what it needs to ensure that it can run, yes. This is obvious. However, no one is forced to work there. If you don't like it, work elsewhere. If no one works there, the business will be forced to close. McDonald's has it set up to train people in under an hour, pay them minimum wage and treat them like dogs. They stay open just fine and rake in piles of money.

They in turn provide those employees with a living wage, which they then spend propping up the economy. If you're argument is "businesses shouldn't give a fuck about creating jobs to provide income" then you don't understand even the most basic way an economy works.

The business provides its willing employees with a wage they're willing to work for. There is no such thing as a "living wage" that they owe anyone. There is a reason why McDonalds has such a high employee turnover, but there's also a reason why McDonalds can continue to dole out minimum wage and stay open. There are enough people willing to work for minimum wage to keep it going.

Frankly, that is the stupidest argument I've ever heard, and it's dangerous as hell. Under this logic you'd let polluters pollute, unsafe conditions prevail, a whole host of abuses really.

You know what I mean. Don't be a fuckwit. good job blowing shit further out of proportion than I would even expect Camaro to.

Ok, I think I have finally decided not to reply to any of your posts, or just flat out ignore you now because with this statement you prove you have no grasp of the realities of American life.

Aww, does it hurt your little feelings that someone believes differently than you? I've been homeless, I've worked for myself and others, and I've been put through enough shit to have a firm enough grasp on reality to see how things work. The concept of business has NEVER been to provide anything to anyone except to provide a living to its owner(s) and those who work for the business owner do so willingly for the wage the owner offers.

If you don't like working for minimum wage, then develop a marketable skill and apply it. And yes, there ARE people who are stuck on the bottom because they ARE too lazy to get off their lazy asses and better themselves. Sitting around, smoking dope, and working at McDonald's, while bitching that you're not making enough money to get by the fault of 1 person. Your own.

I've had people working at the place I work at bitching that they never have any money, but they need a dozen smoke breaks every day. The solution is simple. Stop smoking. $5 a pack every day is $150 a month. For some people that's half a paycheck, which is 1/8th of your monthly pay. that's 1/8th of your pay, or 12.5%. If you handing 12% of your pay to a god damn cigarette company, you have no reason to bitch.

You have bought into the Repub lie

Us Vs them mentality? Not surprised.

that class divide is merely there because some people are lazy, willfully stupid, etc. and if they'd just work a little harder a better life is just around the corner. Money isn't an object! Where you live isn't a factor! None of these things matter, ignore all facts to the contrary!!!

You mean concepts like social mobility are a lie?! You mean only the government can elevate me past worthless peon?! Someone stop the presses. We've all been duped! Someone call Chris Gardner and let him know that it was the Democrat party and not his own hard work that got him to where he is today! He's going to shit himself to learn that all of his hard work was a lie, that the Democratic Party waved its wand of success and elevated him!

Ugh..done...

good. the diarrhea on my screen is hard enough to clean without people spewing more.

[Korriken]

At 9/25/13 07:58 PM, Feoric wrote:

Costco, which also has an all time high stock price and still managed to rake in 1.7 billion dollars of pure profit for FY 2012 despite not treating their workers like shit.

There's a massive difference between a warehouse club where it's not uncommon for someone to drop $200+ on a single trip with people constantly in line as opposed to a pizza chain that might get $30 from 20 customers a day. I frequent Sam's Club. It's amazing how much some people spend on 1 trip to a warehouse club.

Any executive's primary fiduciary duty is to enhance the real value of their company, not to generate returns to shareholders. CEOs who focus on enhancing shareholder value are taking part in an unethical business practice, which ultimately leads to a massive conflict of interest. You cannot increase your real value without expanding, which must result in hiring more workers.

And many manage to pull off both. If you're not making money for your stockholders, you may find yourself pulling the ripcord on your golden parachute as you're thrown from the top of the tower. Thing I've never understood is why they go looking for work with their $100 million+ net worth. I'd retire and live it up myself. Must be a power thing.

When you are raising the value of shareholders (which in turn means higher stock prices, which in turn means more net worth for yourself and your buddies)

Also means more people willing to buy stock if they see your stock is rising, or on the reverse, dump your stock which would cause the price of your stock to plummet, which would make you look terrible.

instead of focusing on your obligation to enhance the real value of the company itself then I see no reason why I should ever give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to certain issues, like, say, Obamacare threatening your business. You've bought into a toxic business culture, the same culture where fat cats on Wall Street get multi million dollar severance packages after wrecking companies or entire economies.

Such is business. The people negotiate their severance packages and get them. It's bullshit, but that's also life. CEO's are in demand and people with the skills (in theory) to do the job get to list their demands.

The point isn't whether or not we should allow companies to treat workers like shit. The point is that, with respect to Papa John's, they don't have to in order to remain profitable, nor do they have to in order to keep shareholders happy. If your business model depends on fucking over your workers, chances are you do not have a sustainable business model.

They seem to be doing good, despite the backlash.

For million of people, yes, people are very much trapped where they are. It's called economic mobility, and it's not very high right now in this stagnant economy.

Yeah ok Puppet Master. You linked an article about where Hoffa Jr. (who you graciously called a union thug) talked about Obamacare, and then completely misunderstood what he was saying. If you didn't want to discuss this then you shouldn't have brought it up in your OP.

I first linked an article with a video of Nancy Pelosi being an out of touch politician who thinks that the destruction of the 40 hour workweek is a good thing. that got ignored in lieu of yet another Obamacare thread.

It wouldn't help fund Obamacare until 2018 anyway. We wouldn't be losing any revenue stream if it was yanked before it was implemented. It doesn't matter what effect it would have on the deficit if it never goes online.

no, it wouldn't, and it was probably never intended to begin with. One of the big selling points was that it wouldn't add to the deficit, which I laughed when I heard it because it was obviously not going to be deficit neutral.

Actually Obamacare is beating expectations, which is why the GOP is desperate to get rid of it now. God forbid people actually start liking it.

In the beginning, maybe. We'll see how things pan out in a year or two. Personally, I'd love to see it work, what I don't expect though is for it to work out in the long term. I just wonder why the Democrats are so adamant about not opening up insurance to be sold across state lines. more competition would mean lower prices, right?

Obamacare passed because citizens elected a Congress to pass it. You're right, Congress doesn't care what "The People" want. They care about what their constituents want. A majority of the members of Congress at the time of passing represented people in their respected congressional districts who wanted Obamacare. It's as simple as that.

huh, and here I was thinking it was Bush derangement syndrome coupled with the touchy feel-good emotional 'tingle running up my leg' media fellatio of Obama that was at work. I had no idea everyone was voting for Obamacare to be implemented. If that's the case, then why is it not getting a 75%+ approval rating, or even 50%? Why is it that more people are against Obamacare than for it, even now?

No, they are worried about it. They are terribly worried about it. Are you joking? Have you been listening to the GOP the past several years? They're scared shit. They fired up the base to no avail. The Tea Party is unhinged. There's threats of primaries.

Individual politicians may be scared, but those who are entrenched aren't that worried. Some politicians are so secure in their job they could show up to Congress in a clown suit and make an ass of themselves daily and get reelected (metaphorically speaking).

The ACA is beating expectations. Rates are coming out lower than expected.

In the beginning. Of course, I can list off several things that looked like it would be amazing in the beginning that took a nose dive after a short time.

The GOP is going to be fucked once the exchanges open up and coverage starts in 2014. People are going to like it. There's no turning back at that point. You can't campaign on killing a popular program. They've campaigned on it for how many years now? They are screwed and they know it. That's why we have this fucking debacle in Congress right now.

It has yet to be seen how it will ultimately work out. If you based everything on how things begin, then Hitler was one hell of a leader. Of course, He was also Time Magazine's 'Man of the Year' in 1938. We all know what happened in the next several years. He basically started World War 2. I'm not comparing Hitler to Obama, or Obamacare to Nazi Germany. All I'm saying is never judge things by how they begin.

Okay, fair enough, but that's not really the main point. The real issue is that it is arbitrary and static. Businesses are not.

This is true.

Please tell me how anything at all can get done with respect to Obamacare right now. You do know we are currently under threat of a government shutdown because an amendment to defend Obamacare was slipped into a CR as a poison pill, right?

The current budget battle has not been going on for the last 4 years. There has been windows to get things done.

Okay. You answered all your questions and refuted all your other points with this. I'm not simply blaming politicians for being politicians. I'm telling you why nothing is getting done. You just made my own point. By the way, politicians can be politicians without holding the entire world financial markets hostage. This is completely unprecedented.

We both know what's going to happen. This is little more than posturing. In the end, the budget will pass and Obamacare will live on and it'll either work out or it'll come crashing down.

[Feoric]

At 9/25/13 09:09 PM, Korriken wrote: There's a massive difference between a warehouse club where it's not uncommon for someone to drop $200+ on a single trip with people constantly in line as opposed to a pizza chain that might get $30 from 20 customers a day.

This is completely irrelevant and besides the point. Costco can be tremendously profitable despite having some of the best perks for being an employee there. Papa John's is already tremendously profitable. There is no evidence that Papa John's would not continue to be tremendously profitable if it did not try to skirt around the business mandate or pass the cost onto the consumer.

And many manage to pull off both.

You can't live in both extremes. Either we live in your world, where businesses have minimum to zero obligation to its workers, or they do. Either a CEO is concerned with maintaining and growing the real value of their company while taking care of their workers or they don't. Either they care about 100% maximum profits at the expense of their workers or they don't. You can't do both. Shareholders have different reasons for investing in a company. Costco's shareholders pride themselves on investing in a company that isn't run by sociopaths. Costco is a perfect example of a company with management that not only can consistently grow real value, rake in huge profits and keep shareholders happy, but also uphold their fiduciary duty to look after their work force. There is no reason why any company cannot do this.

Also means more people willing to buy stock if they see your stock is rising, or on the reverse, dump your stock which would cause the price of your stock to plummet, which would make you look terrible.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If market forces are driving your stock up, and demand for it is hot, why will it plummet? Sure, there are corrections, but as long as there is a steady upward trend why does that matter? Shareholders are not going to dump their shares en mass just to short it when there is the expectation it will be worth more tomorrow.

Such is business. The people negotiate their severance packages and get them. It's bullshit, but that's also life. CEO's are in demand and people with the skills (in theory) to do the job get to list their demands.

But it does not have to be like this. This is merely the type of business you subscribe to. I'd really like to know your opinion on people like Chuck Prince, and whether or not you would agree he had any sort of business acumen whatsoever, and whether he deserved 13 million in cash and 29.5 million in stock options after he left Citigroup, which was ground zero for the subprime crisis. Also, there were no negotiations with these guys. This isn't like if me or you left our jobs tomorrow. They took what they wanted and their friends were happy to oblige.

They seem to be doing good, despite the backlash.

But again that is not the point. The "oh-well-i-fucked-you-over-such-is-life-get-over-it" business model isn't the only model out there, nor is it the only one where you remain profitable. Another point, nobody likes it when you invariably get into an obnoxious debate about healthcare laws when all you want to do is order a pizza. That move has tarnished the company. That stain is always going to be there. It has ostracized people who otherwise would have done business.

I first linked an article with a video of Nancy Pelosi being an out of touch politician who thinks that the destruction of the 40 hour workweek is a good thing. that got ignored in lieu of yet another Obamacare thread.

I will say this: I do find it really ironic that in that same post, you called Hoffa Jr., the president of the Teamsters a union thug, and then went on to criticize Nancy Pelosi for comments about the destruction of the 40 hour workweek. I wonder what Hoffa's position on the 40 hour workweek is. Or any union for that matter.

One of the big selling points was that it wouldn't add to the deficit, which I laughed when I heard it because it was obviously not going to be deficit neutral.

I'd need to know when that was being said, because there have been lots of projections and revisions of projections. I don't think we're going to know how Obamacare in general impacts the deficit until it takes effect, but going by CBO estimates it isn't much.

I just wonder why the Democrats are so adamant about not opening up insurance to be sold across state lines. more competition would mean lower prices, right?

I'm glad you brought this up. That is what you would think, right? I mean, the states with the most plans on their exchanges typically have the lowest average cost. So why wouldn't this work on a broader, national scale? Here's why:

"Insurance is currently regulated by states. California, for instance, says all insurers have to cover treatments for lead poisoning, while other states let insurers decide whether to cover lead poisoning, and leaves lead poisoning coverage -- or its absence -- as a surprise for customers who find that they have lead poisoning.

The result of this is that an Alabama plan can't be sold in, say, Oregon, because the Alabama plan doesn't conform to Oregon's regulations. A lot of liberals want that to change: It makes more sense, they say, for insurance to be regulated by the federal government. That way the product is standard across all the states.

Conservatives want the opposite: They want insurers to be able to cluster in one state, follow that state's regulations and sell the product to everyone in the country. In practice, that means we will have a single national insurance standard. But that standard will be decided by South Dakota. Or, if South Dakota doesn't give the insurers the freedom they want, it'll be decided by Wyoming. Or whoever.

This is exactly what happened in the credit card industry, which is regulated in accordance with conservative wishes. In 1980, Bill Janklow, the governor of South Dakota, made a deal with Citibank: If Citibank would move its credit card business to South Dakota, the governor would literally let Citibank write South Dakota's credit card regulations.

Citibank wrote an absurdly pro-credit card law, the legislature passed it, and soon all the credit card companies were heading to South Dakota. And that's exactly what would happen with health-care insurance. The industry would put its money into buying the legislature of a small, conservative, economically depressed state. The deal would be simple: Let us write the regulations and we'll bring thousands of jobs and lots of tax dollars to you. Someone will take it. The result will be an uncommonly tiny legislature in an uncommonly small state that answers to an uncommonly conservative electorate that will decide what insurance will look like for the rest of the nation."

Why is it that more people are against Obamacare than for it, even now?

Because Democrats fucking suck when it comes to getting their message out. Seriously. Republicans kick the utter shit out of them every. single. time. It's pathetic and maddening.

Individual politicians may be scared, but those who are entrenched aren't that worried. Some politicians are so secure in their job they could show up to Congress in a clown suit and make an ass of themselves daily and get reelected (metaphorically speaking).

Ted Cruz did this last night. But seriously, it's people like Cruz why the establishment is so worried. The GOP created a monster and now the crazies are finding their way into office. That was never supposed to happen. The base is too fired up. People think John McCain is secretly a I am not making this up.

The current budget battle has not been going on for the last 4 years.

Actually, yes, it has. Since at least 2011.

We both know what's going to happen.

Wrong. Anyone who says they know what the House is going to do is either misinformed or lying.

[Feoric]

At 9/25/13 10:12 PM, Feoric wrote: . People think John McCain is secretly a

Democrat. Secretly a Democrat. John McCain.

[Light]

At 9/25/13 10:49 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 9/25/13 10:12 PM, Feoric wrote: . People think John McCain is secretly a

Democrat. Secretly a Democrat. John McCain.

Fucking. Wow.

[Feoric]

At 9/25/13 11:07 PM, Light wrote: Fucking. Wow.

Lindsey Graham, too. This is a guy who thought the unlawful detainment of Japanese citizens during WWII was so awesome that it is the model we should base Guantanamo off of. He apparently isn't conservative enough to some people.

[Sense-Offender]

Defending scumbags like Schnatter. SMFH

[Light]

At 9/25/13 11:23 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 9/25/13 11:07 PM, Light wrote: Fucking. Wow.

Lindsey Graham, too. This is a guy who thought the unlawful detainment of Japanese citizens during WWII was so awesome that it is the model we should base Guantanamo off of. He apparently isn't conservative enough to some people.

I'd love to see the Tea Party form its own political party and siphon off votes from the Republicans.

It would make for a very entertaining political disaster for the GOP.

[BumFodder]

why cant america have normal healthcare

[Camarohusky]

At 9/26/13 10:53 AM, BumFodder wrote: why cant america have normal healthcare

Ask Korriken.

[AxTekk]

At 9/26/13 10:53 AM, BumFodder wrote: why cant america have normal healthcare

I feel bad for laughing at that, seeing as the UK's not gonna be much different in a few years.

[LazyDrunk]

What do you do for your living wage, if I may ask?

You may not because it's a straw man and has no bearing on our discussion :)

Just figured you'd have as much pride in your ability to earn an income as your ability to spend others' for them.