The Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act

Interesting debating.

=)

yes drew is fantastically convincing but im still skeptical want to know a problem with our economy education...our education is poor

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

And yes Serpent I agree, but you can't expect ignored people to have the skills or desire to take care of their own responsibilities. Enlightenment to some extent has to be reached first<!-/Quote-!>

Ignored people? Please explain further.

If you mean disadvantaged people then I agree to some extent. However instead of supporting those individuals and allowing them to drain the system and continue to be ignored or disadvantaged, give them the same opportunity that others have received.

But when it comes to desire, that's each individuals own responsibility. We... you and I should not be responsible for others lack of desire!

Top directors are chosen by the board of directors Drew. They will need enticement to take the position because they know someone else will pay it. Maybe if the position is one they really yearn to do then that could sway a decision. Of course market forces are at play here. People of calibre are a commodity just like any other thing.

You are young and foolish but you will grow to realise that generally one job is just like another, and the pay is the important factor. Of course there are idealists that want to do certain things in their lives, but one still has to pay the bills at the end of the day. Some people do obtain their ideal jobs and are very happy, I'm happy for them too. It's a shame it's only a few. Have a look around the city, study the faces of the mindless organisms as they go about their daily routine, on automatic, taking their valium to last the day and going home to drink themselves into a sleep hoping for the release of a pleasant dream.

Sorry kiddo, but you have a lot to wake up to. Young, middle class America, ahhh... been there, seen that, came away disillusioned.

haha I love it crafty

but damn am I depressed

Serpent that is exactly what I implied. No one should take advantage, but that's impossible unless proper opportunity is granted to them. So we are in agreement. =)

@ Crafty- Why do you think people are mindless, or at least not as productive as others? It's not intended to be rhetorical but so I'll give my answer. The lack of stimulation, the lack of positive reinforcement is corrupting people. Because at the end of the day it is all economic tyranny. Skills are selectively awarded by people who don't understand value. It is kind of enfuriating countering you, not because its difficult, but because it is like you post right out of business psychology text on some posts and a basic economics book on another. Short term orientation, and profiteering or far too dangerous for our large scope problems. Open your mind a little and realize that just because things are the way they are doesn't mean its the right way to do things. The fact is being a manager at any level is far more simple then nearly any occupation. And as of earlier today this thought process of mine has allowed me to be a potentil doctoral candidate. So you keep implying that the young are not tested enough, yet the old force their broken system on us and complain when we try to fix it? It's as if you want the next generations quality of life to drain and drain and drain until we are a cesspool of retards clinging on to flaws concepts like reaganomics, and pretending we have supply and demand, when supply can be continously manipulated.

@ Alex, skepticism is fantastic! You know nothing until you have challenged the idea with all of your brain power. Taking my word for something is horrible, taking Crafty's regurgeation is very destructive to your development. So never stop thinking and innovating its how I live and it fills me with purpose. If you are going to blindly take in any instruction take in 'don't blindly take in any instruction'

*sighs*

The sad fact is that many/most who are given the same opportunities choose not to accept them, but instead choose to be leeches of society. Many times its cultural but its beginning to take over everywhere. Rarely is an individual not given the opportunity to make something out of their life. Those that are in that category are generally handicapped in some way either mentally or physically.

So what do you mean when you say, "proper opportunity is granted them?"

well it is diffult to expect people to rise o of obscurity and make the contienentious choice to make a bettr life for themselves when the route for some is much more difficult then the route for others.

So in reality it all comes down to classic conditioning, that is what built this level of dependency in the first place. If there were job availibility for everyone that would be a start. As if everyone collecring benefits and not working sought out employment right now there would not be the appropriate quanity. Bu what is probably the most important is that people have to be motivated by experience. People need to see the effects of their effort. Only when people can see and live the circumstance then working and not qualifying for benefits outweighs working and paying for benefits will the situation ever produce positive results. And trust me I do realize that the end justifies the means a little here, take away benefits and working means survival but that eliminates the possibility for people to have the time and energy to benefit themselves further. When every person has the ability to rise up and become president or a CEO or a world class worker of any various vocation despite any socia-economic situation then we have successfully arrived at the oppurtunities needed to shut down these programs. But we are far from that. The poor can go to school, do great, be forced to work part time to help their parents out, get into community college and work through that, just to get a job that will pay rent. The benefits of hard work for certain individuals do not amount to a lifestyle in excess to recieving these benefits. As long as people live for neccessity they can never live for self-enlightenment. This here is the problem. It is complex it is hard to put into words what I'm saying especially without the ability for visual interpretations but its real late so this is gonna have to suffice for now.

Put like that you actually make some sense there Drew and I can agree with the gist of what you're saying.

This is what I meant by the grey people going through their daily drudgery.

I think if you could be more concise in your writing and not let yourself ramble off on sidetracks then there might be a lot more understanding betwixt you and I.

I would agree that for some people it is more difficult for them to succeed than it is for others. Simply put, some people are more intelligent, physically stronger, better looking, more humorous, a little taller, or what ever admirable qualities you can think of. But that fact in NO WAY means that those who aren't have an excuse to allow society to care for them.

People have been conditioned to have others take care of them. That's why its no longer correct to call it welfare, but now its called 'entitlements'! I mean C'mon.... entitlements, they are not entitled to that assistance, its a gift, you did nothing to earn it.

Even unemployment benefits, yeah you contribute to a fund made available so that in case you lose your job you have a way to survive as you tirelessly search for another. Not so that you can lay at home and wait till something comes along that pays more that your unemployment.

Then you say

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Bu what is probably the most important is that people have to be motivated by experience.<!-/Quote-!>

Exactly, maybe the experience of having to do without cellphones, cable TV and cigarettes for a few months will motivate them to get a job! If you do a little research you'll see that there are between 3.5 - 4 million skilled jobs unfilled in the US. That's skilled jobs, ones that don't require a degree, but does require some training. That figure doesn't count the unskilled labor force. So the question is.... Why do so many jobs go unfilled when there are jobs to be had?

Obviously there are some that do need this kind of assistance and for those they should take advantage of the programs, but this is simply not the case. The GREAT majority that use the system in reality do not need it.

i didn't read this whole thread but to serpents point about 47 percent of those who take welfare pay payroll taxes and a large majority of those who take welfare are, veterans, the disabled and those who work but are below the poverty line, that is 24000 for a family of 4. so your assertion that those who take welfare are lazy people who are just trying to get cash from the government doesn't stand. and those jobs your talking about do require a degree, the reason their not filled is because people don't have the right credentials to acquire these jobs.

the number 89th.

Serpent I understand fully what you are saying. But Shallom pretty much said it for me. The real question is why work your ass of just to survive. If benefits are cut off and people have a choice to barely survive or to starve to death it becomes a difficult choice. It shouldn't be a difficult choice. If you work hard then you should be rewarded to a point in which it gives you the ability to enjoy your life.

And you know the title of this thread is exactly what I'm trying to convey here. This bill is job-killing. But why exactly? This bill forces individuals to get health insureance (not job killing), and makes it harder for employment centers to get around not offering health benefits (job-killing). This means that it will raise costs for those companies that don't already offer health benefits. It just goes to show you how deperate those who work under the poverty are. This bill ,though i don't agree with it, allows it to be more exceptable for people to go back to work. Those who make 28k$ can not get healthcare from work rather than not work and medicaid won't matter. This job-killing aspect is nonsense, it only increases costs for those who underappreciate their work force. For EVERY other company it lowers costs as now health insurance has to spend at least 80% of your premium on Health Insurance if they don't it gets refunded. And if you assume that maybe an average of 50% of those premiums get spent of healthcare then a 30% refund cost to businesses that did the ethical thing it for sure isn't job killing it is asset enhancing for individuals and businesses. Just not for companies like Papa Johns in which employees are merely slaves that get paid a pittance as they all die from disease without Health Insurance. But don't misinterpret my stance I still don't like it for various reasons.

Really, I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that people and businesses will bother to comply with laws mandating healthcare. I could be wrong, but most businesses are small business... so it probably isn't a stretch to assume that a large chunk of jobs are provided by small businesses. I mean it's anecdotal, but whatever, I've never worked legally... maybe half the people my age I know that work, work illegally. Sure, a large corporation might have trouble hiding "illegal" employees... but a small business? Nah.

If the government was doing it's job right, I wouldn't have ever had one. Is it any wonder that I figure it's good to ignore the law here?

Why the hell should anyone care what the law says? Police? Prisons? Fines?

My point, if anything, well, actually come to think of it, I don't really have a solid point... you know, why does everything need to be so damn hard?

"The real question is why work your ass off just to survive?"

Because that's the way life is! Who said it was supposed to be easy?

Why is that the way life is? If life can be made easier shouldn't it be?

The only point that is important on this topic really is: Things aren't fair things are balanced, if you can empower a large amount of the populace without harming the rest, than do it. More empowered people will help the economy and by extent those who don't currently reap those benefits.

Well i got my internet back... I got some reading to do looks like .... *Deep Breathe*

Empowering? a large amount of people (I take that to mean basically pay them more) reduces profit for the capitalist. Reducing profit causes less business to succeed. Result - higher unemployment. Hence the capitalist can pay less as there are more people after the jobs.

As the capitalist pays less he reaches a stage where the workers dont have the money to buy the capitalists product, hence again many go out of business, more unemployment etc etc.

So the obvious solution is to pay more, creating more wealth for people to buy his product...oh, but didn't we just realise that that causes loss of profit, loss of business,,,

Hmm, catch 22. Thats the main problem, marvelously simplified of course. Anyone have a viable alternative to capitalism? Nah, didn't think so, great economists have tried for centuries.

This is why I am a protectionist in a political economic sense. Have to be careful though, else it's racism. The overful barrel of very cheap labor is what keeps capitalism going in the first world, and its great for India, China, Korea, S.American countries and the rest. Indeed capitalism is what allowed most of the greatest achievements of the modern world. But for a specific country, like mine, I want to start at home and fix our economy, not farm our labor needs out.

So I believe in spending our way out of recession. Seems to me the only way to get business on its feet and creating jobs and wealth again, at least for another cycle of capitalisms boom and bust.

a country would have to spend a morbid ammount of Money to combat a bust though :/ its a very hard subject on what to. do though I agree trickle down is bullshit idk maybe id our government stooped wasting money on stupid shit we could do it

I agree with you crafty mostly.

This is why my current sc problem really irks me, as I wanted a spending run system instead of this nonsensical presidents stealing money away from the corporation nonsense that this game seems to advocate.

The fundamental conflict with your simplification of the system is the lack of control the capitalist system has to ensure the under compensation issue doesn't happen. That is why I have a problem with it. Corporations don't need that level of social responsibility and so I don't trust them with control.

So really to rebut the rebuttal: empowering? As long as control is held by those without regard to social justice how is society supposed to operate in such a complex situation? That is all I'm trying to advocate, have an entity control wealth distribution that has every person in the society as a reputable stakeholder. Wages is a primary factor in what I refer to opportunities. Just imagine how sustainable corporations would become if they didn't have short term orientation or didn't have to pay dividends. Until then assistance to ensure some skilled people enter the work force is required

Co-operatives do seem to be making a comeback in this country, don't know about the US. Maybe this is the kind of thing Drew is talking about.

what are co operatives?

Basically, all users of the service are the share holders. Any profit is used to improve prices and services. A truly publicly owned business.

As Wikipedia describes it:

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

an autonomous association of persons who voluntarily cooperate for their mutual social, economic, and cultural benefit.[1] Cooperatives include non-profit community organizations and businesses that are owned and managed by the people who use its services (a consumer cooperative) and/or by the people who work there (a worker cooperative) or by the people who live there (a housing cooperative).<!-/Quote-!>