Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   Schadenfreude time: Unions cry that ObamaCare will shatter their benefits and destroy the 40 hour work week. You supported it, you live with it   (forbes.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, obamacare, United Food, health insurance, Richard Trumka, perverse incentives, American middle class, UFCW, Teamsters  
•       •       •

2774 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jul 2013 at 2:31 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



357 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-07-15 03:35:38 PM  
Yes, let me read Forbes for accurate analysis of labor issues.
 
2013-07-15 03:36:43 PM  

Cletus C.: Public sector is where the unions are really going to be hammered. Many government employees at all levels have sweetheart health plans with minimal contributions. The pressure will be on to make those benefits more in line with what most Americans will have.


Those benefits make up for public employees salaries being on average 20% below comparable positions in the private sector. Whereas many public sector employees get bonuses or raises annually, most public sector employees do not. At my last job at a K-12 district, I hadn't seen a raise in over 5 years. The current job just got 3%, but that was after a salary survey said we were over 10% lower than the industry average in wages and that 3% was the first raise in years. And I know for every multi-billion dollar CEO salary out there, someone will point out how one public-sector person is making a huge amount, but it's really not the norm. Most of us don't make that much for what we do. Myself, I'm a Lotus Notes/server administrator that normally pulls about $75-80K a year in the private sector. My salary is under $60K after a one time raise of 3%, which was the first in almost 6 years.

So, sometimes that lower pay scale is compensated with a better healthcare package but when money problems happen, as they always do in public sector, then the first thing to get more expensive for employees is health care and benefits are routinely trimmed back and employee costs and co-pays almost always increase.

The problem people don't seem to see is that public sector entities don't make a profit like private sector does. If public sector costs rise, same as private sector, public sector entities cannot just increase the cost of their services because they don't really make anything tangible for sale. This is especially true with school districts. Schools produce learning, intelligence, and hopefully, diplomas. If their costs rise, all they can do is cut unless the public votes to give them more money. So they cut teachers, they cut classes, they cut wages, and they cut benefits. If Ford loses a fight about insurance with their unions, Ford can tack on a few dollars to each car and make up the losses. A school can try and raise fees, but that only means people aren't going to vote in a new levy because the schools raised their fees.
 
2013-07-15 03:37:27 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Weaver95: Yup. Everything everywhere is Obamas fault. The fact that corporations are dicking over us workers just to be spiteful biatches is ENTIRELY Obamas fault as well.

I love a "lets throw the evil fat cat CEOs under the bus" thread just as much as the next guy but you'd think that if the head of a Union could blame a company he would blame a company. That way he could demand more money/time off/other benefits for his members. But he's not?! He's blaming the people he helped elect. What good is that doing his members? Or himself? He's not going to get a better contract from anyone because of his actions on this matter. So why do it? Could it be that Obamacare is the nightmare that we have been saying it was? No that can't be it.

Sorry about trying to make comments about the article, I've interrupted the boss bashing thread. My bad


Get back to boss bashing you lout! What do you think you're in, some sort of fact based argument?
 
2013-07-15 03:37:50 PM  

b2theory: It is infuriating that insurance companies or the government pays for Chiropractors.


Why?
 
2013-07-15 03:39:11 PM  

hasty ambush: xanadian: Well, Obamacare is the bastard son of what the Heritage Foundation once dreamed up...

I did not realize that Obama and the Democrats were tools of the Heritage Foundation. If only Obama would have disclosed this before election time it might have changed the way you voted.

Government sizes control of 10% of the economy and people, for some stupid reason, expect good things to happen. Obamacare was not about providing healthcare to the uninsured (there are plenty of easier, less costly ways of doing that). It was about expanding the power of the Federal government.


That do-nothing empty-suit has swindled us with another brilliant scheme!  Why is Obama so incompetent at incompetence?
 
2013-07-15 03:39:27 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: It is so cute that the union leaders and other uninformed people didn't understand the line: "if you like your plan, you can keep it".

no where was it ever promised that the employer has to keep providing that plan.


If providing health care coverage for employees is a union negotiated part of the worker's compensation then any changes will have to be negotiated as well. Do you know what a contract is or how contracts work?
 
2013-07-15 03:44:43 PM  

Rapmaster2000: hasty ambush: xanadian: Well, Obamacare is the bastard son of what the Heritage Foundation once dreamed up...

I did not realize that Obama and the Democrats were tools of the Heritage Foundation. If only Obama would have disclosed this before election time it might have changed the way you voted.

Government sizes control of 10% of the economy and people, for some stupid reason, expect good things to happen. Obamacare was not about providing healthcare to the uninsured (there are plenty of easier, less costly ways of doing that). It was about expanding the power of the Federal government.

That do-nothing empty-suit has swindled us with another brilliant scheme!  Why is Obama so incompetent at incompetence?


To be fair he had a lot of help
 
2013-07-15 03:45:06 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: hasty ambush: xanadian: Well, Obamacare is the bastard son of what the Heritage Foundation once dreamed up...

I did not realize that Obama and the Democrats were tools of the Heritage Foundation. If only Obama would have disclosed this before election time it might have changed the way you voted.

Government sizes control of 10% of the economy and people, for some stupid reason, expect good things to happen. Obamacare was not about providing healthcare to the uninsured (there are plenty of easier, less costly ways of doing that). It was about expanding the power of the Federal government.

Name them, then tell us why the GOP and teabaggers would support them.


I too would read with keen interest the many simpler and less costly ways to bring insurance to the masses. Please educate us.
 
2013-07-15 03:47:04 PM  

Summercat: Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.

Which will then hit their ability to make profits, when they lack the manpower to do things.

My mother is an assistant manager at a Dollar Tree. They had some shennanagins with another AM who wasn't properly getting work done, so merch didn't go out and sales suffered. The district manager cut the store's availble hours - and now my mother can't get enough people working to get the store sorted out, and the DM wants to cut hours even more.

I... I don't understand this. I honestly don't. If a problem can be solved by adding manpower, WHY CUT MANPOWER?

Walmart is running into the same problem.


He's trying to punish the store managers without actually punishing them.  In theory (don't know Dollar Tree policies) managers are salaried with performance incentives.  Here's what is running through that District Manager's mind:

The store must do X, Y and Z.  There are managers not pulling their weight/performing correctly.  So I will cut the available workforce so those managers have to pick up the slack.  Ie. instead of working 56 hours a week, they'll have to work 80 to get things done.  They will stop slacking off, then I can reward them with additional worker hours.

This of course does not work.  What should happen is that the DM has a long talk with the store manager why his store is not performing correctly.  This gives the store manager an opportunity to ask for changes - ie. get rid of the slacker.

Now you can see from this there is not one, but three people not doing their job.  I'd suggest your mom get a job from a different retailer.  The stupid in her management chain is endemic, and probably infects the entire company.  The two retailers I'm familiar with didn't exhibit this level of stupidity - they had other odious policies.
 
2013-07-15 03:50:54 PM  

jst3p: Testiclaw: Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.

Since we can look at corporate profits and the implementation of the minimum wage, unemployment and subsequent increases, can you provide evidence to support your first assertion?

If it is Economics 101 I'm sure a simple graph is out there, the same way it is easy to find images of basics for Math 101.

It is pretty simple, he went to a top 5 economics school. You have to think in terms of an island where the coconuts represent healthcare...


Dont forget the bridge paid for with pineapples...
 
2013-07-15 03:51:07 PM  

MadHatter500: Now you can see from this there is not one, but three people not doing their job. I'd suggest your mom get a job from a different retailer. The stupid in her management chain is endemic, and probably infects the entire company. The two retailers I'm familiar with didn't exhibit this level of stupidity - they had other odious policies.


I understand where "get another job" idea comes from... I really do, because that is how a functioning economy is supposed to work.  But most people don't get it: we're not in a functioning capitalistic economy right now.  Corporatism and capitalism aren't the same thing.  Jobs don't grow on trees. (pun intended)
 
2013-07-15 03:52:07 PM  

qorkfiend: Summercat: Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.

Which will then hit their ability to make profits, when they lack the manpower to do things.

My mother is an assistant manager at a Dollar Tree. They had some shennanagins with another AM who wasn't properly getting work done, so merch didn't go out and sales suffered. The district manager cut the store's availble hours - and now my mother can't get enough people working to get the store sorted out, and the DM wants to cut hours even more.

I... I don't understand this. I honestly don't. If a problem can be solved by adding manpower, WHY CUT MANPOWER?

Walmart is running into the same problem.

Just a guess: cutting manpower is what makes the district manager look when it comes to bonus time.


In general, that only "looks good" if the top line year over year improves.  Anything that impacts top line in retail is "BAD BAD BAD!".  Authorizing insufficient manhours to stock and cashier positions results in lost sales.  This is very bad.  Sales gain is first, margin is second.
 
2013-07-15 03:52:10 PM  

Serious Black: Sigh. Avik, you have proven time and time again that you are a moronic hack who carries water for the GOP. I refuse to read your articles anymore unless given cause.


But they write for Forbes.  Certainly, no one that writes for Forbes would try to falsely present arguments in favor of business interests?  Certainly Forbes isn't the type of magazine to be read by the type of people that would love to blame everything on Obama?
 
2013-07-15 03:53:13 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.


Isn't the change republicans hoped for some kind of theocratic oligarchy?
 
2013-07-15 03:55:56 PM  

Weaver95: vpb: So, the strategy of using part time workers that has been going on for decades is Obama's fault then?  That guy is amazing.

Yup. Everything everywhere is Obamas fault. The fact that corporations are dicking over us workers just to be spiteful biatches is ENTIRELY Obamas fault as well.


Well, it's mostly the same reason that the dotcom crash is GWBs fault
 
2013-07-15 03:56:09 PM  

hasty ambush: It was about expanding the power of the Federal government.


Power which, according to the Supreme Court, Congress always had.
 
2013-07-15 03:57:19 PM  

Headso: tenpoundsofcheese: This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.

Isn't the change republicans hoped for some kind of theocratic oligarchy?


I'd much rather live in an oligarhy.
 
2013-07-15 03:59:43 PM  
Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?
 
2013-07-15 04:00:58 PM  

IlGreven: The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?

...if you really think that corporations won't try and pull the "Part-time no benefits" stunt, then you probably think that some Texas hospital will ever give admitting privileges to a known abortion doctor, especially after the new law is in place.


Planned Parenthood should look into the rules about being a hospital.  Knowing how much Texas likes regulations (they don't for those who aren't paying attention) I'm pretty sure those clinics can add some staff and qualify easily.  It will take the legislature down there about 50 years to figure that one out.  I'm pretty sure that the federal rules will be more onerous than the local ones.  Heck, piss off the conservatives even more by accepting medicare and medicaid patients - that would be counter to the narrative that says choice in that area is also going away.

If I had a background in the medical field (I don't) I think I'd be moving to Texas to open a new chain of hospitals right about now...
 
2013-07-15 04:02:49 PM  

Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?



Because commie nazi socialisms!
 
2013-07-15 04:06:04 PM  

Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?


Joke answer: Soshamalizms.
Real answer: path dependence.
 
2013-07-15 04:06:14 PM  
If you thought politicians in DC could find a solution to the ridiculous cost of healthcare in the United States, then I have some prime swampland in Florida you might be interested in buying.
 
2013-07-15 04:07:01 PM  

Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?


can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?
 
2013-07-15 04:07:46 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, since it was originally a Republican plan, you knew workers would get hurt


so the plagarizing democrats didn't add one thing to make their plan better?
 
2013-07-15 04:10:07 PM  

SauronWasFramed: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, since it was originally a Republican plan, you knew workers would get hurt

so the plagarizing democrats didn't add one thing to make their plan better?


Well, originally it had a public option. It got watered down to the current state to "negotiate" with the Republicans...who mostly voted against it anyway.
 
2013-07-15 04:11:02 PM  

MadHatter500: Summercat: Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.

Which will then hit their ability to make profits, when they lack the manpower to do things.

My mother is an assistant manager at a Dollar Tree. They had some shennanagins with another AM who wasn't properly getting work done, so merch didn't go out and sales suffered. The district manager cut the store's availble hours - and now my mother can't get enough people working to get the store sorted out, and the DM wants to cut hours even more.

I... I don't understand this. I honestly don't. If a problem can be solved by adding manpower, WHY CUT MANPOWER?

Walmart is running into the same problem.

He's trying to punish the store managers without actually punishing them.  In theory (don't know Dollar Tree policies) managers are salaried with performance incentives.  Here's what is running through that District Manager's mind:

The store must do X, Y and Z.  There are managers not pulling their weight/performing correctly.  So I will cut the available workforce so those managers have to pick up the slack.  Ie. instead of working 56 hours a week, they'll have to work 80 to get things done.  They will stop slacking off, then I can reward them with additional worker hours.

This of course does not work.  What should happen is that the DM has a long talk with the store manager why his store is not performing correctly.  This gives the store manager an opportunity to ask for changes - ie. get rid of the slacker.

Now you can see from this there is not one, but three people not doing their job.  I'd suggest your mom get a job from a different retailer.  The stupid in her m ...


Only the store manager is salaried. My mother is hourly.
 
2013-07-15 04:11:07 PM  
How just like the modern union management. So caught up in their own affairs they failed to notice that other business's
have been reducing hourly worker to part time for the last 10 years in order to avoid have to give them health or any other
benefits.
 
2013-07-15 04:11:37 PM  

RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?


Taxes, the way most things are paid for.

I didn't want to pay for the bailout, Iraq, Afghanistan or big oil subsidies.  Too bad?

I won't, personally, but the IRS and courts might.

How do we enforce things like that, now?
 
2013-07-15 04:11:49 PM  

Headso: tenpoundsofcheese: This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.

Isn't the change republicans hoped for some kind of theocratic oligarchy?


I don't know what republicans wanted.
 
2013-07-15 04:12:27 PM  
repeal ACA
repeal Medicare
repeal Social Security
repeal seat belt laws
repeal helmet laws
Open Funereal home
PROFIT!
 
2013-07-15 04:12:52 PM  

d23: MadHatter500: Now you can see from this there is not one, but three people not doing their job. I'd suggest your mom get a job from a different retailer. The stupid in her management chain is endemic, and probably infects the entire company. The two retailers I'm familiar with didn't exhibit this level of stupidity - they had other odious policies.

I understand where "get another job" idea comes from... I really do, because that is how a functioning economy is supposed to work.  But most people don't get it: we're not in a functioning capitalistic economy right now.  Corporatism and capitalism aren't the same thing.  Jobs don't grow on trees. (pun intended)


I wasn't saying that because it's easy to get another job - I'm saying it because it will help her in many ways.  Stress kills, and being in such an environment is very stressful.  It could easily knock 5 years off her life.  The current corporatist environment is deadly and pervasive, but still, she should be looking elsewhere.
 
2013-07-15 04:13:06 PM  

RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?



Step 1: invent time machine.
Step 2: alter time line to avoid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Step 3: Profit.
 
2013-07-15 04:13:58 PM  

BlastYoBoots: Hold on, didn't the ACA or some followup bill REDEFINE "full-time" as closer to 30 hours and up, precisely so employers wouldn't be able to pull this shiat?


That's why everyone is now working 28 hours a week and not 30
 
2013-07-15 04:14:03 PM  

RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay? how would you enforce that?


You're already being forced to pay. In fact, you're being forced to pay TWICE:

theincidentaleconomist.com
 
2013-07-15 04:14:43 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Headso: tenpoundsofcheese: This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.

Isn't the change republicans hoped for some kind of theocratic oligarchy?

I don't know what republicans wanted.



But you sure seem to know all the talking points.
 
2013-07-15 04:15:16 PM  

jst3p: Seems like single payer is the answer.


zOMG SOOOOOOOOCIALISM!
 
2013-07-15 04:15:28 PM  

FunkyBlue: Cletus C.: Public sector is where the unions are really going to be hammered. Many government employees at all levels have sweetheart health plans with minimal contributions. The pressure will be on to make those benefits more in line with what most Americans will have.

Those benefits make up for public employees salaries being on average 20% below comparable positions in the private sector. Whereas many public sector employees get bonuses or raises annually, most public sector employees do not. At my last job at a K-12 district, I hadn't seen a raise in over 5 years. The current job just got 3%, but that was after a salary survey said we were over 10% lower than the industry average in wages and that 3% was the first raise in years. And I know for every multi-billion dollar CEO salary out there, someone will point out how one public-sector person is making a huge amount, but it's really not the norm. Most of us don't make that much for what we do. Myself, I'm a Lotus Notes/server administrator that normally pulls about $75-80K a year in the private sector. My salary is under $60K after a one time raise of 3%, which was the first in almost 6 years.

So, sometimes that lower pay scale is compensated with a better healthcare package but when money problems happen, as they always do in public sector, then the first thing to get more expensive for employees is health care and benefits are routinely trimmed back and employee costs and co-pays almost always increase.

The problem people don't seem to see is that public sector entities don't make a profit like private sector does. If public sector costs rise, same as private sector, public sector entities cannot just increase the cost of their services because they don't really make anything tangible for sale. This is especially true with school districts. Schools produce learning, intelligence, and hopefully, diplomas. If their costs rise, all they can do is cut unless the public votes to give them more money. So they cu ...


That would be a nice recitation of the union position, for sure. But unfortunately for that position, public salary information is public record. You can find our exactly how your private sector pay compares. Many times, the public employees make more, plus have a wide array of benefits. A lot of private-sector employees haven't received pay increases since the recession started and have seen their share of health care costs rise.
 
2013-07-15 04:17:12 PM  

Scrotastic Method: HotWingConspiracy: hasty ambush: xanadian: Well, Obamacare is the bastard son of what the Heritage Foundation once dreamed up...

I did not realize that Obama and the Democrats were tools of the Heritage Foundation. If only Obama would have disclosed this before election time it might have changed the way you voted.

Government sizes control of 10% of the economy and people, for some stupid reason, expect good things to happen. Obamacare was not about providing healthcare to the uninsured (there are plenty of easier, less costly ways of doing that). It was about expanding the power of the Federal government.

Name them, then tell us why the GOP and teabaggers would support them.

I too would read with keen interest the many simpler and less costly ways to bring insurance to the masses. Please educate us.





Many ways no of which would involve the creation of a huge bureaucracy with the IRS as its enforcement branch.

You could address the rising costs by going after were the real problem lays , not with insurance companies, but with what healthcare providers charge. Labs typically charge insurance companies 4 times as much as the lab work really costs. Hospitals charge $10 force couple of Tylenol. And do not forget the Federal governments' own complicity in setting this costs.

You could have expanded MEDICAID with means with tested premium rates based on ability to pay.

Individual states could have offered the same plans they do for state employees again with the same type of means tested system. Any individual state plan would be better than a one size fits all plan imposed by the feds.

Many doctors are opting out of insurance plans all together offering patients fixed monthly rates for non-catastrophic care leaving patients needing only to buy catastrophic health insurance.
 
2013-07-15 04:17:41 PM  

Testiclaw: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?

Taxes, the way most things are paid for.

I didn't want to pay for the bailout, Iraq, Afghanistan or big oil subsidies.  Too bad?

I won't, personally, but the IRS and courts might.

How do we enforce things like that, now?


What taxes?  payroll?  income?  VAT?  magic wand?

you didnt pay enough taxes to cover bailout, Iraq, Afganistan or big oil Subsidies.. thats why we add to the debt, so you didnt pay for it at all

so expand the IRS who dont care if you owe anything until its worth their while.. how does that help find people who dont pay?

we dont enforce  thats why so much money is lost..
 
2013-07-15 04:18:57 PM  
So employers being cheap asses and using farked-over part time workers instead is a new thing?
/get me mah faintin' couch
 
2013-07-15 04:19:07 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Headso: tenpoundsofcheese: This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.

Isn't the change republicans hoped for some kind of theocratic oligarchy?

I don't know what republicans wanted.


a low info voter?
 
2013-07-15 04:19:34 PM  

Raharu: tenpoundsofcheese: Headso: tenpoundsofcheese: This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.

Isn't the change republicans hoped for some kind of theocratic oligarchy?

I don't know what republicans wanted.


But you sure seem to know all the talking points.


So what?
I know the liberals talking points too..."but...but...but...BUSH!"
 
2013-07-15 04:20:48 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Raharu: tenpoundsofcheese: Headso: tenpoundsofcheese: This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.

Isn't the change republicans hoped for some kind of theocratic oligarchy?

I don't know what republicans wanted.


But you sure seem to know all the talking points.

So what?
I know the liberals talking points too..."but...but...but...BUSH!"



Actually you only seem to know Parodies of liberal talking points.
 
2013-07-15 04:21:47 PM  

hasty ambush: Government sizes control of 10% of the economy


O RLY?  We have single payer now?
 
2013-07-15 04:22:21 PM  

Raharu: tenpoundsofcheese: Raharu: tenpoundsofcheese: Headso: tenpoundsofcheese: This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.

Isn't the change republicans hoped for some kind of theocratic oligarchy?

I don't know what republicans wanted.


But you sure seem to know all the talking points.

So what?
I know the liberals talking points too..."but...but...but...BUSH!"


Actually you only seem to know Parodies of liberal talking points.


He knows what Fox, Limbaugh and Beck tell him the liberal talking points are.
 
2013-07-15 04:22:22 PM  

Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?

You're already being forced to pay. In fact, you're being forced to pay TWICE:

[theincidentaleconomist.com image 540x409]


reproduce graph for only countries with 300 million or more people
 
2013-07-15 04:23:19 PM  

rewind2846: So employers being cheap asses and using farked-over part time workers instead is a new thing?
/get me mah faintin' couch


The funny thing is that the huge spike in people being employed part-time for economic reasons completely precedes Obama being in office (not that that ever stopped the GOP from asserting Obama has a time machine before):

www.slate.com

/I believe the notations in red were put there by Matt Yglesias
//or maybe some liberal concern troll
 
2013-07-15 04:23:52 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: So what?
I know the liberals talking points too..."but...but...but...BUSH!"


"But Bush" is just as stupid as "But Obama."  They are both over the top corporatists when it come to this sort of thing.  That is why the idea that Obama is a socialist is so laughable.  Someone making one of these arguments without the other is the mark of a stooge.

The *very* first plans Obama made as president elect was how to help his banker buddies.
 
2013-07-15 04:24:35 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Could it be that Obamacare is the nightmare that we have been saying it was? No that can't be it.


The ACA is not the problem. Farked up employers who don't know sh*t about the ACA and who squeeze a farking quarter so hard they make George Washington sh*t himself is the problem.
Using part time workers and changing full time workers to part time has been going on for a long time, and employers are using the ACA as just another excuse to do their dirty sh*t.
 
2013-07-15 04:24:49 PM  

RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?

You're already being forced to pay. In fact, you're being forced to pay TWICE:

[theincidentaleconomist.com image 540x409]

reproduce graph for only countries with 300 million or more people


A sample size of one is hardly generalizable.
 
Displayed 50 of 357 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report