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 357
    More: Fail, obamacare, United Food, health insurance, Richard Trumka, perverse incentives, American middle class, UFCW, Teamsters  
•       •       •

2768 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jul 2013 at 2:31 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-15 08:03:01 PM

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


Obamacare has about 1% in common with the Heritage plan.  Other than that, totes the same.
 
2013-07-15 08:03:37 PM

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


Things a low information voter would say for 500 alex.
 
2013-07-15 08:09:18 PM

rewind2846: Sergeant Grumbles: b2theory: The first thing to remember is that they belong to the shareholder's

The first thing to remember is that without the company, the employee, and the customer, the shareholder has precisely dick, and that is precisely what they should be owed until those things are taken care of.

Thanks for getting to this before i did, Sarge. Perhaps b2 missed the part where I wrote "The shareholder comes last because in a system where all the other parts are working correctly they can be guaranteed good returns." If all the other parts are working correctly - good profits from hard workers who are paid decently and like their jobs, return customers from the sale of good products and services, and a corporate structure that rewards people for hard work and loyalty, the shareholders get profits. If they are not, the shareholders get dick - unless they are willing to cannibalize the company.

Unfortunately those corporate shareholders have turned to downsizing/rightsizing/layoffs/outsourcing, cutting back on benefits for the employees that are left, cutting corners on quality and service and general assholiness to make short term share value increases, instead of using long term strategies like the ones I mentioned for continuous and steady shareholder returns. The employee has once again be relegated to the bottom of the sh*tpile, as it was before unions, in the gilded age when robber barons not only ran government - in may cases they were the government (Tammany Hall is a good example).


Go back and read my post. If that was your only take away than you are hopeless.

While customers and employees are both extremely important, a public company places shareholder value above both. If you don't like that, don't work for one and don't own one. The company does not exist to enrich the employee. It will do that if it is successful!

You don't owe the company anything! Nor does it owe you anything other than what it has agreed to pay you.

I have worked for both giant public companies and small private shops. I personally prefer the small shop. I know the owner(s) and I have a relationship beyond my employment.

You need to acknowledge that this system is what facilitates "lavish" union pensions.
 
2013-07-15 08:09:29 PM

Thrag: highendmighty: Thrag: highendmighty: HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.I can't.

FTFY.

I'm not going to link, nor can I remember, every article I have read.  Nor do I want to empower your laziness - the same laziness that gives you only enough motivation to beg your government to offer its eternal teat to you and your ilk.  Any MD who knows anything about business will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any comptroller who knows anything about medicine will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any article you read that proves that it is sustainable falls upon wishful-thinking and idealism to make its points.

And what do you believe this rant accomplished? You are only digging yourself deeper with crap like this. You make a statement and when asked for proof you complain that you will not give proof, and that you can't even remember what the proof was. Seriously, how on earth do you think this is a good debate strategy? The only thing you are accomplishing is making yourself a laughing stock.

It's a terrible debate strategy.  I didn't want to debate.  I stated an opinion based upon what I have read in the past four years or so.  I stated my opinion that it is unsustainable.  You guys are the one's who want to debate it.

Ah, so you just wanted to take a dump on the thread and run since you have neither the ability or inclination to support your statements.


HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: Thrag: highendmighty: HeartBurnKid: highendmighty: WhyteRaven74: highendmighty: it is completely unsustainable.

Prove it.

Google it.I can't.

FTFY.

I'm not going to link, nor can I remember, every article I have read.  Nor do I want to empower your laziness - the same laziness that gives you only enough motivation to beg your government to offer its eternal teat to you and your ilk.  Any MD who knows anything about business will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any comptroller who knows anything about medicine will tell you - it is unsustainable.  Any article you read that proves that it is sustainable falls upon wishful-thinking and idealism to make its points.

And what do you believe this rant accomplished? You are only digging yourself deeper with crap like this. You make a statement and when asked for proof you complain that you will not give proof, and that you can't even remember what the proof was. Seriously, how on earth do you think this is a good debate strategy? The only thing you are accomplishing is making yourself a laughing stock.

It's a terrible debate strategy.  I didn't want to debate.  I stated an opinion based upon what I have read in the past four years or so.  I stated my opinion that it is unsustainable.  You guys are the one's who want to debate it.

Ah, I see.  So you just came into this thread to sniff your own farts.


I can't stand political snobs who put the burden of proof on people who disagree with their POV.  So here's your damned proof:

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

in case you're too lazy/ignorant to click:  FTFA:

"In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period.  "

So, please, PROVE where that revenue will come from.

/How bout them apples!?!?
//white-knight.
 
2013-07-15 08:09:33 PM

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

Obamacare has about 1% in common with the Heritage plan.  Other than that, totes the same.


What isn't in common with the Heritage plan?
 
2013-07-15 08:11:56 PM

Mr Rogers is aroused: in case you're too lazy/ignorant to click:  FTFA:

"In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period.  "

So, please, PROVE where that revenue will come from.

/How bout them apples!?!?
//white-knight.


From your link:

"Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade "

I'm sorry, what were we talking about again?
 
2013-07-15 08:12:44 PM

MyRandomName: Obamacare has about 1% in common with the Heritage plan.


The mandate for starters...
 
2013-07-15 08:13:02 PM
Also, from the CBO scoring of one of the ACA repeal bills, HR 6079:


What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013-2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.
 
2013-07-15 08:13:53 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Mr Rogers is aroused: in case you're too lazy/ignorant to click:  FTFA:

"In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period.  "

So, please, PROVE where that revenue will come from.

/How bout them apples!?!?
//white-knight.

From your link:

"Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade "

I'm sorry, what were we talking about again?


we were talking about whether ACA is sustainable.  Which would mean it would need to generate revenues equal to its expenditures.  You are claiming that it will reduce the deficits by $142 billion per year FY 14-19.

Prove it.
 
2013-07-15 08:14:48 PM

Mr Rogers is aroused: we were talking about whether ACA is sustainable.  Which would mean it would need to generate revenues equal to its expenditures.  You are claiming that it will reduce the deficits by $142 billion per year FY 14-19.

Prove it.


How is reducing the federal budget deficit unsustainable?
 
2013-07-15 08:15:54 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Also, from the CBO scoring of one of the ACA repeal bills, HR 6079:


What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013-2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.


thank you.  Im sure HBK and Thrag thank you more though.  You white-knighted them out of a hypocritical corner.

/Has no dog in this fight.
 
2013-07-15 08:17:01 PM

Mr Rogers is aroused: thank you.  Im sure HBK and Thrag thank you more though.  You white-knighted them out of a hypocritical corner


What are you talking about?
 
2013-07-15 08:21:30 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Mr Rogers is aroused: thank you.  Im sure HBK and Thrag thank you more though.  You white-knighted them out of a hypocritical corner

What are you talking about?


im thanking you for using data to support your differing opinion.  It's like a unicorn here, i know.
 
2013-07-15 08:22:44 PM

b2theory: While customers and employees are both extremely important, a public company places shareholder value above both. If you don't like that, don't work for one and don't own one. The company does not exist to enrich the employee. It will do that if it is successful!


I've got a comparison of worker productivity and wages graph lying around here someplace that would seem to disagree. Ah here it is...

thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-07-15 08:23:16 PM

Mr Rogers is aroused: cameroncrazy1984: Mr Rogers is aroused: thank you.  Im sure HBK and Thrag thank you more though.  You white-knighted them out of a hypocritical corner

What are you talking about?

im thanking you for using data to support your differing opinion.  It's like a unicorn here, i know.


It's not an opinion, it's a fact.
 
2013-07-15 08:23:32 PM

b2theory: You're free to feel that way, but it isn't reality.

I don't like it. It doesn't fit my own idealized vision for our economy. However, it is the way things are.


The reality is that shareholders are cannibalizing the economy because they're given preference over the company, the employees, and the customers with none of the responsibilities. You can cling to the fiduciary duty bullshiat all you like, but if you keep giving a non-productive, non-responsible party the lion's share of profits, you're never going to approach anything that resembles sustainability. It's a recipe for disaster and it gets a little closer to the brink every time they roll back worker protections.
 
2013-07-15 08:31:44 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Also, from the CBO scoring of one of the ACA repeal bills, HR 6079:


What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013-2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.


Ah.. i misread your quote.  There's the confusion.  The OP argued that obamacare is unsustainable.  Thrag and HBK tried to argue that he must prove it's unsustainable.

My link proved that -> " In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period."

You tried to interject, making this really farking confusing.  The point remains.  It will cost more than it will save or produce in revenue.  Therefore... wait for it.... IT'S UNSUSTAINABLE.  Can we just go have a beer now?  This is a useless tangent.  I was merely trying to prove, and did with your help, to Thrag, HBK and co that whilst I couldnt care less either way, the idea that it was on the 'unsustainable' crowd to prove anything was silly.  If you support ACA, you must prove it's not another debt to our children...
 
2013-07-15 08:36:34 PM

Mr Rogers is aroused: cameroncrazy1984: Also, from the CBO scoring of one of the ACA repeal bills, HR 6079:


What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013-2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.

Ah.. i misread your quote.  There's the confusion.  The OP argued that obamacare is unsustainable.  Thrag and HBK tried to argue that he must prove it's unsustainable.

My link proved that -> " In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period."

You tried to interject, making this really farking confusing.  The point remains.  It will cost more than it will save or produce in revenue.  Therefore... wait for it.... IT'S UNSUSTAINABLE.  Can we just go have a beer now?  This is a useless tangent.  I was merely trying to prove, and did with your help, to Thrag, HBK and co that whilst I couldnt care less either way, the idea that it was on the 'unsustainable' crowd to prove anything was silly.  If you support ACA, you must prove it's not another debt to our children...


lol, i get what you were saying after re-re-re-reading.  IF HR 6079 is passed, CBO is saying it would have an increase of 109 billion.  I see what you're doing there.  But we aren't talking about 6079.  We're talking about ACA and it's $142billion a year price tag....
 
2013-07-15 08:37:53 PM

Mr Rogers is aroused: You tried to interject, making this really farking confusing.  The point remains.  It will cost more than it will save or produce in revenue.  Therefore... wait for it.... IT'S UNSUSTAINABLE.


For a very restricted value of unsustainable I suppose that's true. The question is whether the difference between the cost and what it saves / produces in revenue is a good value and benefits the nation. Honestly, based on your usage of the word, it can be easily argued the that pre-Obamacare health care system was unsustainable as well. In fact, I believe that was one of the primary motivators for health care reform.
 
2013-07-15 08:38:04 PM
so, to all of the ACA supporters:  How does it create $142billion a year in revenues/deficit reductions?  I'm not trying to troll.  If you can show me the money, I will support it.  Otherwise, it's a bill for my kids.
 
2013-07-15 08:40:30 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Mr Rogers is aroused: You tried to interject, making this really farking confusing.  The point remains.  It will cost more than it will save or produce in revenue.  Therefore... wait for it.... IT'S UNSUSTAINABLE.

For a very restricted value of unsustainable I suppose that's true. The question is whether the difference between the cost and what it saves / produces in revenue is a good value and benefits the nation. Honestly, based on your usage of the word, it can be easily argued the that pre-Obamacare health care system was unsustainable as well. In fact, I believe that was one of the primary motivators for health care reform.


my opinion would be that because it's centralized, mandated, and govt run, it's a guarantee that it will be a DIRECT EXPENSE on me and my children.  Vs the old system that was so indirect in it's cost to me that it was invisible.
 
2013-07-15 08:43:29 PM

Mr Rogers is aroused: It will cost more than it will save or produce in revenue


No it won't. It will reduce deficits. Did you even read my citations? The federal budget deficit is made up of more than just healthcare-related expenses.
 
2013-07-15 08:44:45 PM

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.


So if there's a fire and someone throws gasoline on it, that's OK because the fire was already there?
 
2013-07-15 08:45:51 PM

b2theory: You need to acknowledge that this system is what facilitates "lavish" union pensions.


You need to acknowledge that those "lavish" pensions (I have a pension and am non union - did I just divide by zero in your head?) are what people in the private sector used to have and took for granted as a normal course of doing business, until they let their employers, corporations and wall street f*ck them out of it.

The solution is not to tear everyone else down, but to build yourself up. If you want some of those "lavish union pensions" (which aren't), them form a union and get them.
 
2013-07-15 08:46:11 PM

BMFPitt: 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.

So if there's a fire and someone throws gasoline on it, that's OK because the fire was already there?


Who's throwing gasoline on it? You're saying that we shouldn't be trying to provide health insurance for everybody?
 
2013-07-15 08:46:36 PM

rewind2846: If you want some of those "lavish union pensions" (which aren't), then form a union and get them.


/FTFM
 
2013-07-15 08:46:44 PM

Mr Rogers is aroused: so, to all of the ACA supporters:  How does it create $142billion a year in revenues/deficit reductions?  I'm not trying to troll.  If you can show me the money, I will support it.  Otherwise, it's a bill for my kids.


That's probably wrapped up a combination of the mandate and the fact that the federal government currently subsidizes hospitals for unpaid emergency care services.

Our health care system is in a death spiral. An increasing number of people are going without health care coverage, medical cost related bankruptcies are up, costs to people who do carry insurance is increasing to help cover costs for those who don't which drives increasing numbers out of the pool of people with coverage. Obamacare will slow the spiral by getting an increased number of people back into the system but honestly that just sets the clock back a few decades. We'll need to go to government backed single payer or, eventually, the entire system will collapse.
 
m00
2013-07-15 08:48:18 PM

Scrotastic Method: So it's not ObamaCare that's doing this, but rather the companies are finding every trick and loophole they can to continue to dick over the workforce in order to scrounge out every last greasy penny they can? Gee, wonder why Forbes didn't report that.


Loopholes exist to be used. They are written specifically so they can be used, lobbied for by corporations with the intent of using them.
The problem isn't that corporations will use these loopholes, the problem is Obamacare was written with them.
 
2013-07-15 08:51:44 PM

cameroncrazy1984: BMFPitt: 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.

So if there's a fire and someone throws gasoline on it, that's OK because the fire was already there?

Who's throwing gasoline on it? You're saying that we shouldn't be trying to provide health insurance for everybody?


"Insurance" as it exists in the US currently? Fark no.

Nationalized catastrophic health coverage? Sure, I'd be fine with that.
 
2013-07-15 08:55:40 PM

m00: The problem isn't that corporations will use these loopholes, the problem is Obamacare was written with them.


I'd say that both of those are problems. The idea that corporations have a responsibility to essentially be sociopathic monsters needs to go. Corporations originally had a very limited lifespan, a very narrow purvue, and were required to operate in the public interest. It might be a good idea to turn the clock back a bit and require that corporations operate not only in the interest of their shareholders but in the interest of their employees and the larger community.
 
2013-07-15 08:55:54 PM

Mr Rogers is aroused: I can't stand political snobs who put the burden of proof on people who disagree with their POV. So here's your damned proof:

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

in case you're too lazy/ignorant to click: FTFA:

"In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period. "


How exactly does that constitute proof that the ACA is unsustainable? From what you quoted it seems the estimated cost has been reduced from $759b to $710b. So the estimated cost going down makes something unsustainable? What is your argument exactly?
 
2013-07-15 08:56:27 PM

m00: The problem isn't that corporations will use these loopholes, the problem is Obamacare was written with them.


Which the corporations instructed their republican puppets to insist that they be included or the ACA would not pass. It's like making sure that I contribute lots of money to my local politician's re-election fund in return for her vote on whether the new road to be built in my city runs right past the empty plot of land I just bought. Land which will be a new shopping center by the time the road in complete.

If the loopholes weren't there, there would be no ACA. That's how politics works.
 
2013-07-15 08:58:13 PM
In Pelosi's own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

/The unions are going to love Immigration Reform once we find out what's in it.
//Lower wages and a higher supply of labor. Simple economics.
 
2013-07-15 08:59:10 PM

Thrag: How exactly does that constitute proof that the ACA is unsustainable? From what you quoted it seems the estimated cost has been reduced from $759b to $710b. So the estimated cost going down makes something unsustainable? What is your argument exactly?


As best I can tell, his argument is that it isn't revenue neutral and is therefore unsustainable. A few of his tax dollars might go to pay for the health care of one of his fellow citizens and he cannot abide the thought of it.
 
2013-07-15 08:59:44 PM

Mr Rogers is aroused: thank you. Im sure HBK and Thrag thank you more though. You white-knighted them out of a hypocritical corner.

/Has no dog in this fight.


Hypocritical corner? How exactly? Can you explain what is hypocritical about asking someone to support the statements they make?

You not only don't have a dog in this fight, you don't have an argument or it seems a firm grasp on reality. I mean, your "proof" that it is unsustainable is that the cost estimate has dropped. What sort of twisted logic is involved in thinking that a cost estimate being reduced makes something unsustainable?
 
2013-07-15 09:02:28 PM

Thrag: Mr Rogers is aroused: I can't stand political snobs who put the burden of proof on people who disagree with their POV. So here's your damned proof:

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

in case you're too lazy/ignorant to click: FTFA:

"In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period. "

How exactly does that constitute proof that the ACA is unsustainable? From what you quoted it seems the estimated cost has been reduced from $759b to $710b. So the estimated cost going down makes something unsustainable? What is your argument exactly?


If the ACA costs $142 billion a year to sustain, where does that money come from?  I would assert as a proponent of this new expenditure, it is YOUR duty to prove where that money comes from.  But you and I know where it comes from if it can't be made through operational procedures (co-pays, cancellation fees, etc).  It comes from the taxpayers.  Because it's a federally backed program.

So will it be sustained?  Of course.  It's too big to fail.  So lets stop arguing about the ins-and-outs of the word sustainable.  It's not about that.  It's about who sustains it, how much it costs, and WHY WE NEED IT.  All of that lies on the proponent's shoulders to prove.  I'm not against this.  I just don't understand it's details enough to say "sign me up".  Please, in all sincerity, enlighten me.  I love knowledge, and i'll change my opinion almost instantly if it can be taught to me in a no BS kind of way.
 
2013-07-15 09:02:37 PM

Mr Rogers is aroused: Ah.. i misread your quote. There's the confusion. The OP argued that obamacare is unsustainable. Thrag and HBK tried to argue that he must prove it's unsustainable.


I didn't "try to" argue anything. I asked someone to support their statements. Is the concept of asking someone to back their assertions strange to you? Here in reality it is pretty much standard operating procedure for people with the capacity for critical thought. When someone makes a bold claim, it is their responsibility to support the claim. What problem do you have with this concept?
 
2013-07-15 09:07:56 PM

Thrag: Mr Rogers is aroused: Ah.. i misread your quote. There's the confusion. The OP argued that obamacare is unsustainable. Thrag and HBK tried to argue that he must prove it's unsustainable.

I didn't "try to" argue anything. I asked someone to support their statements. Is the concept of asking someone to back their assertions strange to you? Here in reality it is pretty much standard operating procedure for people with the capacity for critical thought. When someone makes a bold claim, it is their responsibility to support the claim. What problem do you have with this concept?


it's an equally bold claim to make that it is sustainable in the fact that the ACA wouldn't tax the people where we haven't been taxed before.  So to see you in your glass house throwing rocks, I feel it is my job to not let that go unnoticed.  What is your proof that this isn't a form of elaborate cronyism that will be added to the debt clock?
 
2013-07-15 09:13:10 PM

rewind2846: b2theory: You need to acknowledge that this system is what facilitates "lavish" union pensions.

You need to acknowledge that those "lavish" pensions (I have a pension and am non union - did I just divide by zero in your head?) are what people in the private sector used to have and took for granted as a normal course of doing business, until they let their employers, corporations and wall street f*ck them out of it.

The solution is not to tear everyone else down, but to build yourself up. If you want some of those "lavish union pensions" (which aren't), them form a union and get them.


Christ, you are a fool. I wish I had one. I'm not arguing against them. I am just pointing out the fact that your pension fund is causing public companies to behave this way. Your pension pays you primarily from investment returns. It was only able to do that because it was a shareholder in a company that had increasing shareholder value.

Pension funds are the largest group of shareholders on the planet.
 
2013-07-15 09:18:55 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: b2theory: While customers and employees are both extremely important, a public company places shareholder value above both. If you don't like that, don't work for one and don't own one. The company does not exist to enrich the employee. It will do that if it is successful!

I've got a comparison of worker productivity and wages graph lying around here someplace that would seem to disagree. Ah here it is...


Welcome to global competition. Bomb our global competitors out of the game like the 40s if you want a change
 
m00
2013-07-15 09:19:34 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: I'd say that both of those are problems. The idea that corporations have a responsibility to essentially be sociopathic monsters needs to go. Corporations originally had a very limited lifespan, a very narrow purvue, and were required to operate in the public interest. It might be a good idea to turn the clock back a bit and require that corporations operate not only in the interest of their shareholders but in the interest of their employees and the larger community.


Actually, the purpose of a public corporation is to enrich shareholders. That's it. Anything else would be fraud. Imagine if you invested savings Random Corp's stock and and one day they gave all their money to charity so your stock was worth nothing. That's an extreme example to illustrate a point, but even if your stock lost 10% of it's value because Random Corp gave it back to the community, etc. They would be guilty of mismanaging your stock. Even if it was 5%. Private corporations can do what they want, but public corporations have a specific duty not to rip off shareholders.

So of course corporations are amoral entities. That is to say, they operate without morals either good or bad. They are focused on making money for shareholders. If left to their own devices, corporations would turn a capitalist system into an anti-capitalist system through monopolies, and price fixing and engaging in anti-competitive behavior with respect to labor (this is what Obamacare essentially is allowing). This is why we have regulations.

In short, regulations exist exactly to prevent a corporation's amoral behavior from becoming immoral behavior. As a Libertarian-minded person, in my mind "immoral behavior" in the legal sense refers specifically to violating people's individual rights (theft), or violating common rights of citizens (polluting ground water, etc), or engaging in anti-competitive behavior (which this is). You can define "immoral behavior" however you want in your mind -- and vote for the party that best represents your definitions -- but the principle is the same. The fact is, government dropped the ball here.
 
2013-07-15 09:24:43 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: b2theory: You're free to feel that way, but it isn't reality.

I don't like it. It doesn't fit my own idealized vision for our economy. However, it is the way things are.

The reality is that shareholders are cannibalizing the economy because they're given preference over the company, the employees, and the customers with none of the responsibilities. You can cling to the fiduciary duty bullshiat all you like, but if you keep giving a non-productive, non-responsible party the lion's share of profits, you're never going to approach anything that resembles sustainability. It's a recipe for disaster and it gets a little closer to the brink every time they roll back worker protections.


They aren't "given" preference. They HAVE preference because they own the company.

I'm not a happy evangelist! I just hate when people refuse to recognize reality and the trade-offs that are being made.

My advice: if you want to change things, start a private business and don't take it public.
 
2013-07-15 09:25:01 PM

b2theory: rewind2846: b2theory: You need to acknowledge that this system is what facilitates "lavish" union pensions.

You need to acknowledge that those "lavish" pensions (I have a pension and am non union - did I just divide by zero in your head?) are what people in the private sector used to have and took for granted as a normal course of doing business, until they let their employers, corporations and wall street f*ck them out of it.

The solution is not to tear everyone else down, but to build yourself up. If you want some of those "lavish union pensions" (which aren't), them form a union and get them.

Christ, you are a fool. I wish I had one. I'm not arguing against them. I am just pointing out the fact that your pension fund is causing public companies to behave this way. Your pension pays you primarily from investment returns. It was only able to do that because it was a shareholder in a company that had increasing shareholder value.

Pension funds are the largest group of shareholders on the planet.


You seem to be laboring under the mistaken assumption that rewind and I think shareholders should get nothing, ever. If so, you'd be wrong.
Increasing the share price above all else rather than building a sustainable business is poison that looks good in the short term, terrible in the long term. It will ultimately result in a loss to the shareholders when the business can no longer support itself.
 
m00
2013-07-15 09:26:14 PM

rewind2846: Which the corporations instructed their republican puppets to insist that they be included or the ACA would not pass. It's like making sure that I contribute lots of money to my local politician's re-election fund in return for her vote on whether the new road to be built in my city runs right past the empty plot of land I just bought. Land which will be a new shopping center by the time the road in complete.

If the loopholes weren't there, there would be no ACA. That's how politics works.


I want to take the time to debunk this.


ACA didn't need Republicans to pass. At the time, both the house and the senate were Democrat controlled. You CANNOT blame Obamacare on Republicans. That's disingenuous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

Democrats controlled 58.8% of the House and 58% of the Senate.

The good Senator from Delaware has a nice simple explanation of how a Bill becomes Law

http://www.coons.senate.gov/learn/bills/

Note you need a simple majority to turn a Bill into Law, which the Democrats easily had in both houses.
 
2013-07-15 09:26:15 PM

Mr Rogers is aroused: If the ACA costs $142 billion a year to sustain, where does that money come from? I would assert as a proponent of this new expenditure, it is YOUR duty to prove where that money comes from. But you and I know where it comes from if it can't be made through operational procedures (co-pays, cancellation fees, etc). It comes from the taxpayers. Because it's a federally backed program.


I haven't made any assertions so it is not my duty to prove anything. However since I'm such a nice guy I'll help you out and answer your question with actual details instead of "google it" like the idiot you are white knighting for.

The ACA will be paid for by a combination of things. One of the largest factors is medicare cost savings. Fixing the so call "doughnut hole" is a major part of that reduced medicare spending. Adjustments to medicare advantage rates is another place where savings on that program will help pay for the provisions in the ACA. Reductions in other areas such as home health care reimbursements, what is called "disproportionate share hospital" reimbursements, the part D premium subsidy for high income earners, and reduced spending on the medicare improvement fund will also contribute to offsetting the costs of the ACA. In addition to saving in other areas, there will be increased revenue to help pay for the ACA. Medicare tax will be increased for high income earners. There are also taxes and fees on medical device makers, an excise tax on "Cadillac" health plans, and some addition fees that insurers will pay. The fines that individuals and businesses will end up paying for not getting or not providing (respectively) coverage will also help pay for the program.

Here's a page from the IRS that has information on all the new tax provisions.

So will it be sustained? Of course. It's too big to fail. So lets stop arguing about the ins-and-outs of the word sustainable. It's not about that. It's about who sustains it, how much it costs, and WHY WE NEED IT. All of that lies on the proponent's shoulders to prove. I'm not against this. I just don't understand it's details enough to say "sign me up". Please, in all sincerity, enlighten me. I love knowledge, and i'll change my opinion almost instantly if it can be taught to me in a no BS kind of way.

Nobody is arguing the "the ins-and-outs of the word sustainable ". At this point your argument seems to be "I'm totally ignorant, prove everything to me".
 
2013-07-15 09:33:10 PM

b2theory: They aren't "given" preference. They HAVE preference because they own the company.


A shareholder isn't an owner, nor should they be treated like one.
If they want more of the rewards, they should accept more of the responsibility.

Oh, look at that...

b2theory: start a private business and don't take it public.


What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, amirite?

b2theory: I'm not a happy evangelist! I just hate when people refuse to recognize reality and the trade-offs that are being made.


Yes, reality sucks. I'm not arguing against its existence, just that the reality is self-destructive. What possible trade off is there in letting a non-productive, non-responsible shareholder have command over a business's money to the detriment of the business itself? As we were saying, what should happen is the company, employees, and customers come before the shareholder, because without any one of those three, the shareholder has nothing.
 
2013-07-15 09:33:18 PM

Mr Rogers is aroused: Thrag: Mr Rogers is aroused: Ah.. i misread your quote. There's the confusion. The OP argued that obamacare is unsustainable. Thrag and HBK tried to argue that he must prove it's unsustainable.

I didn't "try to" argue anything. I asked someone to support their statements. Is the concept of asking someone to back their assertions strange to you? Here in reality it is pretty much standard operating procedure for people with the capacity for critical thought. When someone makes a bold claim, it is their responsibility to support the claim. What problem do you have with this concept?

it's an equally bold claim to make that it is sustainable in the fact that the ACA wouldn't tax the people where we haven't been taxed before.  So to see you in your glass house throwing rocks, I feel it is my job to not let that go unnoticed.  What is your proof that this isn't a form of elaborate cronyism that will be added to the debt clock?


So because I haven't proven a claim that I haven't made, I'm in a glass house throwing rocks? And after complaining that I haven't supported an argument I never made you ask me to prove a negative? Are you high?

Let's recap. You jumped into a conversation to white knight someone, posted "proof" of his claim that was not in any way shape or form actually proof of his claim (at best it was just the opposite). Called people hypocrites for not providing proof of assertions they did not make. Proclaimed your complete ignorance of the topic. Then put words into people mouths and complained that people have not proven your newly invented strawman arguments. Finally, asked people to prove a vague negative.

What do you do for your next trick?
 
2013-07-15 09:34:49 PM

Peter von Nostrand: I was at a party this weekend and Obamacare showed up and double dipped


Probably something foreign-sounding, like Copenhagen.

Then again, using Red Man would probably cause a kerfuffle in the Democratic party. He really can't win.

/Especially when Michelle finds out.
 
m00
2013-07-15 09:36:26 PM

m00: rewind2846: Which the corporations instructed their republican puppets to insist that they be included or the ACA would not pass. It's like making sure that I contribute lots of money to my local politician's re-election fund in return for her vote on whether the new road to be built in my city runs right past the empty plot of land I just bought. Land which will be a new shopping center by the time the road in complete.

If the loopholes weren't there, there would be no ACA. That's how politics works.

I want to take the time to debunk this.


ACA didn't need Republicans to pass. At the time, both the house and the senate were Democrat controlled. You CANNOT blame Obamacare on Republicans. That's disingenuous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

Democrats controlled 58.8% of the House and 58% of the Senate.

The good Senator from Delaware has a nice simple explanation of how a Bill becomes Law

http://www.coons.senate.gov/learn/bills/

Note you need a simple majority to turn a Bill into Law, which the Democrats easily had in both houses.


This is actually how you know Obama's administration is not what Obama claimed it would be in the 2008 election
.
The Democrats held both houses by wide margins. They could have passed any bill they wanted. They could have passed national healthcare (true national healthcare) modeled on Canada's system or any European country. They could have passed true social security, and not this pyramid scheme we now have.

What instead they passed was the Republican proposal (handout to insurance companies) that Romney implemented. Democrats then blamed Republican obstructionism that it wasn't the perfect socialist system, and instead was just another corporate handout. right.

That should have told you how Obama would govern.
 
2013-07-15 09:37:14 PM

m00: rewind2846: Which the corporations instructed their republican puppets to insist that they be included or the ACA would not pass. It's like making sure that I contribute lots of money to my local politician's re-election fund in return for her vote on whether the new road to be built in my city runs right past the empty plot of land I just bought. Land which will be a new shopping center by the time the road in complete.

If the loopholes weren't there, there would be no ACA. That's how politics works.

I want to take the time to debunk this.


ACA didn't need Republicans to pass. At the time, both the house and the senate were Democrat controlled. You CANNOT blame Obamacare on Republicans. That's disingenuous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

Democrats controlled 58.8% of the House and 58% of the Senate.

The good Senator from Delaware has a nice simple explanation of how a Bill becomes Law

http://www.coons.senate.gov/learn/bills/

Note you need a simple majority to turn a Bill into Law, which the Democrats easily had in both houses.


So you are totally unaware of the existence of the filibuster and the recent history of the GOP using it to make it so that nothing can pass without 60 votes? Did you pay any attention to the actual events surrounding the debate over and eventual passage of the ACA?

If you want to play teacher, it helps to actually know what the fark you are talking about. Your attempt to educate others only demonstrates your ignorance.
 
Displayed 50 of 357 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report