RE: Obamacare part 2
October 4, 2013 at 2:19 am
(This post was last modified: October 4, 2013 at 2:26 am by Lumpymunk.)
Creed of Heresy Wrote:Sounds like you're about to get smacked in the face with some evidence.
- Proceeds to quote Wikipedia.
- Wikipedia quotes a federal reserve bank of Minneapolis
Probably need to work on that sample size before you take one source as the gospel truth. The articles I've linked have contained references to massive companies employing hundreds of thousands of people. Your link is about "percentage of companies" which would count Subway (for example) as 1 company.
You've made this too easy honestly.
Manipulating statistics is what the Federal Reserve does best... it's absolutely hilarious you would quote them as a source.
...and this was supposed to be me getting...
Creed of Heresy Wrote:smacked in the face with some evidence.
...nice. That's the saddest source I've ever had to dismantle. It was also the only source you provided. So much for doing your "damn research" eh? Also it's a funny contradiction that a liberal (probably one of the 99%'er types) is quoting a source from a bank as if banks were suddenly credible and trustworthy.
Creed of Heresy Wrote:Stop trying to cover the asses of a bunch of rich fuckheads who can afford to pay out tens of millions of dollars to a group of 30 executives in bonuses but start screaming hysterically at the notion of giving their workers some benefits.
So if I criticize the ACA, I'm "covering the asses of a bunch of rich fuckheads." Gotcha.
Actually, the amount of money executives make today versus the average salary of their workers is disproportionate to what it was years ago. That is an issue, but its a seperate issue... and nothing in this legislation places any incentive on employeres to compensate workers any more... they can just wash their hands of the whole thing and let them fend for themselves in the exchanges.
My point is the ACA doesn't even address the problem.
Creed of Heresy Wrote:If their company REALLY can't spare $40k to treat their employees less like they're working in a developing world and more like the country where SUPPOSEDLY doing a hard day's work is supposed to reward you appropriately, then that company's about to fucking collapse.
The problem with employer provided insurance is that it takes away an employees mobility. In a market, a worker can move from job to job until they feel they're being paid what they're worth. As workers move around employees pay more in order to offset the costs of training and to achieve higher retention. When your insurance is attached to your employer you are deprived of that mobility. They "gotcha" and they know it. Growing up I'm sure a lot of people, like me, at some point heard something similar to the phrase "I'd love to quit but I need that dental insurance because I'm raising two boys." Feel free to substitute any kind of insurance, and any number of children.
The reason your "$137" insurance premium is a fantasy is because that is a low estimate for a high deductible premium (meaning 4-8 thousand dollar deductible's that low income families struggle to come up with) for a single young adult in great health that doesn't smoke. What is the cost for the 45 year old single mom with multiple children?
Pfft... I laughed when I read $137.
Creed of Heresy Wrote:LET ME GUESS. Tea-party supporter?
You're having a hard time in this discussion, and I'm sure you would love to marginalize me instead of actually produce real sources with some substance and forget about this... but sadly... no.... I'm not a "tea-party supporter."
Keep fishing?
Quote:For someone arguing for business concerns, you're not very intelligent about how businesses run in regards to their employment operations, are you?
Except where I've linked source after source of business behaving in the exact way I'm describing.
lol fail again
