Lynch your boss

[Sibirsky]

Except when they are giving people just under 40 hours of work a week so they don't have a right to healthcare. Or when they earn big pay checks for saving the company money by firing people.

And what's stopping them from buying their own health insurance? Sure, they don't get the tax break their employer would get, but I am not the one that wrote the tax code. Had I written it, it would be simple, individuals use before tax money to pay for medical expenses just like corporations do.

So your argument is they should buy healthcare on their own, at a far higher price I might add, because it would be affordable in your personal bizarro world? Great.

PS. That has nothing to do with my or your original point - that "rich" people running companies "provide healthcare."

Is it the employer's fault that healthcare is expensive? I would argue it's a number of things, non of which are the fault of employers.

[The_pantless_hero]

Except when they are giving people just under 40 hours of work a week so they don't have a right to healthcare. Or when they earn big pay checks for saving the company money by firing people.

And what's stopping them from buying their own health insurance? Sure, they don't get the tax break their employer would get, but I am not the one that wrote the tax code. Had I written it, it would be simple, individuals use before tax money to pay for medical expenses just like corporations do.

So your argument is they should buy healthcare on their own, at a far higher price I might add, because it would be affordable in your personal bizarro world? Great.

PS. That has nothing to do with my or your original point - that "rich" people running companies "provide healthcare."

Is it the employer's fault that healthcare is expensive? I would argue it's a number of things, non of which are the fault of employers.

Wow, you are just swinging at nothing to try and distract from the fact I countered your original position. That the "rich" arn't impoverishing people and are in fact "providing jobs" with healthcare. It is the employer's fault that they are purposefully preventing employees from qualifying for healthcare through the company.

[Sibirsky]

Except when they are giving people just under 40 hours of work a week so they don't have a right to healthcare. Or when they earn big pay checks for saving the company money by firing people.

And what's stopping them from buying their own health insurance? Sure, they don't get the tax break their employer would get, but I am not the one that wrote the tax code. Had I written it, it would be simple, individuals use before tax money to pay for medical expenses just like corporations do.

So your argument is they should buy healthcare on their own, at a far higher price I might add, because it would be affordable in your personal bizarro world? Great.

PS. That has nothing to do with my or your original point - that "rich" people running companies "provide healthcare."

Is it the employer's fault that healthcare is expensive? I would argue it's a number of things, non of which are the fault of employers.

Wow, you are just swinging at nothing to try and distract from the fact I countered your original position. That the "rich" arn't impoverishing people and are in fact "providing jobs" with healthcare. It is the employer's fault that they are purposefully preventing employees from qualifying for healthcare through the company.

They are trying to limit costs. I didn't say they provide health insurance 100% of the time. In fact, I think the whole job/insurance marriage thing is bizarre and inefficient. Your insurance should not depend on where you work, or how much you work, or what plan your boss likes. Regardless, they do, in fact provide health insurance in a lot of cases. I don't have an exact figure for you, but I would argue that a majority of the 85% of the population that do have health insurance in this country, do have it through work.

[Heaven Hieghts]

Dude... What the fuck?

[New Chalcedon]

They provide jobs. Usually with health care.

Which is why Union Carbide continues to deny any sort of responsibility for the Bhopal disaster, a disaster that wouldn't have happened if it wasn't run by penny pinching money grubbers who would rather toss away thousands of lives working for them in deliberately unsafe chemical plants with nonexistent safety measures and emergency protocols, letting them and their families die in the ensuing chemical cloud, than pay one red cent for better standards you mean?

Why would a company engaging in that sort of practice bother providing health care when they're quite willing to kill their workers through negligence hmmm?

How is an industrial accident caused by a disgruntled employee the company's fault?
You can produce safety measures all you want a clever former employee can get around them.

Hmmm, research....

Causes of the Bhopal Tragedy:

1. The use of the dangerous chemical methyl isocyanate (MIC) to produce the pesticide Sevin at a cut cost compared to processes producing Sevin without MIC (i.e., safer), but at higher costs.

2. Supervisory personnel (a technical job requiring Western engineers, at some expense) halved to cut operating costs.

3. Safety personnel cut to reduce costs.

5. Failure to inform local governmental authorities of the fact that they were using dangerous chemicals. At the time, such disclosure was not required under Indian law.

6. Numerous failures to maitain or install necessary safety equipment.

7. Failureto respond to previous, smaller, warnings and accidents involving MIC safety issues.

After the disaster, Union Carbide's response?

Claiming that a disgruntled worker seliberately sabotaged the plant, despite the fact that their own investigation found no evidence of such sabotage. That's right folks, the line that Mr. Libertarian above is spouting isn't even believed by the people pushing it.

Oh, they also offered the minimum sum demanded under their insurance contract to compensate the 200,000+ survivors. Yeah, real humanitarians.

However, this does not validate the "Corporations r ebil" line, as it is one isolated incident. The free market is the most powerful force in human history - it's just up to us as people, as nations, and as states to see to it that this force is beneficial, not baneful.

[The_pantless_hero]

They are trying to limit costs. I didn't say they provide health insurance 100% of the time. In fact, I think the whole job/insurance marriage thing is bizarre and inefficient. Your insurance should not depend on where you work, or how much you work, or what plan your boss likes. Regardless, they do, in fact provide health insurance in a lot of cases. I don't have an exact figure for you, but I would argue that a majority of the 85% of the population that do have health insurance in this country, do have it through work.

You are still ignoring my point.

[Non Aligned States]

An industrial accident? So what's your answer, more government? Because governments do not ever make mistakes.

As opposed to your answer of "no government" and "cost cutting safety = good!" hmm?

How is an industrial accident caused by a disgruntled employee the company's fault?

Except it wasn't a disgruntled employee. It was the utter lack of safety standards. Dow Chemicals cooked up that disgruntled employee story to soothe their shareholders so they could buy up Union Carbide without dissent.

Oh, hang on, I forgot who I'm talking to. G&D. Profits first. Lives? Who cares.

[Sibirsky]

They are trying to limit costs. I didn't say they provide health insurance 100% of the time. In fact, I think the whole job/insurance marriage thing is bizarre and inefficient. Your insurance should not depend on where you work, or how much you work, or what plan your boss likes. Regardless, they do, in fact provide health insurance in a lot of cases. I don't have an exact figure for you, but I would argue that a majority of the 85% of the population that do have health insurance in this country, do have it through work.

You are still ignoring my point.

That they are deliberately scheduling their employees to not qualify for employee insurance? What do you expect. If regulations say that someone working 39 hrs/week is not entitled to insurance, but someone working 40/hrs a week is required to have it as a benefit, that extra hour of work is mighty expensive. Let's say this person is making $20/hr, and his/her insurance would be $3,250. That extra hour per week (or 50 per year) would cost an additional $4,312, including payroll tax. Or a whopping $86.24/hour for a $20 ($21.24 with payroll tax) hour employee. Can you blame them?

[Non Aligned States]

Can you blame them?

Why, yes. We can. Are you employed? Earning a decent salary perhaps? How would you like to be fired for no particular reason, and then offered your old job again, but at entry level wages. Your years of pay rises and stock options? Abolished. And no one else will hire you because you're too qualified. How would you like that? Just one of the numerous tricks businesses use to cut costs.

[Ordo Mallus]

Can you blame them?

Why, yes. We can. Are you employed? Earning a decent salary perhaps? How would you like to be fired for no particular reason, and then offered your old job again, but at entry level wages. Your years of pay rises and stock options? Abolished. And no one else will hire you because you're too qualified. How would you like that? Just one of the numerous tricks businesses use to cut costs.

thats no excuse to kill your boss

[Post-Unity Terra]

Can you blame them?

Why, yes. We can. Are you employed? Earning a decent salary perhaps? How would you like to be fired for no particular reason, and then offered your old job again, but at entry level wages. Your years of pay rises and stock options? Abolished. And no one else will hire you because you're too qualified. How would you like that? Just one of the numerous tricks businesses use to cut costs.

thats no excuse to kill your boss

You'll find the majority of disgruntled workers don't kill their bosses.

[Tekania]

That they are deliberately scheduling their employees to not qualify for employee insurance? What do you expect. If regulations say that someone working 39 hrs/week is not entitled to insurance, but someone working 40/hrs a week is required to have it as a benefit, that extra hour of work is mighty expensive. Let's say this person is making $20/hr, and his/her insurance would be $3,250. That extra hour per week (or 50 per year) would cost an additional $4,312, including payroll tax. Or a whopping $86.24/hour for a $20 ($21.24 with payroll tax) hour employee. Can you blame them?

So, you're arguing that the job market, the lack of available benefits and all those other nicities would be solved and supplied by a free-market... While at the same time admitting that companies will cut costs where they're legally capable of...


IOW, if we deregulated them, we'd all be up shits creek...

Thank you for pointing out the absurdity of the free-market system...

[Non Aligned States]

thats no excuse to kill your boss

As has been mentioned, most disgruntled workers don't kill their bosses. If most did, there wouldn't be a single management level employee or CEO left in the world. There are far more disgruntled workers than there are bosses.

It is grounds for some severe litigation and legal protections to put a stop to this kind of chicanery though.

[Sibirsky]

That they are deliberately scheduling their employees to not qualify for employee insurance? What do you expect. If regulations say that someone working 39 hrs/week is not entitled to insurance, but someone working 40/hrs a week is required to have it as a benefit, that extra hour of work is mighty expensive. Let's say this person is making $20/hr, and his/her insurance would be $3,250. That extra hour per week (or 50 per year) would cost an additional $4,312, including payroll tax. Or a whopping $86.24/hour for a $20 ($21.24 with payroll tax) hour employee. Can you blame them?

So, you're arguing that the job market, the lack of available benefits and all those other nicities would be solved and supplied by a free-market... While at the same time admitting that companies will cut costs where they're legally capable of...


IOW, if we deregulated them, we'd all be up shits creek...

Thank you for pointing out the absurdity of the free-market system...

What is absurd is the fact that you are arguing against a system, that has worked so well, in creating a rising standard of living, innovation, and many other benefits.

I argued that companies will cut costs, yes. What does that have to do with health insurance? While, I have nothing against an employer using health care as an incentive to attract talent, the job/insurance marriage is just as absurd as your understanding of basic economics. There is no reason someone's insurance should depend on their job.

[The_pantless_hero]

They are trying to limit costs. I didn't say they provide health insurance 100% of the time. In fact, I think the whole job/insurance marriage thing is bizarre and inefficient. Your insurance should not depend on where you work, or how much you work, or what plan your boss likes. Regardless, they do, in fact provide health insurance in a lot of cases. I don't have an exact figure for you, but I would argue that a majority of the 85% of the population that do have health insurance in this country, do have it through work.

You are still ignoring my point.

That they are deliberately scheduling their employees to not qualify for employee insurance? What do you expect. If regulations say that someone working 39 hrs/week is not entitled to insurance, but someone working 40/hrs a week is required to have it as a benefit, that extra hour of work is mighty expensive.

Your entire point was that rich people we arn't intentionally impoverishing people
My counter very obviously proves that they DO impoverish people for their own gain.

[The_pantless_hero]

Can you blame them?

Why, yes. We can. Are you employed? Earning a decent salary perhaps? How would you like to be fired for no particular reason, and then offered your old job again, but at entry level wages. Your years of pay rises and stock options? Abolished. And no one else will hire you because you're too qualified. How would you like that? Just one of the numerous tricks businesses use to cut costs.

thats no excuse to kill your boss

If it was, there would be alot less of this shit going on.

[Sibirsky]

They are trying to limit costs. I didn't say they provide health insurance 100% of the time. In fact, I think the whole job/insurance marriage thing is bizarre and inefficient. Your insurance should not depend on where you work, or how much you work, or what plan your boss likes. Regardless, they do, in fact provide health insurance in a lot of cases. I don't have an exact figure for you, but I would argue that a majority of the 85% of the population that do have health insurance in this country, do have it through work.

You are still ignoring my point.

That they are deliberately scheduling their employees to not qualify for employee insurance? What do you expect. If regulations say that someone working 39 hrs/week is not entitled to insurance, but someone working 40/hrs a week is required to have it as a benefit, that extra hour of work is mighty expensive.

Your entire point was that rich people we arn't intentionally screwing over the poor :rolleyes:

They are trying to save money. The people not getting health insurance is one of the unintended consequences of such cost cutting measures. You should know all about unintended consequences, after all, most legislation leads to them.

[The_pantless_hero]

That they are deliberately scheduling their employees to not qualify for employee insurance? What do you expect. If regulations say that someone working 39 hrs/week is not entitled to insurance, but someone working 40/hrs a week is required to have it as a benefit, that extra hour of work is mighty expensive. Let's say this person is making $20/hr, and his/her insurance would be $3,250. That extra hour per week (or 50 per year) would cost an additional $4,312, including payroll tax. Or a whopping $86.24/hour for a $20 ($21.24 with payroll tax) hour employee. Can you blame them?

So, you're arguing that the job market, the lack of available benefits and all those other nicities would be solved and supplied by a free-market... While at the same time admitting that companies will cut costs where they're legally capable of...


IOW, if we deregulated them, we'd all be up shits creek...

Thank you for pointing out the absurdity of the free-market system...

What is absurd is the fact that you are arguing against a system, that has worked so well, in creating a rising standard of living, innovation, and many other benefits.

It's funny that you should say that given that wages, scaled against inflation, have been stagnant for decades. If not decreasing, hence the growing gap between rich and poor. Do you even think about you present an argument or do you parrot the either uninformed or intentionally false rhetoric of the rightwing?

[The_pantless_hero]

They are trying to limit costs. I didn't say they provide health insurance 100% of the time. In fact, I think the whole job/insurance marriage thing is bizarre and inefficient. Your insurance should not depend on where you work, or how much you work, or what plan your boss likes. Regardless, they do, in fact provide health insurance in a lot of cases. I don't have an exact figure for you, but I would argue that a majority of the 85% of the population that do have health insurance in this country, do have it through work.

You are still ignoring my point.

That they are deliberately scheduling their employees to not qualify for employee insurance? What do you expect. If regulations say that someone working 39 hrs/week is not entitled to insurance, but someone working 40/hrs a week is required to have it as a benefit, that extra hour of work is mighty expensive.

Your entire point was that rich people we arn't intentionally screwing over the poor :rolleyes:

They are trying to save money. The people not getting health insurance is one of the unintended consequences of such cost cutting measures. You should know all about unintended consequences, after all, most legislation leads to them.

They are trying to save money. By impoverishing people. By saving money they earn bonuses. They have incentive to impoverish people and so THEY DO. Your entire original point and argument have been blown out of the water. Stop digging.

[Sibirsky]

That they are deliberately scheduling their employees to not qualify for employee insurance? What do you expect. If regulations say that someone working 39 hrs/week is not entitled to insurance, but someone working 40/hrs a week is required to have it as a benefit, that extra hour of work is mighty expensive. Let's say this person is making $20/hr, and his/her insurance would be $3,250. That extra hour per week (or 50 per year) would cost an additional $4,312, including payroll tax. Or a whopping $86.24/hour for a $20 ($21.24 with payroll tax) hour employee. Can you blame them?

So, you're arguing that the job market, the lack of available benefits and all those other nicities would be solved and supplied by a free-market... While at the same time admitting that companies will cut costs where they're legally capable of...


IOW, if we deregulated them, we'd all be up shits creek...

Thank you for pointing out the absurdity of the free-market system...

What is absurd is the fact that you are arguing against a system, that has worked so well, in creating a rising standard of living, innovation, and many other benefits.

It's funny that you should say that given that wages, scaled against inflation, have been stagnant for decades. If not decreasing, hence the growing gap between rich and poor. Do you even think about you present an argument or do you parrot the either uninformed or intentionally false rhetoric of the rightwing?

The reason wages have been stagnant is that most of the productivity gains, that are actually paid to the employee, over the past 20 years or so have gone to increased health insurance premiums. Just another argument for an end to the job/insurance marriage, but much more importantly health care reform.

[The_pantless_hero]

The reason wages have been stagnant is that most of the productivity gains, that are actually paid to the employee, over the past 20 years or so have gone to increased health insurance premiums. Just another argument for an end to the job/insurance marriage, but much more importantly health care reform.

The problem is there is no viable alternative to job-paid healthcare insurance, and neither have the Republicans or Republicrats proposed one.

[Sibirsky]

They are trying to limit costs. I didn't say they provide health insurance 100% of the time. In fact, I think the whole job/insurance marriage thing is bizarre and inefficient. Your insurance should not depend on where you work, or how much you work, or what plan your boss likes. Regardless, they do, in fact provide health insurance in a lot of cases. I don't have an exact figure for you, but I would argue that a majority of the 85% of the population that do have health insurance in this country, do have it through work.

You are still ignoring my point.

That they are deliberately scheduling their employees to not qualify for employee insurance? What do you expect. If regulations say that someone working 39 hrs/week is not entitled to insurance, but someone working 40/hrs a week is required to have it as a benefit, that extra hour of work is mighty expensive.

Your entire point was that rich people we arn't intentionally screwing over the poor :rolleyes:

They are trying to save money. The people not getting health insurance is one of the unintended consequences of such cost cutting measures. You should know all about unintended consequences, after all, most legislation leads to them.

They are trying to save money. By impoverishing people. By saving money they earn bonuses. They have incentive to impoverish people and so THEY DO. Your entire original point and argument have been blown out of the water. Stop digging.

Go work for someone else. The job market is, and should be elastic. That's why our unemployment rate is historically much lower than Europe's for instance. I would wait a few years of course before quitting, unless you find another job first. In this environment it is tough.

[Sibirsky]

The reason wages have been stagnant is that most of the productivity gains, that are actually paid to the employee, over the past 20 years or so have gone to increased health insurance premiums. Just another argument for an end to the job/insurance marriage, but much more importantly health care reform.

The problem is there is no viable alternative to job-paid healthcare insurance, and neither have the Republicans or Republicrats proposed one.

Ok. Like I said, health care reform is more important than the ending of job/insurance arrangement. There are multiple ways we can cut costs. Some of which I have posted in the mega thread. Yes, Republicans have proposed a couple (or so) completely idiotic plans that would do more harm than good. That doesn't make the Democrats' proposals any better.

[Tekania]

What is absurd is the fact that you are arguing against a system, that has worked so well, in creating a rising standard of living, innovation, and many other benefits.

I argued that companies will cut costs, yes. What does that have to do with health insurance? While, I have nothing against an employer using health care as an incentive to attract talent, the job/insurance marriage is just as absurd as your understanding of basic economics. There is no reason someone's insurance should depend on their job.

Your claims to superior knowledge of economics is refuted by your adherence to a historical perspective as fake as holocaust denial... Free-market has never been innovative, and its adherents have never been inventive... You'd probably do better to look at the real world, instead othe Randian dream-world...

[Vault 10]

I'm a liberal. Can I complain? The very rich are getting richer, the middle class is shrinking, and the social safety net is falling apart. I'm keying the next $80k car I see.

Yeah, because a $80k car is supposedly so not middle class...

The very rich you're talking about don't drive them.