Random Politics & Religion #25

Not really. It's called examples, take a hit and pass it on.

Wrong.

The Medicare tax assessed on net investment income and anyone making over a certain amount per year is to bring in more money to the pot. But, sadly, Obamacare didn't have the usual provisions that only required taxes collected from those specific sources (among others) to pay for the expansion of Medicaid/Medicare, nor paying for the premiums of those who make slightly over the poverty limit.

No, my sad little puppet, those expenses are taken out of the General Fund, meaning that everyone's income taxes is being used to pay for such social experiments.

If Obamacare has taught anyone anything, including those who deny reality, it's how ineffective US socialized single-payer insurance would be. People are dying from the very minimal increase to Medicare/Medicaid rolls. Just imagine how many thousands of people would die if the federal government mandated single-payer. That would be thousands per day.

And you claim to be part of the compassionate party. Well, you are only compassionate to the donors of the representatives who are voted into office. Much less for the poor or elderly.

Since they don't work real jobs they don't know the insane amounts that Obamacare forced employers to pay. What it did was essentially force employers to pay for socialized healthcare via taxes. It then forced insurance provides to cover a bunch of unnecessary ***to appease hyper progressive liberal SJWs which price inflated the price even further then it already was.

The reason healthcare in the USA is overpriced vs the rest of the world is the asinine layers of red tape and regulations that have been made. It's functionally impossible to bring to market any medication or procedure without first spending over a hundred million on it, most of which is to satisfy bureaucratic red tape. Furthermore healthcare providers costs are inflated massively by the ridiculous amounts of legal insurance they need to carry because of the risk of frivolous lawsuits.

Do you have a source for that?

You guys really need to hash out what this really means.

It is a moot point. Employers are still going to keep workers at part-time, so that way they don't have to pay insurance or PTO. The point is that they just won't be able to blame Obama for not hiring full-time workers due to the ACA.

I would love to be wrong and share your optimism, but I don't see it happening. I have seen it in the past. In retail, company reduces workforce for X reason. X reason goes away, but old staffing levels don't return, since they were still able to make shareholders happy.

Straight from the horse's mouth

Or in this case, lack of specific funding towards the law comes from the General Fund.

I thought you were at least a little more intelligent than that Pleebs.

Tell us, why would they?

You do realize that the only government-mandated benefit for full-time employees is health insurance, and only if your employer has 50 Full-Time or Full-Time-Equivalent or greater employees.

There is no mandated paid vacation. There is no mandated paid sick leave. There's protected unpaid sick leave, but that's it.

There isn't even mandated retirement payments.

All those benefits come voluntarily as an incentive for employees to stay, because long-term employees are actually much cheaper than short-term employees who keep quitting and getting a new job. Look up retention costs for crying out loud!

Just admit, you have no clue what business is, as it is shown clearly by your posts and your "nuh-uh!" rebuttals. Your points aren't even shared by most of the liberals in Congress! Their only attacking point is people losing health insurance, which is a completely different animal to health care or making it affordable, which is the whole *** point in ACA in the first place.

That's a lot of words do say Republicans are evil.

I'm not reading through 1700 pages to find out if you're talking through your ***. Where is it?

I'm shocked with public education anyone here can read...

So no one read the healthcare bill but it's terrible. That is how Congress works. When they pass a bill terrible. When they don't pass a bill it's terrible. No wonder they hate voters.

I'm not saying voters a bunch of low income nobodies....but I'm saying they are low income nobodies.

In this case, you have to read through it all.

What you are specifically looking for is language that states that funding for ACA would/will come from a newly setup fund, and then language that states how it is funded, and it is only to be used for specific funding, and what that specific funding is.

Since there is no language in the original or amended bills, then the GAO report states specifically that funding, when language for specific expenditures are absent, would come from the General Fund.

So, yes, in order to see if I'm bullshitting you, you have to find evidence of language that is lacking in the bill/law. Go for it.

Yeah that's not how citations work.

There's nothing more dehumanizing than keeping people on the welfare plantation for big government votes...

Wtf..

You have no idea how business works. Your only thought is "businesses are evil capitalist and oppressive". There is massive competition for employee acquisition and retention. Hiring and employee typically costs their salary in additional costs, it's why contractors are used so heavily. Then as the employee grows they gather vital business knowledge and experience. If they leave that knowledge is incredibly difficult to replace.

Unless the employee sat on their *** and never grew or developed past pushing the same buttons and levers everyday. Basically a liberal looking for a meal ticket.

So employers care about acquisition and retention yet at the same time they had to be mandated to give their full-timers insurance benefits. There's not much reason to believe that these jobs will go back to being full time if things are working as they are now.

Has there been any discussion here about the Philando Castile case? Went back a couple pages and didn't see anything.

Warning, the video is graphic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsZNhJnNVls

Philando Castile was legally armed. He informed the police officer that he had a firearm. He was cooperating. He was shot and killed anyway.

Officer Jeronimo Yanez was acquitted.

No but I'll put it on my to do list !

If it becomes less costly to give full time workers health benefits, then more people will start to work full time.

Summer time the living's easy FFXIAH bitching freely !

The people this effects are the entry level folks with liberal arts degree's or minimal skills. Their treated as commodities because there is an ocean of them, due to the inflated degree pool, and they are hired on a cost-basis. Once they invest time and energy into themselves to create unique and in-demand skillsets they become the employees that business's compete over.

What liberals want to do is force business's to provide entry level folks with the same benefits as the more skill people make and make those make skilled people pay for it. This is why they also push for ridiculous minimum wages, it's an attempt to force employers to pay those low skilled liberals with useless degrees more in comparison to the people who made smart career decisions.

The liberals enemy isn't the ultra wealthy, just look at their elite to realize they are all ultra wealthy, it's the middle class the one group that could challenge their control.

What you guys need is the Caveman drink. You'll be reading that health care bill. You might even understand it.

I'm not going to lie I can't read very good...well...whatever ! I get by on simple words like this:

It's simple we just keep raising the min wage. I suggest we start at 300 dollars an hour. Then every 4 years raise it by a dollar.

Wait, are you asking me to cite where it doesn't specifically state a fund is created?

How does that work again? You want me to cite something that doesn't exist?

Or are you that idiotic to believe so?

If I was you, I would demand a refund from your university. They obviously didn't do their job, the level of stupidity you are using.....

Of course, and no better characterization if the liberal goal than to convert all those self reliant middle class people into dependent plantation voters who will feel direct economic pain if they try and become self reliant.

This isn't a term paper. Hell if you can even cite yourself as a source !

Is that what you honestly believe what ACA was supposed to achieve?

To force employers to cover their full-time employees with health insurance, when about 70% full-time employees were already covered, and those who weren't either declined voluntarily or had insurance through a spouse.

In other words, for the reality denier you are, almost all full-time employees had or was offered coverage. What ACA was doing is forcing those who didn't qualify, such as part-time employees, to have insurance. Why else did they redefine part-time work from 32 hours to 28 hours?

What they weren't expecting, what they should have expected, what the Republicans were saying at the time but they completely ignored because elections have consequences*, is that those part-time employees went from 32 hours a week to less than 28 per week. That killed the economy very quickly.

But, forcing people into a product they either choose to not have on their own, or can't afford it on their own, is your party's prerogative, right? And you wonder why the liberals/democrats are at their worst standing in this nation still?