Sure you can have health insurance (not sure how you will pay for it).

phixer

phixer

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/40#post_3539081
If companies are being forced to pay a fine for not providing health care for their employees employed persons who voluntarily quit their job to qualify for welfare subsidies should be prohibited from collecting them.
Makes sense but unenforceable because you cant force someone to work especially if the job pays peanuts and the benefits suck. In economics, it's called the law of diminishing returns. The solution is twofold:

1) Remove the incentive not to work by eliminating all types of welfare.
2) Force companies to stop screwing people out of a living wage by not patronizing the ones that do.

What exists now is a surplus of workers which drives down wages and benefits in addition to the abuse of technology used to eliminate jobs thus encouraging people not to work when they can get the same thing for less elsewhere. In this case the govt cheese again. Obamanomic socialism in action.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
States already have a system of refusing unemployment to people who quit their job without cause.
As far as living wages it depends. Someone who's most important job skill is remembering to ask if you'd like to supersize that order isn't worthy of a so-called living wage. Those types of jobs are intended for students or retirees.
What we need is to start building things in this country again. Walmart claims to be investing 250 billion over the next 10 years to start making that happen. Not sure what their exact plan is but if they and target and Amazon would all start concentrating on buying domestic products it will make a big difference. Microsoft and Apple have a ton of cash laying around. They should do the same thing. Might be time to rethink all these free trade agreements.
 
beaslbob

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
Years and years ago unemployment only applies if you were terminate (laid off) by the employer. If fired you had like a 4 week lose of benies.

Never applied if you just quit.


Wages, employment IMHO should be market conditions. We all have things we think are good. So go out and try for those conditions. What never works is for the government to force conditions according to what some guy/gal in washington thinks is "fair".
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
A copy of the republicans alternative. Only 181 pages....and does protect much of the things ACA protects still.
http://rsc.scalise.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bill_american_health_care_reform_act.pdf
It isn't just crossing state lines. It is allowing small businesses to pool together.
 
phixer

phixer

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/60#post_3539117
States already have a system of refusing unemployment to people who quit their job without cause.
As far as living wages it depends. Someone who's most important job skill is remembering to ask if you'd like to supersize that order isn't worthy of a so-called living wage. Those types of jobs are intended for students or retirees.
What we need is to start building things in this country again. Walmart claims to be investing 250 billion over the next 10 years to start making that happen. Not sure what their exact plan is but if they and target and Amazon would all start concentrating on buying domestic products it will make a big difference. Microsoft and Apple have a ton of cash laying around. They should do the same thing. Might be time to rethink all these free trade agreements.
Interesting, I've never heard of a state that does that or how they would be able to prove such a thing.

Would agree but the world needs ditch diggers also, Id rather have folks gainfully employed than collecting welfare. We also need to be using prison labor to "pick the strawberries" since it's already a fixed cost. This would take a huge bite out of the illegal immigration problem.

Absolutely, but as a business owner your going to look at it from an economic perspective. If the cost of labor is more in the US the cost of goods will be more. If the COGS is more people will buy less and demand a living wage. Does a CEO really need to earn 700 time more than a floor employee, does he work 700 times harder?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
The unemployment office calls to verify the reason for termination. Least they did in California. I had a couple people who I canned claimed they were laid off which mean they had to wait 4 weeks. In both cases the person doing the verification asked me if I thought they intentionally attempted to get fired which I guess would be considered the same as quitting.
 
phixer

phixer

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/60#post_3539165
The unemployment office calls to verify the reason for termination. Least they did in California. I had a couple people who I canned claimed they were laid off which mean they had to wait 4 weeks. In both cases the person doing the verification asked me if I thought they intentionally attempted to get fired which I guess would be considered the same as quitting.
True, it's part of the process to confirm they are not working in addition to checking wage withholding status. But they still get the unemployment benefits irregardless of the reason for job loss because there is really no way to prove if they were a dirtbag and fired, manpower cutbacks (laid off) or quit of their own accord. It's always one persons word against anothers. Sure the state asks it's protocol to ensure they arent double dipping, but they dont use it to deny unemployment pay. A labor dispute would have to be filed before it could be investigated and that dosent happen unless a lawsuit is filed to prove wrongful termination or a type of harassment occured and the person left due to a hostile work environment.

CA rarely disapproves unemployment to those with a record of steady employment even if sporadic. I've never heard of anyone in CA being refused unemployment benefits which is probably why the state is in such a financial mess.

If they quit of their own accord they can also cite a host of arguments such as had to take care of sick relative or parental reasons as long as they can prove they are looking for work or going to school they can collect unemployment for the period of time allowable.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
The law in California must have changed since I left. If you quit you would have had to show some proof of unsafe working conditions to get unemployment. One guy I used to work with in Orange County wanted to move home to San Diego and wanted to get laid off so he could collect. When the Service Manager refused the guy waited a couple days and in front of several other people called the SM an Asshole to get fired which he did. He was also turned down for unemployment for getting fired for a willful act. He couldn't even collect after the 4 weeks you'd normally have to wait for being fired for "normal" reasons.
 
aggiealum

aggiealum

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/40#post_3539077
Cherry picking? Stones, glass house, and such.
And how are they doing this? By being subsidized and thus working less to avoid making more money to avoid loosing their subsidy or having their subsidy reduced. It isn't reducing the actual cost of heathcare, in most cases it is increasing it. The government is just picking up the tab, or assisting with it.
I agreed something needed done. But this is a monstrosity and even the president is afraid to implement the entire thing. Hence the employer mandate....which means the tax payer cost and debt will get higher until that mandate goes into effect. Once it does, you may see a significant portion of people lose their heathcare plans that are partially paid by their employer and have to enroll on the governments dime.
You keep saying there are aspects of the bill you dont agree with and things that need changed. Yet nothing we have discussed you are against or dont like. So rather than continue down this path....I ask you. What do you feel needs changed and corrected?
Of course the government is picking up some of the costs. That's the main design of ACA. However, the intent was for state governments to kick in their shares, not stick the entire bill on the feds. Texas has billions sitting in "general funds" that could be spent to assist with healthcare for lower income families and children. Instead, it goes into the coffers of the politicians, or we spend millions in "security details" for that moron we have as Governor who keeps making failed attempts at higher offices.

Changes? Forcing all states to contribute their share, making premiums more affordable for EVERYONE, not just those who live in states where they do pick up the tab. Enforce the employer mandate, and quit pandering to small businesses as a way to keep a repeal of the law off the table. Include laws that regulate the medical industry, and begin curbing excessive costs for services and drugs. You can cut costs of premiums, but its moot point if the costs of services and prescription drugs continue to climb that offset those benefits.
 
aggiealum

aggiealum

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/60#post_3539140
A copy of the republicans alternative. Only 181 pages....and does protect much of the things ACA protects still.
http://rsc.scalise.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bill_american_health_care_reform_act.pdf
It isn't just crossing state lines. It is allowing small businesses to pool together.
I you actually try reading this muddled law? Half of it is doing nothing but amending previous health care laws (The Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Seriously?). Goota love wording like this:
IN GENERAL.—Part VII of subchapter B of chap16
ter 1 is amended by redesignating section 224 as section
17 225 and by inserting after section 223 the following new
18 section:
19 ‘‘

So what exactly is the Internal Revenue Code of 1986? Now we're supposed to go back to some antiquated healthcare laws created almost 30 years ago?

I also love the way they want individuals to recoup some of their costs. Throw it on Schedule A on your tax return as some for of tax deduction. Problem with that is, unless you have business expenses, or high property and mortgage taxes, you'll most likely just take the standard deduction and end up not benefitting from this tax deduction. It says nothing about what income levels get what percentage of deductions. So the billionaires who have all these sly deduction will be allowed to virtually write off their entire medical benefits, but the low income person who rents and doesn't even file a Schedule A gets nothing?


Also like how someone who is under "COVERAGE UNDER MEDICARE, MEDICAID, SCHIP, TRICARE, AND GRANDFATHERED EMPLOYER COVERAGE" is not eligible to participate in this plan. Why would they want to? They already get their government-subsidized insurance paid by the taxpayers.

This entire "plan" is based solely on amendments of previous healthcare initiatives that were shown to have more flaws than ACA, and putting the burden of healthcare savings on outdated tax codes. No wonder it never made it off the Congressional floor.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
I agree Aggie, we should be striving for elimination of all tax exemptions and deductions, not adding more. Complicating the federal tax code is not a solution to the increasing costs of medical care.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/60#post_3539187
I agree Aggie, we should be striving for elimination of all tax exemptions and deductions, not adding more. Complicating the federal tax code is not a solution to the increasing costs of medical care.
That's been my whole objection to the 0bama care plan from the start. It ignored the real problem with health care, the cost. In fact if anything it makes it worse
 
phixer

phixer

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/60#post_3539167
The law in California must have changed since I left. If you quit you would have had to show some proof of unsafe working conditions to get unemployment. One guy I used to work with in Orange County wanted to move home to San Diego and wanted to get laid off so he could collect. When the Service Manager refused the guy waited a couple days and in front of several other people called the SM an Asshole to get fired which he did. He was also turned down for unemployment for getting fired for a willful act. He couldn't even collect after the 4 weeks you'd normally have to wait for being fired for "normal" reasons.
Interesting, I guess it's handled on a case by case basis. I left San Diego 9 months ago and one guy I knew intentionally got himself fired for incompetence (which was quitting without quitting). He was pissed off because he got passed over for a promotion and said off line that since he didnt recieve the promotion he would give himself a raise by simply working less.

So what he did was to work very, very slowly and pretended not to know how to do basic tasks required of his job assignment. It took a few months but they eventually let him go for incompetence and told him he was no longer the "right fit" (to prevent show of bias) for the job.

What he did could not be proven as intentional or simply the signs of an unintentional medical condition, he applied for and began to collect unemployment shortly after job termination.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Yeah, if people are smart about it they can scam the system. Thing is most smart people don't want or need to suck off the government teet.
 
aggiealum

aggiealum

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phixer http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/60#post_3539199
Yeah, thats why all forms of welfare should be removed from the govt and given to the church. So many abuse it.
And the rich don't abuse the system the same way, if not worse? Let's castigate those who are less fortunate simply because they don't have the power and means to protect themselves. To the church? Seriously? And where do you think churches will come up with the millions (or billions) to care for those who can't support themselves on minimum wage earnings (oh wait, those jobs are just for retirees and school-aged kids)? You expect a third of our population to magically find a way to obtain a higher level of education or some form of vocational training that will allow them to find some job that pays more than $7.25/hr? Even if they did, what rear would all these jobs be pulled from that these newly educated or trained individuals could obtain? Have you ever been poor or destitute? Have you ever wondered where your next meal would come from, whether you can have a roof over your head, or instead living under a bridge or bouncing from one social housing facility to another? Have you ever had to worry about whether that miniscule paycheck you get each week will be enough to feed you and your children, plus pay for rent, utilities, and even the clothes on your back? Sounds like you would rather stereotype anyone whose on welfare rather that see the bigger picture of how they got there in the first place. Hate to burst your bubble, but not everyone on that program sits in their little house with their 8 kids watching TV all day and letting their kids play video games on the PS4 on their 70" flat screen LCD TV. You have single mothers who've fallen on hard times by losing that nice paying job, and are unable to find a replacement for more than 6 months because no jobs are available in her expertise. You do have people that want to work and be a productive member of our society, but are unable to find any jobs but these demeaning burger flipper and grocery bagger positions that don't pay enough to survive on. Yeah, it's always easy to denigrate when you're on the inside looking out.
 
phixer

phixer

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/60#post_3539201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phixer http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/60#post_3539199
Yeah, thats why all forms of welfare should be removed from the govt and given to the church. So many abuse it.
And the rich don't abuse the system the same way, if not worse? Let's castigate those who are less fortunate simply because they don't have the power and means to protect themselves. To the church? Seriously? And where do you think churches will come up with the millions (or billions) to care for those who can't support themselves on minimum wage earnings (oh wait, those jobs are just for retirees and school-aged kids)? You expect a third of our population to magically find a way to obtain a higher level of education or some form of vocational training that will allow them to find some job that pays more than $7.25/hr? Even if they did, what rear would all these jobs be pulled from that these newly educated or trained individuals could obtain? Have you ever been poor or destitute? Have you ever wondered where your next meal would come from, whether you can have a roof over your head, or instead living under a bridge or bouncing from one social housing facility to another? Have you ever had to worry about whether that miniscule paycheck you get each week will be enough to feed you and your children, plus pay for rent, utilities, and even the clothes on your back? Sounds like you would rather stereotype anyone whose on welfare rather that see the bigger picture of how they got there in the first place. Hate to burst your bubble, but not everyone on that program sits in their little house with their 8 kids watching TV all day and letting their kids play video games on the PS4 on their 70" flat screen LCD TV. You have single mothers who've fallen on hard times by losing that nice paying job, and are unable to find a replacement for more than 6 months because no jobs are available in her expertise. You do have people that want to work and be a productive member of our society, but are unable to find any jobs but these demeaning burger flipper and grocery bagger positions that don't pay enough to survive on. Yeah, it's always easy to denigrate when you're on the inside looking out.
Whats a matter Aggie, Darth and Quills wear you out ?


Yes as does nature. How much money does the church have? The Vatican? Where does this money come from? Is it taxed? No , I expect them to go the route of the Dodo bird. No , because if I did I wouldnt be here right now. Single mothers? people make choices they should do their homework before expecting someone else to save them when the reality of their own bad choices manifiests itself.
If they aren't prepared for the outcome of their own foolish decisions then they should jump off a bridge rather than burden society.
Not my concern or responsibility. If you want to save the world do so with your own time and money.

Im a mean cold heart person because I believe in the natural order of things.

Let me know if I missed something.
 
aggiealum

aggiealum

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phixer http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/60#post_3539210
Whats a matter Aggie, Darth and Quills wear you out ?


Yes as does nature. How much money does the church have? The Vatican? Where does this money come from? Is it taxed? No , I expect them to go the route of the Dodo bird. No , because if I did I wouldnt be here right now. Single mothers? people make choices they should do their homework before expecting someone else to save them when the reality of their own bad choices manifiests itself.
If they aren't prepared for the outcome of their own foolish decisions then they should jump off a bridge rather than burden society.
Not my concern or responsibility. If you want to save the world do so with your own time and money.

Im a mean cold heart person because I believe in the natural order of things.

Let me know if I missed something.
Ah, the survival of the fittest/sucks to be you attitude. Until it happens to you. Then the whining of "Where's my assistance?" starts. I'm sure if you lost all forms of income and it came down to either accepting help or living in the streets, you'd take the latter. Foolish decisions? Now you want to dictate how women handle their own medical decisions? Typical Conservative. The only reason church's like the Catholics have their billions of dollars is because of the bleating idiots that hand their money over to them hand over fist with the failed promise of salvation.

Yes, I do my part to "save the world" when I can. Let me know if you're ever in a bind. I'll toss you a bone and a blanket and point you to the nearest bridge.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phixer http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/60#post_3539210


Im a mean cold heart person because I believe in the natural order of things.

No, you simply don't know what the "natural order of things" actually is. What sets us apart from the other mammals is our use of social groupings to provide what we like to call civilization, but is just extended care of all individuals in the group. While "social darwinism" is a concept bandied about, and is actually a bastardization of biological darwinism, civilization (that is, caring for those less well off) has a clear evolutionary advantage to the species in that it preserves the kinds of diversity that evolution (the biological type) requires. it is interesting that social darwinists always find that they constitute the highest form of survival of the fittest, surprise, surprise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top