Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Feb 8, 2014.
When everyone stops working, who will pay for all this nirvana?
The liberal and media spin on this is so amusing to watch. Like this was all along an intended consequence of this law. Obama could eat puppies on tv and the libs and the media would say wow Obama is so great he is making the world safer for cats!!
The rest of us. Those willing to work. Naturally higher marginal tax rates will be needed. Who will be paying for the drop outs retirement?
The lead libs speak of expanding people's choices and liberating people from work. Do those of us paying their tab get a choice?
So is ACA a horrible program due to the high premiums, deductibles and out-of-pocket costs or is it horrible because it's a "freebie" redistribution program?
Logic would indicate that it can't be both.
Actually it obviously can be both; it is the former for the unsubsidized set in order to be the latter for the subsidized. I believe it was Plato who said herp derp.
Entrepreneurship is fine, don't expect the 50% of working Americans to subsidize your butt while you do it.
You said multiple Republicans, and I did read it. What Ryan is saying is completing different from what you are implying as an argument to your ACA job lock comparison. Maybe you should do a little research on what Ryan is implying with his comments, but do continue your cherry picking and putting your spin on it.
so what is he saying?
The old portability issue used to always assume as a predicate that it was a problem for people changing jobs. It wasn't until the dumpster fire of ObamaCare that it had to be defined down as "job lock" meaning really nothing more that you had to work at all to afford having health insurance, and that since that's not the case under ObamaCare, people are free to "pursue their dreams" -- up to and including playing lots and lots of Call of Duty, etc. As long as their dream doesn't require an income, really. Any dream you got.
You know, not everyone who spends less time at work is using it to play Call of Duty. We talk about the breakdown of the family a lot here , especially among lower incomes, and here we are saying we must squeeze every hour of work out of the middle and lower class, instead of having a better economic outcomes for slightly less work.
Step one to the stability of the family -- one or more people winning bread/bringing home bacon for the family to have the things it needs without depending on the fickle kindness of strangers.
That's only possible if you literally grow your own bacon, since its fickle strangers who hire you or lay you off too.
An employer is neither being fickle nor kind -- they are compensating services rendered based on the value of the service and the skill with which it is provided. Good Lord.
Good lord. If that's how you want to play it, nor is the government being "fickle" then. They are simply executing the obligations rendered into law by the will of the electorate. If your retort is "Well the electorate is fickle"then, I wonder why you exclude employers from such fickleness, since they too are part of it.
1. Anyone who carries any insurance subsidizes someone else.
2. You've always paid for others' healthcare--ACA is just a more straightforward way to do it.
It is pretty obvious from this you really see no moral and practical difference between "providing" for self and family by navigating skillfully through qualifying through whatever handouts are available, and providing through hard work and the fruit of one's own labor. There is only dignity and self-respect for head of household or contributing members in the latter. If that has truly been lost here... good Lord is about the most restrained I can manage.
I don't, really. Dependency is dependency. You've basically said before that jobs arent there for just for people to do, they are there for someone else to make money. Tacitly then, anyone's ability to earn a living for themselves is tied to making someone else money, unless they find a way to make their own job or business. So, were' all dependent on something or someone. You arent against dependency, you're against a certain kind of dependency, tied to a morality play about who deserves what.
Dropping out of the work force to keep one's income lower to continue qualifying for Obamacare subsidies would not be "slightly less work", would it?
No, but that's also not what the CBO said would occur either.
Words will always fall dead between us, then. This is like talking across the grand canyon... from another planet, for me. No difference between clever effort to qualify for some entitlement, and actually working -- by and with the consent of the one compensating you -- for what you have? Six of one, half dozen of the other for wgb.