LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 613
1 members and 612 guests
Hank Chinaski
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 08:55 AM.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-04-2004, 03:31 PM   #1126
Not Me
Too Lazy to Google
 
Not Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,460
Gangsta.

Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You would likely have a more nuanced view if you worked in a profession where it wasn't considered a mandatory benefit by your competitors in the labor marketplace.
No, he would just pay for it himself out of his salary.

Employer based health insurance is a big part of the problem with our system. It creates a market flaw.
__________________
IRL I'm Charming.
Not Me is offline  
Old 08-04-2004, 03:33 PM   #1127
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,129
true in ads

Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You know what I'm talking about: the way the economy is humming along like a top;
Accord. He saw us through when the bubble broke and 9/11, but things seem to be picking up. To his credit, he never blamed either on Clinton.

Quote:
his forthright and fiscally prudent management of our federal budget;
Have to break rank with you here. The problem is all government is in the hands of 1 party. Not a good thing. Instead of babbling in Wendy's you guys should be listening to people, adjusting and trying to take back the senate. Again, your fault.
Quote:
his record as a steward of the environment;
Not sure what policies you mean. Do you mean the arsenic levels that Clinton waiting 7 years, 11 and 1/2 months to implement, and W then reversed?
Quote:
his record as a defender of individual liberties;
Again, accord. He has done a good job not letting the paranoid go to far in this area. I admit, I would like to see a little more tightening of the roadblocks to terrorism prevention, but he's the boss. Unless you're being sarcastic, then I'd just ask you why the same restrictions were okay to spy on people suspected of being in the Mafia, but not okay for people known to have been in Afghanistan.
Quote:
his shrewd foreign policy;
I disagree. I thought he was pretty straight forward. He doesn't think we can pretend things are okay status quo. The UN is of course a status quo organization, so we can't just follow.
Quote:
the handling of Afgahnistan and Iraq after the shooting stopped?
Right. He is getting it done slowly and messy. But I mean what's the alternative? Kerry "has a plan," which I guess means he'll get other countries to send in troops. Problem is no other country can send the required numbers. The UK is but a fraction of what is in Iraq. So Kerry will get France to commit a similar small fraction?
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is online now  
Old 08-04-2004, 03:35 PM   #1128
Gattigap
Southern charmer
 
Gattigap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: At the Great Altar of Passive Entertainment
Posts: 7,033
true in ads

Quote:
Originally posted by Not Me
When John Kerry starts talking about all he has accomplished. What has he done, BTW? He went to vietnam and then commited war crimes according to his own statements, but other than that, what?
As has been mentioned before on this board, that's not a winning argument for you. Comparing Kerry's time as a prosecutor and legislator to Bush's time during the same period partying and driving a variety of businesses into the ground in TX does not = GOP victory.

The better argument is to focus on the substance of Kerry's positions over that time. Hoagland, I think, had a piece in WaPo making the argument that Kerry's chosen the wrong position on a number of national security matters over the last 20 years. It'll stick or it won't, but at least it's a more interesting point.

This "what has Kerry done" stuff will disappear from the GOP talking points in a few days, just as "we're turning the corner" will.

Gattigap
__________________
I'm done with nonsense here. --- H. Chinaski
Gattigap is offline  
Old 08-04-2004, 03:40 PM   #1129
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,129
true in ads

Quote:
Originally posted by Gattigap
blah blah blah
Gattigap
I always wonder about you guys who include your name or initials at the bottom of all posts.
Are you so proud of them you want to sign?
Do you think your moniker conveys some persuasive effect so its worth having follow the drivel? ("This seems poorly thought out and trite, but still this is a Gattigap post. Maybe i should give it another read.")
Just wondering?
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is online now  
Old 08-04-2004, 03:40 PM   #1130
Atticus Grinch
Hello, Dum-Dum.
 
Atticus Grinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 10,117
Gangsta.

Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Employer-contributed 401(k)s were considered "mandatory" benefits by competitors in my industry. Then someone realized that employees might rather have the cash on the barrelhead. Odd that. Then the principle was extended to health insurance as well, which became not an employer-paid benefit but rather an employee-paid benefit, with a choice of plans. Remarkably, enrollment in the cheaper plan skyrocketed. Odder that.
That's entirely predictable, but merely a fascinating example of how the market works when the employer goes from paying premiums to paying-through those premiums to employees so they have the discretionary income from employment to cover premiums for private health insurance. Here, the "employee-funded" option we're talking about was Medicaid. Which, I'm sure you realize, is means-tested.

Rather clever of Wal-Mart to shift the cost of maintaining a healthy workforce onto a public good. Kind of like planting my marijuana plants in a national wildlife refuge to save the fixed costs of land purchase.
Atticus Grinch is offline  
Old 08-04-2004, 03:41 PM   #1131
taxwonk
Wild Rumpus Facilitator
 
taxwonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In a teeny, tiny, little office
Posts: 14,167
Gangsta.

Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
All it does for me is call attention to the ridiculous proposition (or assumption) that health insurance should be considered a mandatory benefit offered and paid for by employers.
What makes it a ridiculous proposition. We have spoken as a society and made clear our expectation that we will be provided with affordable health care. The cost cna be borne either by employers, as a cost of the value of labor, or it can be borne by the state, as the ultimate provider of externalities. Are you suggesting national health care or suggesting that the members of a democracy don't have the right to decide on and demand that their health needs be addressed?
__________________
Send in the evil clowns.
taxwonk is offline  
Old 08-04-2004, 03:46 PM   #1132
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Moderator
 
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pop goes the chupacabra
Posts: 18,532
Gangsta.

Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
What makes it a ridiculous proposition. We have spoken as a society and made clear our expectation that we will be provided with affordable health care. The cost cna be borne either by employers, as a cost of the value of labor, or it can be borne by the state, as the ultimate provider of externalities. Are you suggesting national health care or suggesting that the members of a democracy don't have the right to decide on and demand that their health needs be addressed?
I ams suggesting that if as a society we expect all people to have access to affordable health care then we as a society should be willing to pay for it through taxes. Right now, only the first proposition is true, which leads to disingenuous rationalizations as to how the latter can (and should) be accomplished through mandates, expectations, or free-riding.
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) is offline  
Old 08-04-2004, 03:48 PM   #1133
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Moderator
 
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pop goes the chupacabra
Posts: 18,532
Gangsta.

Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Here, the "employee-funded" option we're talking about was Medicaid. Which, I'm sure you realize, is means-tested.

Rather clever of Wal-Mart to shift the cost of maintaining a healthy workforce onto a public good. Kind of like planting my marijuana plants in a national wildlife refuge to save the fixed costs of land purchase.
Kind of, except that we (that is, the U.S. government) set up Medicaid specficially for people who do not have the means, for whatever reason, to afford their own medical insurance. If you care to use a victory garden to cultivate your own stash, go right ahead.
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) is offline  
Old 08-04-2004, 03:59 PM   #1134
Secret_Agent_Man
Classified
 
Secret_Agent_Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: You Never Know . . .
Posts: 4,266
true in ads

Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
I must say SAM, you use to be so much more moderate back when. What happened to you?
So did Bilmore. "Why, Bilmore, why?"

Besides, you guys are all taking this the wrong way. You seem to think that my litany of suggested Bush achievements for discussion are meant to expose some inadequacies in his performance. Just take it at face value and give it a whirl.

Burger's response was revealing (nice chart, by the way). His response [paraphrase]: "Yeah, but as mediocre as Bush is, Kerry sucks worse" is hardly a great rallying cry.

S_A_M (Hank: Just taking a little ownership)
__________________
"Courage is the price that life extracts for granting peace."

Voted Second Most Helpful Poster on the Politics Board.
Secret_Agent_Man is offline  
Old 08-04-2004, 04:00 PM   #1135
ltl/fb
Registered User
 
ltl/fb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Flyover land
Posts: 19,042
Gangsta.

Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I ams suggesting that if as a society we expect all people to have access to affordable health care then we as a society should be willing to pay for it through taxes. Right now, only the first proposition is true, which leads to disingenuous rationalizations as to how the latter can (and should) be accomplished through mandates, expectations, or free-riding.
Good to know you are 100% behind national healthcare.
ltl/fb is offline  
Old 08-04-2004, 04:00 PM   #1136
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,129
Gangsta.

Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Rather clever of Wal-Mart to shift the cost of maintaining a healthy workforce onto a public good. Kind of like planting my marijuana plants in a national wildlife refuge to save the fixed costs of land purchase.
No. Not like that.

When you plant your dope on federal land, you are not costing me any incremental expense.

The article you posted makes the point that the poorly paid Walmart workers COST the tax payers a ton. That is an incremental cost to ME. And taxes are more heavily drawn on the more highly paid.

I ask you Atticus, isn't the real point of your article that we should have more tax breaks for the rich so that we can be more fairly treated as we continue to cover theses costs of the poor?
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is online now  
Old 08-04-2004, 04:03 PM   #1137
taxwonk
Wild Rumpus Facilitator
 
taxwonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In a teeny, tiny, little office
Posts: 14,167
Gangsta.

Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I ams suggesting that if as a society we expect all people to have access to affordable health care then we as a society should be willing to pay for it through taxes. Right now, only the first proposition is true, which leads to disingenuous rationalizations as to how the latter can (and should) be accomplished through mandates, expectations, or free-riding.
Why would we have to make it aprt of the government and bury it in beauracracy? I find it much preferable to make it aprt of the expected package of benefits that come with employment. Much like the market wage, and pensions, an affordable health plan is something most people demand from an employer, leaving those with less choice in employment at the mercy of unscrupulous employers like Wal-Mart who don't offer it.

As a society we are as right to villify Wal-Mart for not providing health care as we were to villify Nike for using Asian children working for slave wages.

For someone who claims to be a conservative, you show an amazing lack of appreciation for the fact that in our capitalist society the market participants haqve as great a voice as the government.
__________________
Send in the evil clowns.
taxwonk is offline  
Old 08-04-2004, 04:05 PM   #1138
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Moderator
 
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pop goes the chupacabra
Posts: 18,532
true in ads

Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man


Burger's response was revealing (nice chart, by the way). His response [paraphrase]: "Yeah, but as mediocre as Bush is, Kerry sucks worse" is hardly a great rallying cry.
It's true. Unfortunately, it's the other side of the Kerry coin, which is "The other guy really sucks, so I must be better." C'est la vie
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) is offline  
Old 08-04-2004, 04:06 PM   #1139
taxwonk
Wild Rumpus Facilitator
 
taxwonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In a teeny, tiny, little office
Posts: 14,167
Gangsta.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
No. Not like that.

When you plant your dope on federal land, you are not costing me any incremental expense.

The article you posted makes the point that the poorly paid Walmart workers COST the tax payers a ton. That is an incremental cost to ME. And taxes are more heavily drawn on the more highly paid.

I ask you Atticus, isn't the real point of your article that we should have more tax breaks for the rich so that we can be more fairly treated as we continue to cover theses costs of the poor?
Actually, if you wich to use tax policy as an incentive, the more rational policy would be to impose an excise tax on the dividends of Wal-Mart shares to fund the excess cost the beneficiaries of those dividends are imposing in the rest of us. Much like a tobacco or liquor tax.
__________________
Send in the evil clowns.
taxwonk is offline  
Old 08-04-2004, 04:06 PM   #1140
Shape Shifter
World Ruler
 
Shape Shifter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,057
Gangsta.

Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Kind of like planting my marijuana plants in a national wildlife refuge to save the fixed costs of land purchase.
I don't think you'll find much opposition for this.

__________________
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming out any other way."
Shape Shifter is offline  
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:20 PM.