Whining about Obamacare by the fringe right wi... er, I mean labor unions.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sebster**

Jihadin wrote:
You earn a decent wage. No one forcing anyone to stay 20+ years as a cashier. If your stuck in an arse in job would you not take it upon yourself via self motivation and self improvement to improve your lot in life? Or accept that you suck in life?

Who said that being paid a decent wage means a person would want to stay in the job forever? What made you lurch from 'a person could be paid $13 an hour, even if its really menial work' to 'and therefore that person will happily take that $13 an hour for the rest of their lives, living a joyous life of $400 take home pay and the job satisfaction of swiping other people's groceries through a scanner while a machine beeps at you'.

Seriously, what in the hell is your thought process here? Because you're making assumptions that are very, very ridiculous.

And just in case you actually care to think about this for approximately half a second... a higher minimum wage corresponds very directly with a higher social mobility. When a person can earn enough a decent amount in a standard working week, he's much more capable of studying part time (as opposed to working a second job) or building up a savings amount to allow him to study full time for a period.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
I call BS. I got caught in the same situation before I came to conclusion my best offer in life at the was the military.

Do you not see the bizarreness in claiming your ability to pull yourself up by your bootstraps... by taking a job paid for by the government?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:
You can raise wages and benefits all you want, but its not going to change the fact there will always be people on the bottom. Which means there's always going to be a place where poverty exists. It isn't a hard fast line you can draw and try to raise all of society above it, instead, poverty is relative to the society its part of.

You're not really thinking this through. Poverty isn't just that some person somewhere will be on the bottom, but what the person on the bottom can actually afford.

So yes, some 10% of the population will always be the poorest 10%, but there's a massive difference between the 1913 norm of 'they and their children suffer from a variety of conditions caused by malnourishment" and the 2013 norm of 'they earn enough to secure enough food and shelter, but any misfortune will likely send them in to a debt spiral'. Improving that again won't stop them being the bottom 10%, but it will mean that many of the things they suffer will be greatly reduced.

Which is, you know, a good thing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:
Take all the money the wealthy have and give it to the poor, you will not make the poor any less poor.

Yes, it will. If the poor receive $300 a week instead of $200, they're less poor.

This should be obvious.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tannhauser42 wrote:
That's an exaggeration, but it's how it gets played out in the media whenever union negotiations get involved.

You never hear the good stories about unions anymore.

In direct experience, this is because the unions aren't doing a lot of good. I've seen union members put in work cover claims, had a disagreement (legitimately or not) with how they were treated, and have the union reaction (either militant or utterly passive) do nothing but just gum up the works entirely. The idea that they could just provide accurate, effective advice to their member to help him out and nothing more didn't even seem to be considered.

I really do think the unions need a total change of culture. There's too much rusted on political nonsense that barely made sense a generation go, and not enough basic, honest to goodness help and advice for members.

**Jihadin**

Backing off this thread Those of us in the military should know why as someone will remind them like me just now that we have an unfair advantage over civilians.

One hint. Wounded Warriors give a 6K tax break to a private company that hires them is one. Obama pass some laws concerning the WW's and vets from Iraq and Afghanistan to be hired first on the federal side and a tax break on the private sector side.

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
Might as well post this here since it is the ObamaCare thread of the month:

http://money.cnn.com/m/#!/2013/05/23/news/economy/california-obamacare-premiums.json?category=Latest%20News

Is there a story to go with this link? When I click on it all it shows is a picture with the text "Obamacare premiums in California lower than predicted" and nothing else

**d-usa**

I will have to try to fix it when im not mobile

**Melissia**

Jihadin wrote:
Backing off this thread Those of us in the military should know why as someone will remind them like me just now that we have an unfair advantage over civilians.

One hint. Wounded Warriors give a 6K tax break to a private company that hires them is one. Obama pass some laws concerning the WW's and vets from Iraq and Afghanistan to be hired first on the federal side and a tax break on the private sector side.

You're being a hypocrite here. All of that is provided for you... by the government.

And yet you say that government assistance is apparently a bad thing. Unless, of course, you benefit from it?

**azazel the cat**

Valion wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
I'm confused.

No kidding.

Are you saying that you're not equating health care and a livable wage to Google-type amenities in a blatant attempt at a strawman?

Yes.

because I'm pretty sure this is what you said:

No, it isn't. I'll explain again, and I will try to use smaller words this time.

If the only key to profitability was happy employees, then there would be zero reason for every business out there not to have Google-style amenities. That of course is not the case. Some businesses in some industries simply do not need to worry about retention because they pull the low-hanging fruit of the labor market.

While I'm sure you find your self-admitted leftist Forbes contributors' opinion piece compelling, it glosses over a massive difference in the way the two companies do business right at the top of the article: Costco brings in half a billion in membership fees that Walmart doesn't.

A better case study would be T-Mobile versus the rest of the American wireless market. T-Mobile goes out of its way to pay its customer support reps more, and trains them for a ridiculously long time. They routinely win JD Power awards for their customer service. They're still losing out massively to Verizon and AT&T.

Defend your strawman harder; that'll definitely stop it from being a strawman!

We're not talking about employee amenities. We are talking about providing health care to employees. You equated healthcare to "google-style amenities" to "[put the employee first]". That is a strawman, and I called you on it. You can get as snippy as you like, it won't change the facts.

And just to return to the actual Costco-Walmart comparison I made, let's put it another way: the consumer is willing to pay that membership fee to Costco. Do you think they'd ever be willing to pay it to Walmart? Or do you think that, if Walmart came out with a membership fee, it would sound its own death knell?

This is a fact of the matter: even your business relies on the "low-hanging fruit" of the labour market, it is still costly to train them, as little training as they receive. And it is even more costly to see that "low-hanging fruit" not give a gak about your company, and basically show up and do nothing for you. And yes, you can definitely fire them for that. And then you can repeat the process over and over and over again, because the problem isn't that the employees suck (well, it somethings parallels things), but the problem is that nobody will do anything of use for you, because you don't pay them enough to. And you can't ever attract better than that "low-hanging fruit" because nobody will even show up unless they need to be there

Time and again, you'll see the same pattern: those companies that treat their employees well or pay a livable wage will prosper in the long term, whereas the ones that only utilize the "low-hanging fruit" basically short-sell themselves.

**dogma**

Grey Templar wrote:
The market of course.

And not nearly enough opinion exists to make benefits mandatory for such a low end job.

Not yet, but this very thread is evidence that the sentiment exists.

Grey Templar wrote:

Benefits are a portion of whatever the position's Salary is. Its like saying the job's worth 10 times, or whatever amount, the current salary when you say a cashier deserves benefits. Utterly ludicrous.

I don't know of any establishment that pays cashiers according to salary.

Regardless, if you don't know what the specific amount is you shouldn't be upset by people demanding that a given group of workers be compensated differently.

**Relapse**

Melissia wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Backing off this thread Those of us in the military should know why as someone will remind them like me just now that we have an unfair advantage over civilians.

One hint. Wounded Warriors give a 6K tax break to a private company that hires them is one. Obama pass some laws concerning the WW's and vets from Iraq and Afghanistan to be hired first on the federal side and a tax break on the private sector side.
You're being a hypocrite here. All of that is provided for you... by the government.

And yet you say that government assistance is apparently a bad thing. Unless, of course, you benefit from it?

In my mind, government assistance is a good thing, but should be used as a means of getting people on their feet, not a lifestyle. Some may need more assistance due to circumstance, but I think there is always something that could be done to earn that assistance. One way could be to help in public works projects, park maintanence, or other similar efforts. This could be done a couple days a week, allowing for job training or search the rest of the time, giving people pride in themselves and helping them realize they do have value in society and can contribute.

**Melissia**

The "government assistance lifestyle" is such a tiny minority of those on government assistance that it's basically little more than the hobgoblin of little minds.

**Relapse**

Melissia wrote:
The "government assistance lifestyle" is such a tiny minority of those on government assistance that it's basically little more than the hobgoblin of little minds.

I saw plenty of it where I lived in three different states, but I think a good part of people that receive it would rather not.

**Melissia**

Relapse wrote:
I saw plenty of it where I lived in three different states

Your anecdotal evidence suffers from confirmation bias. No empirical evidence has shown that there is any wide number of people abusing the system, certainly fraud is a minuscule problem.

**Relapse**

Melissia wrote:
Relapse wrote:
I saw plenty of it where I lived in three different states
Your anecdotal evidence suffers from confirmation bias. No empirical evidence has shown that there is any wide number of people abusing the system, certainly fraud is a minuscule problem.

The point I was trying to make, however, is that it's not a prefered lifestyle. In my mind, something better than what's out there now could be implemented to help people off assistance quicker than failed programs in place now.

**Melissia**

Relapse wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Relapse wrote:
I saw plenty of it where I lived in three different states
Your anecdotal evidence suffers from confirmation bias. No empirical evidence has shown that there is any wide number of people abusing the system, certainly fraud is a minuscule problem.

The point I was trying to make, however, is that it's not a prefered lifestyle. In my mind, something better than what's out there now could be implemented to help people off assistance quicker than failed programs in place now.

Sure, "something" could be done, but that's kind of like saying "something" could be done to let us colonize the moon. Not quite so helpful as actually mentioning a real idea

**Relapse**

Melissia wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Relapse wrote:
I saw plenty of it where I lived in three different states
Your anecdotal evidence suffers from confirmation bias. No empirical evidence has shown that there is any wide number of people abusing the system, certainly fraud is a minuscule problem.

The point I was trying to make, however, is that it's not a prefered lifestyle. In my mind, something better than what's out there now could be implemented to help people off assistance quicker than failed programs in place now.
Sure, "something" could be done, but that's kind of like saying "something" could be done to let us colonize the moon. Not quite so helpful as actually mentioning a real idea

I did mention an idea, but I think you missed it. Something along the lines of the TVA, perhaps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority

**whembly**

Relapse wrote:

I did mention an idea, but I think you missed it. Something along the lines of the TVA, perhaps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority

The TVA project is a fantastic idea of "government assistence" that many of us are talking about.

Read up on that whole ordeal (even the eventual snafu at the end). It's enlightening.

**Valion**

azazel the cat wrote:
We're not talking about employee amenities. We are talking about providing health care to employees. You equated healthcare to "google-style amenities" to "[put the employee first]".

No, I actually didn't. Look, if your reading comprehension is this bad, perhaps you should simply stay out of this discussion.

And of course we're talking about employee amenities, because your ludicrous contention is that all you need to do to run a profitable company is treat your employees like gold, regardless of business model.

And just to return to the actual Costco-Walmart comparison I made, let's put it another way: the consumer is willing to pay that membership fee to Costco. Do you think they'd ever be willing to pay it to Walmart? Or do you think that, if Walmart came out with a membership fee, it would sound its own death knell?

First, let's back up a little bit here. You didn't make that comparison, some misguided guy writing in Forbes did. Continuing to claim that it was your brainchild after posting an article you've damn near been quoting isn't going to convince anyone.

Secondly, I think Costco and Walmart work on considerably different business models. I've said that many, many times. One's a wholesale members' warehouse, one's a discount retail store. You might as well ask me why Pizza Hut has such a better delivery service than Burger King, if we're going to venture this far into fundamental misunderstanding.

Time and again, you'll see the same pattern: those companies that treat their employees well or pay a livable wage will prosper in the long term, whereas the ones that only utilize the "low-hanging fruit" basically short-sell themselves.

You keep making this argument while ignoring the countless successful companies that do the latter. I'm curious if this is an intentional blindspot (i.e., you're aware your argument is bunk, and choose to ignore the many, many, many extant counterarguments to it), or if you genuinely do believe that KFC is an example of your ethos. Either way, I'm pegging you as a humanities major.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:
Relapse wrote:
I saw plenty of it where I lived in three different states
Your anecdotal evidence suffers from confirmation bias. No empirical evidence has shown that there is any wide number of people abusing the system, certainly fraud is a minuscule problem.

Link?

**Relapse**

whembly wrote:
Relapse wrote:

I did mention an idea, but I think you missed it. Something along the lines of the TVA, perhaps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority

The TVA project is a fantastic idea of "government assistence" that many of us are talking about.

Read up on that whole ordeal (even the eventual snafu at the end). It's enlightening.

I think the concept was initially good, though, and with different implimentation, could have worked well.

**sebster**

Relapse wrote:
In my mind, government assistance is a good thing, but should be used as a means of getting people on their feet, not a lifestyle. Some may need more assistance due to circumstance, but I think there is always something that could be done to earn that assistance. One way could be to help in public works projects, park maintanence, or other similar efforts. This could be done a couple days a week, allowing for job training or search the rest of the time, giving people pride in themselves and helping them realize they do have value in society and can contribute.

I agree with the focus of government support as a temporary thing, and agree that work programs are a good thing and are one of the best options we have for breaking people off of the welfare trap, but have to point out one thing about my experience with such programs here in Australia - setting up a good system is really hard. It is very difficult to set up a reasonable system that doesn't contain a lot of loopholes that people will manipulate.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but it does mean that such a system should be entered in to with an understanding it will take a lot of time and a lot of reforms before it's genuinely effective.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:
The "government assistance lifestyle" is such a tiny minority of those on government assistance that it's basically little more than the hobgoblin of little minds.

Fraud and abuse is a minor problem, but people on long term unemployment, and often lacking the ability to find decent work, are a significant problem in most countries.

And in a few years time it'll be a fair bit worse, due to the high unemployment rates following the GFC.

**Jihadin**

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but it does mean that such a system should be entered in to with an understanding it will take a lot of time and a lot of reforms before it's genuinely effective.

I agree. For something like that to be effective....at most ten yeas to be effective and with active oversight.

**Relapse**

sebster wrote:
Relapse wrote:
In my mind, government assistance is a good thing, but should be used as a means of getting people on their feet, not a lifestyle. Some may need more assistance due to circumstance, but I think there is always something that could be done to earn that assistance. One way could be to help in public works projects, park maintanence, or other similar efforts. This could be done a couple days a week, allowing for job training or search the rest of the time, giving people pride in themselves and helping them realize they do have value in society and can contribute.

I agree with the focus of government support as a temporary thing, and agree that work programs are a good thing and are one of the best options we have for breaking people off of the welfare trap, but have to point out one thing about my experience with such programs here in Australia - setting up a good system is really hard. It is very difficult to set up a reasonable system that doesn't contain a lot of loopholes that people will manipulate.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but it does mean that such a system should be entered in to with an understanding it will take a lot of time and a lot of reforms before it's genuinely effective.

I think it's worth the investment of time and money. It breaks my heart to see damn good people going to waste like they are now. I say find out what works or almost works for us and other countries and put it through some iterations until we arrive at a usful solution for people.
It's not an easy overnight fix but people are worth the effort and shouldn't be discarde like garbage.

**sebster**

Jihadin wrote:
I agree. For something like that to be effective....at most ten yeas to be effective and with active oversight.

Yeah, I think it'd probably take three years of reforms and changes to the system to deliver something that worked, and then it'd probably take another few years to actually see results flowing through in a meaningful way.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
I think it's worth the investment of time and money. It breaks my heart to see damn good people going to waste like they are now. I say find out what works or almost works for us and other countries and put it through some iterations until we arrive at a usful solution for people.
It's not an easy overnight fix but people are worth the effort and shouldn't be discarde like garbage.

Yeah, to me it isn't just about the money that long term joblessness costs (though it is a lot of money), but the wasted lives. Seriously, people go on about how sweet a life of welfare dependancy is, but not from what I've seen. It's just a long, tedious bore - a day off work is nice, but after a week, when you can't afford to do much with your time, well there's only so much Judge Judy you can watch.

**Ouze**

Relapse wrote:In my mind, government assistance is a good thing, but should be used as a means of getting people on their feet, not a lifestyle.

Honest question - At some point, do you think we shut cut off Tricare and other healthcare benefits for ex-military? Because that is a huge cost driver (so say nothing of military pensions).

Relapse wrote:I did mention an idea, but I think you missed it. Something along the lines of the TVA, perhaps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority

I'd totally be on board with this. I wish we'd "invade" the US the same way we did elsewhere and capture hearts and minds by rebuilding critical infrastructure here. Well, maybe with less bombing initially.

**Jihadin**

Something like that might worked great during the Great Depression. Those jobs were mostly muscle work. We kick off with something like that again in our time frame we be dealing with medical disability claims after 2-3 weeks or 1-2 months of work. Thinking jobs like concrete mixing, paving, squaring up ditches for cement pipes and what not. Something I notice in Delaware before I left transfer to JBLM to finish of my WW. There were a lot....and I mean a lot of Hispanics on road crews. I thought road crews get good pay and eventually a foot in the door for a start job.

Also I notice. I do have a medical degree but it seems the jobs are becoming more like technical job...job specific...slot job...can't think of the term to nail out what I'm referring to. Example be

Fast Food Job = most be students but breaking you in to a job setting
Specialize jobs = HVAC, Surgical Tech, Medical Coder...something along that nature
General jobs = grass cutting, janitorial, office jobs
(above just a loose field)

My job though I'm specialize. Have a Top Secret. Access to certain programs to help facilitate my "projects". I find it ironic I be making more money from my MOS train job as a Movement Control Specialist then as skilled SurgTech with a degree. I did shoot the breeze on my last interview with a recruiter and we got into it. Basically to them I'm a good hire. The hours are below what's required so I won't get benefits. That's off set though from Disability payments and I do fall under Tricare so my medical is covered. Not cancer yet and I hope they don't try to connect. Medicaid would then have to e payed back in full. I do not trust VA to handle my cancer treatment...they don't have a good track record. Better stop. Meds are smoothing me along

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
Relapse wrote:In my mind, government assistance is a good thing, but should be used as a means of getting people on their feet, not a lifestyle.

Honest question - At some point, do you think we shut cut off Tricare and other healthcare benefits for ex-military? Because that is a huge cost driver (so say nothing of military pensions).

I don't... and I didn't (couldn't) serve.

But, I truly believe we owe it to the ex-military.

Relapse wrote:I did mention an idea, but I think you missed it. Something along the lines of the TVA, perhaps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority

I'd totally be on board with this. I wish we'd "invade" the US the same way we did elsewhere and capture hearts and minds by rebuilding critical infrastructure here. Well, maybe with less bombing initially.

I don't know... bombing some areas may not be a bad idea... (I keed... I keed).

There were many faults to the implementations of the TVA... but it was a huge undertaking that I think we could do again.

The problem would be, what would be that big project?

**Ouze**

Jihadin wrote:
Something like that might worked great during the Great Depression. Those jobs were mostly muscle work. We kick off with something like that again in our time frame we be dealing with medical disability claims after 2-3 weeks or 1-2 months of work.

Good point. I have to wonder if that would negate the value.

**Jihadin**

Keep them within the limit of their profile. Not much effort to push a broom. Also a decrease in wage or something to avoid them riding it out. We don't want to give the impression we are slackers. If we do this though and everyone wants in on this would kind of skewer the bar left and right till it settles. So basically....we blew it out the water lol

**sebster**

Jihadin wrote:
Keep them within the limit of their profile. Not much effort to push a broom. Also a decrease in wage or something to avoid them riding it out. We don't want to give the impression we are slackers. If we do this though and everyone wants in on this would kind of skewer the bar left and right till it settles. So basically....we blew it out the water lol

Yes. I think one of the first mistakes people make with something like this is in thinking that a work for welfare program is going to produce useful end products.

Thing is, these days infrastructure is really capital intensive, and as you recognised in your previous answer it involves specialist skills. Putting untrained people in there who have to be there to collect welfare isn't just impractical, in many cases it's probably also pretty dangerous for everyone involved.

So instead you look to what is basically just busy work. Picking up rubbish. Clearing garden and park areas. That kind of stuff. The idea isn't to get a product at the end of it, the idea is just to get them turning up regularly for work, get used to some kind of structure, and give them some more motivation to go and get a job.

**Easy E**

Perhaps we need to start a cultural shift and start to realize that as we continue to automate there simply will not be work for everyone.

That means we need to start actually reducing the standard "hours' that a person works , increase wages for those lesser hours worked, and get people to retire earlier instead of later.

These steps would free up time that employers will need to fill and hire for. Since employers won't do this themselves; it requires government to make the hard choices that are needed for society.

George Jetson is right. The three day work weeks are the future.

**d-usa**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Might as well post this here since it is the ObamaCare thread of the month:

http://money.cnn.com/m/#!/2013/05/23/news/economy/california-obamacare-premiums.json?category=Latest%20News

Is there a story to go with this link? When I click on it all it shows is a picture with the text "Obamacare premiums in California lower than predicted" and nothing else

Finally was able to pull it up and copy it over here. CNN/Money is a clusterfeth when it comes to linking stories...

Health insurers in California will charge an average of $304 a month for the cheapest silver-level plan in state-based exchanges next year, according to rates released Thursday by Covered California, which is implementing the Affordable Care Act there. But many residents will pay a lot less than that for coverage.

Rates will vary by region, age and level of coverage, and many lower-income Californias will qualify for federal subsidies that will greatly lower the premiums. The plans will come in four tiers, ranging from bronze to platinum. The former will charge lower premiums, but carry higher out-of-pocket benefits, and the latter will have the highest premiums but have the lowest out-of-pocket costs.

Subsidies will be based on the cost of silver-level plans and will be available to those earning up to 400% of the poverty line -- roughly $45,000 for an individual or $92,000 for a family of four.
The state-based exchanges will open for enrollment in October. Coverage under Obamacare, as the act is known, will begin in January.

Just how much people will pay for coverage in the exchanges has been the subject of much speculation in recent months. Several estimates, including some focusing on the California market, have predicted that premium rates in the individual market would soar because more older, sicker folks would enter the exchange.

While Covered California said a direct comparison is impossible because the new plans will provide more benefits, the agency noted that the rates for individuals will be between 29% lower and 2% higher than the average premium for small employers in the state's most populous areas.

Some 13 plans from insurers including Blue Cross Blue Shield and Kaiser Permanente will be available, depending on the region. But other large insurers, including UnitedHealth, bowed out.

The least expensive silver plan for a 21-year-old could cost $216 a month, but those earning only 150% of the poverty line (or $17,235 annually) may pay only $44 after receiving federal subsidies. A 40-year-old may pay $276 a month, or $40 after the subsidies.

States are slowly unveiling details of their plans, but California is the largest by far to release its rates. Some 5.3 million Californians may be eligible for coverage through the exchange, with more than 2.6 million of them qualifying for subsidies.

Oregon and Washington recently posted their rates, as well. They were also lower than some had expected.

"Many people will see rates similar to what they're paying now, or in some cases, lower -- and with substantially better benefits," the Washington Insurance Department wrote in a blog post. "We're definitely not seeing the huge rate increases that some insurers had predicted."

By Tami Luhby, May 23, 2013: 05:06 PM ET

**Dreadclaw69**

Thank you for that, I know that California recently had to gut a lot of it's social programs so I was wondering if this would have had an effect.