Summations Only

There's a bit more in there than just regulating insurance denials... So you force them into the pool through threat of punishment?Fining people for not joining in is racketeering. But healthy people might not need insurance. This just means that the system is broken. You don't force people off the bus and into buying a car because the automotive market can't support the dealers without more people driving. No, the dealers that fail close up shop because they're unsustainable. People go find a car somewhere else.Now, I realize the differences between the healthcare market and the analogy, but the principles are similiar enough. The ACA just seems like a backwards means to the end."Oh, this shit's all fucked up? Let's force more people into it, that'll straighten it out!" Because they just mess everything up. They can't even keep the government, itself, up and running. They're approval rating is abyssmal. Why would you want to use them? Yeah right. How many of The People were involved in the act or even know what it entails? How many of The People are going to have to be forced into complying with it through threat of punishment? Yeah, they're really on board with this one.

quote:

---

Actually, it's more like providing a subsidized bus service for people who can't afford cars - and encouraging people to use the bus service by restricting single-occupant vehicles fining them for not buying a bus ticket even if they don't want or need one

---

Fixed that for you.If you have to set up a racket to save the bus company, then maybe its time to look for a mode of transportation that actually works and can sustain itself.

You're joking, right?They re-defined the fine into being a tax so that it would become constitutional. A rose is a rose by any other name. You will be fined if you don't get health insurance. Yeah, and assumes that the people are slaves to insurance companies and are too stupid to figure it out without Big Brother holding their hand. No... Our. Government. Sucks.They'd just fuck it up like they do everything else. Its for profit! "Those governments over there can run their little countries so therefore our different government over here can run this huge country just as well"Sorry, I'm not buying that. Oh, I thought it was:

quote:

---

The ACA is the people creating groups that can collectively bargain with insurance companies.

---

That's not the same.

It is a tax... now. When the ACA came out, there was a penalty for not having insurance. People were all: "Congress can't fine us for not buying something, that's unconstitutional." Then the government was like: "oh, yeah... uh... no this is a tax, yeah... so it is constitutional".Whatever, its still a fine. People are still being forced to participate through threat of punishment. And yet, this is The People making these rules That's because I'm not using them. Paranoid conspiracy theories are not helping you.And non-profit hospitals do exist. Great, so the ACA is going to continue resulting in me paying twice what other countries pay per capita. Hooray. Hey, that adds up! But yeah, I think if we were dealing with a country that had half of our population, and they all lived in an area the size of Montana, then it would be easier to lower the cost of healthcare. Too, if you spread all those Japanese people out over 26 times the square miles (size of US vs. size of Japan), then I think their healthcare costs would go up.And that's just one factor. So yeah, "look this is working in Japan" does not tell me that it will work here. Single payer might be the best way to go, I dunno. I think there's too many factors involved to say that something that worked in another country will work here. I'd rather just be left alone.

How many other governments had to shut down but still were getting paid?

Well, they are capable of being avoided altogether if you really want to. I know people who's hours are being cut to 29 per week as that is the maximum they can work before their employer has to provide them with insurance, iirc. I know a guy who is trying to go from an hourly wage for 40 hours per week to a salaried position at 29 hours per week for whatever pay it has to be to equal what he makes at his current wage over 40 hours. Then he'll put in the same amount of time for the same pay, but it'll look like he's only working 29 hours and his employer won't have to pay for his insurance (they're telling him that they can't afford it and are looking at options). My cousin is starting up a business. He bought a steel building that has to be built. The company that sold him the building said they would charge him $44,000 to construct it. He shopped around for other prices, including some unions. The cost the unions bid was $66,000 - $77,000. He told me that there's no way he could afford that much. Now, our other friend who works for the union is telling him to be careful because if the union finds out that he goes non-union, then they'll probably picket his new business. The town it's in has a lot of union workers and that could really ruin his business.We asked: "Well, can't he just build it himself?" Isn't a man allowed to build his own building on his own property without the union bullying him? They said that that would probably be okay. Then I said, well what if I helped him out for free? We're family. Can't a guy and his family build a building? Hmm, probably still okay. (Geez, I can't believe we have to get permission for this). We went further: what if we have a non-family friend that helps for free. "Hmm, that's probably pushing it, they said".That's just retardiculous, in my arrogant opinion. There's no reason to lie to me about my own feelings, there's no way that could work. I don't hate either one. Have you tried thinking through why you see any lack of support as hatred? No, I've tried that before and it doesn't work.

You guys have a tenth of our population and 75% of you live within 100 miles of our border.

Hmm. Three different unions gave him numbers on how much it would cost him to hire them to construct his building. Maybe "bid" isn't the right word. Well geez, who do I believe?My friend Amanda who works in the union office down the road and who was talking to me face to face in my cousin's house, along with my friend Tony who is in a union and explained that if they told him to picket then he would regretfully have to join in and picket his own friend as he doesn't have a choice....or do I believe some random jerk on the internet? We're looking for something cheaper. The unions came up as a joke because their pricing was so ridiculous. Amanda and Tony just happened to be there and that's when the whole picketing thing came up. No, neither of those things are a problem. I suppose its possible that the conversation I just had in real life face-to-face with people that I've known for year and work for a union was all just a dream, or something.

I didn't mean to imply that.

I wasn't trying to be persuasive, I was just conversatin' with that other guy. He said he was curious.And the part I wrote about the union wasn't supposed to have anything to do with the ACA. But you've moved from company policy (32 hours = benefits) to a federally mandated policy. The resulting chopping of hours is, actually, due to the federal mandate and not company policy. So its right to blame that on Obamacare (and the dirty companies that would do that to their workers). I'm allowed to call them bullies and say how stupid their behavior is. I just think its funny that you have to get the union's permission to build your own building on your own property so you can be comfortable that they're not going to try to ruin your new business. I don't think its ever a good thing to force people into participating in a program through threat of punishment. That sounds way better than the ACA. Expensive. But better as far as outcomes actually go.Shit I gotta go do work.

That's what A&T were saying. If he builds it himself then they won't picket it. If he contracts it to non-union workers then they probably will.But what if he does it himself but hires non-union people to do the work with him? They weren't sure about that one and said they might picket it.That's when I said that I'd help him for free so he wouldn't have to hire non-union workers. He could always pay me later under the table.So, I guess we'll have to run it by the union guys to see if they'll let him build it without trying to ruin his new business.But I do agree that this is pretty much extortion.

Like I give a fuck. Your reading comprehension is abysmal. Amanda works in the office for one union and Tony is a working member of another. I don't know which unions they are off the top of my head but I could call them on the cellphones and ask. I'm not going to, though, because I don't care enough and you're being a dick. Amanda said that her guys were slow right now and they would want the work, and also said that she could probably get a better price. Gosh you're dumb. Of course that wouldn't.There's 3 scenaios:We contract union. No picket.
We contract non-union. Picket.
We do the work ourselves. Maybe picket depending if we hire non-union workers to help us, we don't know. I just talked to these people on Sunday and am relaying from memory what we discussed.

The town has a lot of union workers living in it and if it got picketed then they probably wouldn't patronize him.Its like extortion because we either have to pay their higher price or face the threat of damaging the business.

Wow.Such clever.Much funny.

No. I was talking about friends of mine whose employers are telling them that they are going to be cutting their hours when the law goes into effect in January. I see in a previous message that I didn't use the future tense properly, I didn't mean to say that their hours have already been cut. Let's look again in February. Nah, I'm not hearing this from Republicans. I really don't listen to mass media.I've just gotten these anecdotes from friends of mine in real life. These are people who do things like waiting tables and are already working less than full time. They're just being told that the owner is thinking about making them work at most 29 hours per week so they avoid the employer mandate.