talk to someone who had their hours cut.
How many of those people have you talked to?
pick any large chain and have at it.
Not that you care.
I was for a nationalized system like all the other developed nations have and still am. Obamacare is, however and in my opinion, a vast improvement over what was in place before.
Sour grapes?
First your complaint is that it added cost and hurt the economy.
Second that people’s hours were cut.
I haven’t heard a single first hand account of either and the economy seems t be cooking right along.
Let me guess where you get your news.
There’s no question that removing barriers to insurance is good. It’s the damage done in the process that is bad. It’s not the function of businesses to insure.
Creating a benefit by harming others is wrong.
In what way does that come near answering my question. :rolleyes:
Does that only apply to government, or are corporations subject to this judgement?
Spend a lot of time in the FoxNews echo chamber, do you?
Gee, I knew lots of people at large chains who had their hours cut to keep them from qualifying for benefits before ACA.
Not that you care.
Does that include getting a bigger executive bonus by laying off workers?
I can get behind the underlined sentence. It should be the function of government to provide universal health care. Someone should propose that to Congress. (Seriously, I don’t understand why business interests are not demanding government run health care.)
then you understand more than Congress. If you raise the cost of doing business they will make up the difference somewhere else.
So let’s lower the coat of doing business with single payer healthcare.
What? That’s crazy talk! And socialist! and …er, something.
I wasn’t for the ACA when proposed because I just looked at it as yet another cave by the administration. I am for it now, not because I think it is great, but because it is better than what we had.
At some point the US will join the rest of the sane world and enact single-payer. I believe it is inevitable. When that happens I expect many Republicans to say they were always for it. Until then, however, Republicans will continue to fight tooth and nail to prop up the health insurance industry.
And the sentence I underlined, not everyone agrees with, and some people are against the ACA precisely because they have serious reservations about government control. I admit to being sympathetic to those reservations; I worry about the government getting too big, having too much power, or being in control of too many things.
On the other hand, I think we need to distinguish between the government providing health care (i.e. government-run hospitals, doctors’ offices, etc.) and the government providing health care coverage. And I think that at least the latter is something that, like police protection, roads, and schools, is something that it makes sense from an efficiency and fairness standpoint for the government to have a hand in providing.
Because it shifts the balance of power between worker and employer a little bit in the worker’s direction. And from the POV of business interests generally, that’s a Bad Thing.
It’s not like they can raise prices on most things when so many people are just barely getting by. So they can’t make up the difference there.
Considering our corporate overlords are making record profits in this era of continuing low employment and recession-in-all-but-name, it’s gonna come out of profits, and dividends to shareholders. Which is a Good Thing.
Ever since child labor laws businesses have moaned and groaned about how the latest restrictions will just ruin their business.
I guess businesses must have it tough, what with record corporate profits in the last few years. Wait, that’s not record low profits, but record high profits? I guess corporations aren’t being ground under the heel of big government after all.