ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[WILLIAMS5232]

But why should Seniors get "exempted" from your scorn when they're just as guilty as those others - excluding those who are downright committing fraud

if i understand it correctly, at the time, the money that the seniors was paying in paid for the current seniors healthcare with good faith that by the time they turned into seniors a younger generation would pay for their healthcare. as costs go up, so did the taxes.

Also, do you believe Hospitals should get paid for their services? Well,

of course i do. you really don't even need to ask me that.

Well, so does the Affordable Care Act.

so you think in order for the hospitals to get paid, "rich" healthy people have to pay up the "poor" unhealthy people. and when i say "rich" i'm not talking about the rich, i'm talking about people that make their own way.

so tell me how it's going to work for me, i have insurance where i work. and i make X amount of dollars
so now, what's going to happen, i stay on my current healthcare plan? or i have to get off of it? when/if i do am i going to get a raise at work? is this raise going to cover the new cost of health insurance? the penalty i have to pay, is it going to be more than healthcare? and if i pay it, am i going to automatically be insured?

really i'm just along for the ride, and whatever happens is gong to happen. i know though that i take care of myself just fine, make a fair amount of money to live on, have a nice 401k set up if i were to ever have medical issues, and i worked hard for all of this, harder than most. so when i see my income decreasing, because there are people that don't plan for the future, it pisses me off. especially when there are politics involved. the govt can't balance it's own budget, why should i put it in charge of my bills. if this country were not in debt, i would have a lot more faith in the way the money is spent, but until then, there is way too much waste to be taking more money from us. and if the only alternative to giving away healthcare is taking more money and not cleaning up the books, i'm not impressed with it.

[WILLIAMS5232]

But that doesn't mean folks without a degree should starve or live on the street or in dangerous housing.

they don't have to. there are plenty of jobs that do not require a degree.

Furthermore, a LOT of the people who work for low wages are skilled, but their companies were downsized or there just are more people wanting jobs in that field than there are.

if the job they have is not enough to support their lifestyle they should think about changing careers.

Why does spending 4 years studying somehow give you so much more right to have a decent life than those who just buckle down and work, often very, very hard? That is a better question.

i didn't study for four years, i started working when i left home at 18 for 7 bucks an hour and learned my job well enough that my company compensated (rewarded) me for all my hard work. it took some time, but with enough sacrafices i've got to where i am today and live a pretty comfortable life. there were times i did without things that most people think is a necessity.

That is not really the point. The point is that we pay for insurance, and now employers are claiming the right to deny specific types of coverage because they just don't happen to like that coverage.

i thought that was exactly the point. that people can't afford contraceptives.

Further, the cost to society for not giving women basic health care, including sometimes birth control or other "female" procedures is high. This is not about being cost-effective, it is truly about a few supposedly religious folks, mostly in heavily male-dominated churches deciding that women's needs are "just optional".

i'm sure that in these churches the problem isn't as rampant as in the areas where there are no churches... maybe they're on to something.....

It is about limiting women's ability to work, becuase without birth control, many women cannot work. It is not about health.

it's not about health????
i'm now confused.

and we are being told everything is "too expensive" right when the top 2% of wage earners have seen their incomes grow by magnitudes. THAT is the problem.

do you think you can take enough money from the the 2 percent of wage earners to keep them interested in earning that wage to fix all the problems? i don't.

Also, in case you missed it... a truly universal healthcare system such as is found in EVERY other developed country and quite a few not so developed countries is CHEAPER, by far than our system.

are they cheaper than the affordable care act?

But some wealthy, powerful people -- likley with heavy investments in the pharmeceutical companies and other for profit health systems (they do pay a good return right now), have convinced a lot of Americans that anything close to socialized medicine means terrible care, despite all evidence to the contrary.

how can we get rid of these people......without them things would be so much better. kind of like all the liberal actors huh?

I see, so after cutting Medicare and Social Security, what exactly are they .. and we, when the time comes, to use for money? These programs are successful. The problem is that no additional money has been put into them, instead the Social security fund was used as a kind of big bank for Reagan and Bush cronies, (along with other presidents since).

hopefully by then we'll be out of debt.

Oh, it is VERY relative. I am not talking about immigrants, and when the 2% see their income, primarily through investments, increase by leaps and bounds at the exact same time they keep shutting down factories, laying people off, denying pay raises... when the CEOs and higher executives in companies take huge bonuses, bonuses unheard of just a few decades ago and THEN claim they cannot pay even a dime more to their employees... it is very, very relevant.

That life in other countries is worse is not an excuse to make the US sink to the gutter, too.

i guess it all depends on what your idea is of a "reasonably decent life" is. i think mine and yours is a bit different.

What a bunch of condescendin ignorant blabber. Do you HONESTLY believe that someone working 40+ hours a day doesn't know how to work, doesn't deserve to eat and have a decent house?

if they are not making enough money to eat and have a pllace to sleep, then they are not working. they are wasting their time and should work towards something better. there are people that live their whole lives on govt assistance. but i think the big problem for them is not that they don't make enough, more like they don't know how to manage their life.

Then you are disgusting.

you are a purple headed snot monster

One illness, one setback.. that is all it takes to move MOST americans from a decent life to homelessness.

i'm not interested in denying people help from a true medical emergency, but still, we've went over it before, if people spent more of their efforts in preparing for their own emergency instead of buying things that they think they want, it would go along way.

Today, blaming the poor has come back into fashion.

there is the poor, and then there is the "poor". you seem to bundle them together, i don't. i blame the "poor" not the poor.

You're an idiot.

you're a yellow nosed poo face

You are not responding to what I am saying, you are simply reciting rhetoric you heard or read somewhere. Try thinking on your own for a change. It does wonders.

you are not responding to what I am saying, you are simply reciting rhetoric you heard or read somewhere. try thinking on your own for a change. it does wonders.

see that, i can say it too.

[stahrgazer]

But why should Seniors get "exempted" from your scorn when they're just as guilty as those others - excluding those who are downright committing fraud

if i understand it correctly, at the time, the money that the seniors was paying in paid for the current seniors healthcare with good faith that by the time they turned into seniors a younger generation would pay for their healthcare. as costs go up, so did the taxes.

Also, do you believe Hospitals should get paid for their services? Well,

of course i do. you really don't even need to ask me that.

Well, so does the Affordable Care Act.

so you think in order for the hospitals to get paid, "rich" healthy people have to pay up the "poor" unhealthy people. and when i say "rich" i'm not talking about the rich, i'm talking about people that make their own way.

so tell me how it's going to work for me, i have insurance where i work. and i make X amount of dollars
so now, what's going to happen, i stay on my current healthcare plan? or i have to get off of it? when/if i do am i going to get a raise at work? is this raise going to cover the new cost of health insurance? the penalty i have to pay, is it going to be more than healthcare? and if i pay it, am i going to automatically be insured?

really i'm just along for the ride, and whatever happens is gong to happen. i know though that i take care of myself just fine, make a fair amount of money to live on, have a nice 401k set up if i were to ever have medical issues, and i worked hard for all of this, harder than most. so when i see my income decreasing, because there are people that don't plan for the future, it pisses me off. especially when there are politics involved. the govt can't balance it's own budget, why should i put it in charge of my bills. if this country were not in debt, i would have a lot more faith in the way the money is spent, but until then, there is way too much waste to be taking more money from us. and if the only alternative to giving away healthcare is taking more money and not cleaning up the books, i'm not impressed with it.

Williams, let me tell you an American story.

Had a great job. Put away money in 401K and company stock.
Some idiot rear-ended me, I ended up with whiplash and concussive problems.
Auto insurance didn't pay enough. Medical insurance through work payed, but then was the first re-imbursed after the lawyers got their piece, so the docs got nothing or next to nothing.
Meanwhile, company downsized about 200 times until it finally got me.
Unable to work while healing, but ineligible for unemployment because I'd been not-working because of the injury prior to being downsized.
Declared bankruptcy - docs didn't get paid.
Lived on savings and got healthy.
Bottom dropped out of economy here in my state at the end of Bush's first term, years before it dropped out for "everyone else" so unable to find full time employment.
Then someone t-boned my car, forcing it to try to eat me. Auto insurance paid about 3/4 the emergency room bill, but almost none of the surgery costs and absolutely nothing for follow-up care as my lower leg had to regrow from bonegrafting, and none for physical therapy.
Lived on rest of savings and prayer, and borrowed from that retirement I'd set aside to keep a roof over head and rice most nights while I worked totally on my own to get walking again.
One part time job while I was still on a walker was 2 5-hour days of counting traffic on a street corner.
It's hard work, especially in a cast to your thigh. Then there was "nothing" in the ways of temp employment except about 6 days a year. A YEAR. But, I worked part time as much as possible, till that petered out too. (The temp agency actually closed its office here 2 years ago, the employment situation has been that bad here.)

I was finally, this year, able to get a 30-hour-week job.

I was lucky, I'd made enough "before" to see me through the worst. It's not all over, but the worst appears to be through.

Not everyone made the wages I had to put aside what I had to see them through times so tough we didn't think it would happen.

In other words, I was in your shoes. I hope you never have to step into the shoes I was later forced to wear despite I'd worked hard and set aside money for emergencies. Very few folks set aside enough money to take care of them for 8 years of emergencies.

Meanwhile that company that downsized here is investing like hotcakes overseas.

As to your point about Social Security taxes: No, Social Security taxes have NEVER raised "enough" to compensate for an additional 2-3 decades of taking.

And because the jobs me and thousands of my former co-employees used to have here are now overseas, the "younger folks" who are supposed to be paying for all that Social Security aren't paying in at the rates we used to.

And because so many jobs are just kaput, many folks won't have the opportunity to put aside funds for harder times.

My perspective is: if businesses don't want to pay higher taxes on their profits, maybe if they hired an extra person or two their profits would be under the limit so they wouldn't have to pay the excess. That would spur the economy and give more folks the opportunity to set something aside for harder times.

But people who are already living paycheck to last week's paycheck don't get much opportunity to save for harder times.

[BigBallinStalin]

There's plenty of opportunities here for you to blame the government for its (1) regulation which induces companies to move overseas, (2) socialist provision of roads and driver licenses which reduces the quality and increases the risks of driving, and (3) collusion between government and insurance companies, etc.

Amusingly, you only blame corporations, and you look to the government to increase their taxes which will somehow increase employment which will 'spur the economy'. That's some warped reasoning.

Also, among your chain of events, there seems to be many points at which you should be blaming yourself, but that's another emotion-laden story in which reason may not play a strong role.

[Ray Rider]

Then you are disgusting.

you are a purple headed snot monster

You're an idiot.

you're a yellow nosed poo face

rofl and thus, ad hominem attacks have been shown to be ineffectual yet again; will anyone learn from it, however? Doubt creeps into my mind...

[Night Strike]

Why does spending 4 years studying somehow give you so much more right to have a decent life than those who just buckle down and work, often very, very hard? That is a better question.

Much to the chagrin of you liberals, not all jobs are equal, and therefore people shouldn't inherently be paid the same amount.

[PLAYER57832]

Why does spending 4 years studying somehow give you so much more right to have a decent life than those who just buckle down and work, often very, very hard? That is a better question.

Much to the chagrin of you liberals, not all jobs are equal, and therefore people shouldn't inherently be paid the same amount.

And unlike you conservatives, we actually understand that there is a LONG ways between getting 200K a year and $7.25, or even $8.00 an hour. A million bonus divided up amongst the lowest wage employees instead of going into the pockets of ONE person would make a HUGE difference not just in productivity, but in the country's economy.

As I said, its a poor manager who thinks that only he works and underlings don't. When folks at the top have free reign, they consistantly overestimate their contributions to companies and underestimate that made by others. That is why unions were created, because folks like Rockefeller and Vanderbuilt, even Danforth saw no problem with hiring people for wages plain too low to live upon. Today, the ONLY reason many folks are not in equally dire straights is because they now get government subsidies.

American can do better and should.

Not having a degree should not be a prerequisite to eating and not being homeless in America. Working hard at whatever job you do is reasonable, particularly when the CEOs of those companies, not to mention investors are making millions.

Investors don't run companies, workers do.. and THEY deserve to be paid more than the barest pittence those making millions somehow decide they "deserve".. never mind that none of them could do the same job the same way the expect their employees to do it.

THAT is the reality, not the dream world fiction you believe where everyone has a chance to make a good wage if they only "try hard enough". Its pure bull. It ought not to be, but sadly folks like you and your attitudes are driving this country from a country of middle class people to a country of wealthy people and have nots.

[Night Strike]

Why does spending 4 years studying somehow give you so much more right to have a decent life than those who just buckle down and work, often very, very hard? That is a better question.

Much to the chagrin of you liberals, not all jobs are equal, and therefore people shouldn't inherently be paid the same amount.

And unlike you conservatives, we actually understand that there is a LONG ways between getting 200K a year and $7.25, or even $8.00 an hour. Not having a degree should not be a prerequisite to eating and not being homeless in America. Working hard at whatever job you do is reasonable, particularly when the CEOs of those companies, not to mention investors are making millions.

Investors don't run companies, workers do.. and THEY deserve to be paid more than the barest pittence those making millions somehow decide they "deserve".. never mind that none of them could do the same job the same way the expect their employees to do it.

THAT is the reality, not the dream world fiction you believe where everyone has a chance to make a good wage if they only "try hard enough". Its pure bull. It ought not to be, but sadly folks like you and your attitudes are driving this country from a country of middle class people to a country of wealthy people and have nots.

If you work a job that any one could come off the street and work, you shouldn't get paid as much as people who have learned a trade, whether that learning came from on-the-job or in school. It's a simple fact of life. And the vast majority of people who actually make minimum wage are in high school or college, so even that is a relatively moot point. Just because a person works hard doesn't mean their hard work adds much value to a product and thus meaning they should be paid a ton of money for the hard work.

[stahrgazer]

Why does spending 4 years studying somehow give you so much more right to have a decent life than those who just buckle down and work, often very, very hard? That is a better question.

Much to the chagrin of you liberals, not all jobs are equal, and therefore people shouldn't inherently be paid the same amount.

While this is true, it's also true that in the past 4 decades, CEO salaries have risen until they make like 100x of what their lowest worker makes, whereas before that, they made only about 10X what their lowest worker made.

It started around the same time Congress voted themselves a 100x raise. Coincidence? Maybe not.

Anyway, that's why groups like "Occupy Wall Street" are protesting, and that's why liberals and some otherwise-conservatives (like me) think there's something wrong with the US economic portrait.

Each ceo that makes 100x his lowest worker is taking up the funds that could provide for 25 or more jobs, and in many cases, they have laid off workers in order to meet their "profit" quota to get their bonuses.

And you really can't see anything wrong with that, Night Strike? That really makes economic sense to you?

Trickle down is great, but not when stuff is no longer trickling down, but instead, is flowing upward, and that's what has been happening since neocons took Reagan's initially-good ideas and abused those ideas until they crippled America's economic system rather than sustaining it.

[Phatscotty]

Why does spending 4 years studying somehow give you so much more right to have a decent life than those who just buckle down and work, often very, very hard? That is a better question.

Much to the chagrin of you liberals, not all jobs are equal, and therefore people shouldn't inherently be paid the same amount.

While this is true, it's also true that in the past 4 decades, CEO salaries have risen until they make like 100x of what their lowest worker makes, whereas before that, they made only about 10X what their lowest worker made.

Just curious, how much of that money that goes to CEO's is a product of technology investment and scientific investment, and all other general RnD and innovation? How much of that should the janitor get compared to the scientists, the inventors, the investors, and the visionary?

[BigBallinStalin]

Why does spending 4 years studying somehow give you so much more right to have a decent life than those who just buckle down and work, often very, very hard? That is a better question.

Much to the chagrin of you liberals, not all jobs are equal, and therefore people shouldn't inherently be paid the same amount.

While this is true, it's also true that in the past 4 decades, CEO salaries have risen until they make like 100x of what their lowest worker makes, whereas before that, they made only about 10X what their lowest worker made.

It started around the same time Congress voted themselves a 100x raise. Coincidence? Maybe not.

Anyway, that's why groups like "Occupy Wall Street" are protesting, and that's why liberals and some otherwise-conservatives (like me) think there's something wrong with the US economic portrait.

Each ceo that makes 100x his lowest worker is taking up the funds that could provide for 25 or more jobs, and in many cases, they have laid off workers in order to meet their "profit" quota to get their bonuses.

And you really can't see anything wrong with that, Night Strike? That really makes economic sense to you?

Trickle down is great, but not when stuff is no longer trickling down, but instead, is flowing upward, and that's what has been happening since neocons took Reagan's initially-good ideas and abused those ideas until they crippled America's economic system rather than sustaining it.

Why do people compare the prices of two completely different jobs which involve different skills, experience, capabilities, etc.?

It's like saying,

"Gee, Ferraris cost so much, and Hyundai 4-door sedans are so cheap. This is unfair! Instead of buying one Ferrari, that man could've bought 10 Hyundais!!" lolwut!


Also, the underlined belongs in the Conspiracy Theory thread.

[WILLIAMS5232]

In other words, I was in your shoes. I hope you never have to step into the shoes I was later forced to wear despite I'd worked hard and set aside money for emergencies. Very few folks set aside enough money to take care of them for 8 years of emergencies.

well, i'm glad you found some new shoes. 8 years is a long time,

Meanwhile that company that downsized here is investing like hotcakes overseas.

everything has consequences. you shop at walmart because you want the lowest prices, walmart shops in china to get the lowest prices. employees feel they earn more for what they do here, in not so socially advanced countries employees will work for much less. i don't necessarily like it, i'd actually prefer to keep small community based economies flowing. take out all large corporations, and slow down life a bit. of course we'd have to move back about 80 years, do away with cable tv and iphones, degrade health care, and close our business on sat and sunday so we could cut our own grass and spend time with family, but that will never happen i know. so i'm not going to gripe about all the greedy execs. stealing from the poor. because they're not really stealing it. folks put themselves in their own prison by living past their means and supporting the status quo. i'm fine with that, i just get tired of them bitching about it all the time like it's someone elses fault they bought a 200k house and now johnny needs to have major surgery. communities run their self because they know who they are helping and see it in action. a federal govt ( in my opinion ) cannot make 300 million people all happy at the same time.

But people who are already living paycheck to last week's paycheck don't get much opportunity to save for harder times.

most of these people that i know that live like this, would never not live paycheck to paycheck. when they get a bit ahead. they want to go out and buy something. then they do, and then they're right back in the same shape. i've had people who make double what i've made borrow money from me on a weekly basis. they always pay it back, but the next thursday they're already broke again till friday.

[thegreekdog]

While this is true, it's also true that in the past 4 decades, CEO salaries have risen until they make like 100x of what their lowest worker makes, whereas before that, they made only about 10X what their lowest worker made.

It started around the same time Congress voted themselves a 100x raise. Coincidence? Maybe not.

Anyway, that's why groups like "Occupy Wall Street" are protesting, and that's why liberals and some otherwise-conservatives (like me) think there's something wrong with the US economic portrait.

Each ceo that makes 100x his lowest worker is taking up the funds that could provide for 25 or more jobs, and in many cases, they have laid off workers in order to meet their "profit" quota to get their bonuses.

I guess I have a few questions for you:

(1) Do you think if CEO salaries now were more in line with CEO salaries 40 years ago, there would be a recognizable difference in the incomes of the large majority of people in the United States?
(2) If companies did not pay their CEOs such exorbitant salaries, where do you think the money would go? Do you think companies would spend on infrastructure or more employees or better employees salaries? See question (4).
(3) How do you propose to get companies to pay their CEOs less money?
(4) How do you propose to get companies that pay their CEOs less money to pay more money to employees? Could companies pay shareholders more? Could companies keep more cash on hand?
(5) How many CEOs make too much money?
(6) How much money is too much money?
(7) Multiply (5) by (6) and we have the amount of available money for spending by companies on something other than CEOs. How much do you think that is?
(8) How do you think CEO salaries got so high?

[stahrgazer]

While this is true, it's also true that in the past 4 decades, CEO salaries have risen until they make like 100x of what their lowest worker makes, whereas before that, they made only about 10X what their lowest worker made.

It started around the same time Congress voted themselves a 100x raise. Coincidence? Maybe not.

Anyway, that's why groups like "Occupy Wall Street" are protesting, and that's why liberals and some otherwise-conservatives (like me) think there's something wrong with the US economic portrait.

Each ceo that makes 100x his lowest worker is taking up the funds that could provide for 25 or more jobs, and in many cases, they have laid off workers in order to meet their "profit" quota to get their bonuses.

I guess I have a few questions for you:

(1) Do you think if CEO salaries now were more in line with CEO salaries 40 years ago, there would be a recognizable difference in the incomes of the large majority of people in the United States?
(2) If companies did not pay their CEOs such exorbitant salaries, where do you think the money would go? Do you think companies would spend on infrastructure or more employees or better employees salaries? See question (4).
(3) How do you propose to get companies to pay their CEOs less money?
(4) How do you propose to get companies that pay their CEOs less money to pay more money to employees? Could companies pay shareholders more? Could companies keep more cash on hand?
(5) How many CEOs make too much money?
(6) How much money is too much money?
(7) Multiply (5) by (6) and we have the amount of available money for spending by companies on something other than CEOs. How much do you think that is?
(8) How do you think CEO salaries got so high?

First I'll answer question 8. CEO salaries got so high because they could, the same reason Congress's salaries got so high: because they could, because they make the rules. Specifically, in many cases, CEOs would get an excessive bonus promised by the Board of Directors and their contracts, if they brought costs down, and in many of those cases, they brought costs down by laying off people, and frequently reducing benefits - which means, they got their salary increased by the salaries of many of those they laid off. Interestingly enough, the CEO of one company is frequently on the board of directors of other companies, which means, they're washing each other's backs - just like Congress. They get to make their own rules, rules that are good for them and rarely good for others.

Answers to the rest of your questions are: a revision to less narcissistic ethics. But to "force" that is called "Socialism."

Hmm. One of the benefits companies often reduced was "medical insurance." The Affordable Care Act sort of forces them to reconsider that; and sure 'nuff, many folks call it "Socialism."

Big hooplah in the news this week about the agreement to "not go over the fiscal cliff" requiring companies to pay more taxes. Well, they'd pay less taxes if they chose to employ more folks, reducing their individual and corporate profits by the conglomerate costs of salaries and benefits for those they add to their ranks. In fact, Obama had wanted a plan where companies would only get tax "breaks" if they added more workers.. we'll see if he manages to pass that.

Our economy worked very well in the 50s when the average exec made no more than 10-20 x the salary of his lowest worker. So, if someone in the company made about 15k, 150-300k in salary, benefits, and bonuses, seems reasonable for a CEO, rather than a starting salary of about that or twice that plus platinum bennies plus excessive bonuses and stock options that exponentiate the overall monies gained by the CEO.

[thegreekdog]

While this is true, it's also true that in the past 4 decades, CEO salaries have risen until they make like 100x of what their lowest worker makes, whereas before that, they made only about 10X what their lowest worker made.

It started around the same time Congress voted themselves a 100x raise. Coincidence? Maybe not.

Anyway, that's why groups like "Occupy Wall Street" are protesting, and that's why liberals and some otherwise-conservatives (like me) think there's something wrong with the US economic portrait.

Each ceo that makes 100x his lowest worker is taking up the funds that could provide for 25 or more jobs, and in many cases, they have laid off workers in order to meet their "profit" quota to get their bonuses.

I guess I have a few questions for you:

(1) Do you think if CEO salaries now were more in line with CEO salaries 40 years ago, there would be a recognizable difference in the incomes of the large majority of people in the United States?
(2) If companies did not pay their CEOs such exorbitant salaries, where do you think the money would go? Do you think companies would spend on infrastructure or more employees or better employees salaries? See question (4).
(3) How do you propose to get companies to pay their CEOs less money?
(4) How do you propose to get companies that pay their CEOs less money to pay more money to employees? Could companies pay shareholders more? Could companies keep more cash on hand?
(5) How many CEOs make too much money?
(6) How much money is too much money?
(7) Multiply (5) by (6) and we have the amount of available money for spending by companies on something other than CEOs. How much do you think that is?
(8) How do you think CEO salaries got so high?

First I'll answer question 8. CEO salaries got so high because they could, the same reason Congress's salaries got so high: because they could, because they make the rules. Specifically, in many cases, CEOs would get an excessive bonus promised by the Board of Directors and their contracts, if they brought costs down, and in many of those cases, they brought costs down by laying off people, and frequently reducing benefits - which means, they got their salary increased by the salaries of many of those they laid off. Interestingly enough, the CEO of one company is frequently on the board of directors of other companies, which means, they're washing each other's backs - just like Congress. They get to make their own rules, rules that are good for them and rarely good for others.

Answers to the rest of your questions are: a revision to less narcissistic ethics. But to "force" that is called "Socialism."

Hmm. One of the benefits companies often reduced was "medical insurance." The Affordable Care Act sort of forces them to reconsider that; and sure 'nuff, many folks call it "Socialism."

Big hooplah in the news this week about the agreement to "not go over the fiscal cliff" requiring companies to pay more taxes. Well, they'd pay less taxes if they chose to employ more folks, reducing their individual and corporate profits by the conglomerate costs of salaries and benefits for those they add to their ranks. In fact, Obama had wanted a plan where companies would only get tax "breaks" if they added more workers.. we'll see if he manages to pass that.

Our economy worked very well in the 50s when the average exec made no more than 10-20 x the salary of his lowest worker. So, if someone in the company made about 15k, 150-300k in salary, benefits, and bonuses, seems reasonable for a CEO, rather than a starting salary of about that or twice that plus platinum bennies plus excessive bonuses and stock options that exponentiate the overall monies gained by the CEO.

I'm confused by your answer to 8. What prevented CEO salaries from being so high prior to the last 20 years or so? To my knowledge there were no laws, regulations, professional guidelines, or ethics manuals preventing CEOs from having salaries 100 times that of the company's employees.

As to the rest, it doesn't answer my questions, clearly. I asked some fairly clear questions, but I can restate them if you want. It appears to be a lot more of the same thing you posted before, which I've already read and digested. And two of your points are wrong actually.

The Affordable Care Act is not socialism; it's actually a case of "washing each other's backs," in this case as between insurance companies and Democrats in Congress. The rhetoric around the Affordable Care Act from Republican pundits screams "socialism," but that's mostly because Republicans are loathe to admit that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are much the same in that they are tools of companies, special interest groups, and the rich.

The fiscal cliff law did not raise taxes on corporations. It actually continued to give corporations major tax breaks they enjoyed under other laws signed by this president. There were three corporate taxpayer-friendly provisions that were extended: the research and development tax credit, a foreign tax "loophole," and 50% bonus depreciation deduction. Further, the law gave some new corporate tax breaks, including tax benefits specifically geared to film production companies. So, all-in-all, corporations made out great with the fiscal cliff legislation! Rich people got dinged, but so did the middle class and the working class.

EDIT - Also, quick point of reference. The average CEO salary was $12 million in 2011 (I think, I may be getting my years wrong). There's a lot of data out there. Just want to get your thoughts on my questions. I assume that since you feel strongly about this, you would have some thoughts on those items.

[PLAYER57832]

Why does spending 4 years studying somehow give you so much more right to have a decent life than those who just buckle down and work, often very, very hard? That is a better question.

Much to the chagrin of you liberals, not all jobs are equal, and therefore people shouldn't inherently be paid the same amount.

And unlike you conservatives, we actually understand that there is a LONG ways between getting 200K a year and $7.25, or even $8.00 an hour. Not having a degree should not be a prerequisite to eating and not being homeless in America. Working hard at whatever job you do is reasonable, particularly when the CEOs of those companies, not to mention investors are making millions.

Investors don't run companies, workers do.. and THEY deserve to be paid more than the barest pittence those making millions somehow decide they "deserve".. never mind that none of them could do the same job the same way the expect their employees to do it.

THAT is the reality, not the dream world fiction you believe where everyone has a chance to make a good wage if they only "try hard enough". Its pure bull. It ought not to be, but sadly folks like you and your attitudes are driving this country from a country of middle class people to a country of wealthy people and have nots.

If you work a job that any one could come off the street and work, you shouldn't get paid as much as people who have learned a trade, whether that learning came from on-the-job or in school. It's a simple fact of life. And the vast majority of people who actually make minimum wage are in high school or college, so even that is a relatively moot point. Just because a person works hard doesn't mean their hard work adds much value to a product and thus meaning they should be paid a ton of money for the hard work.

Try reading for a change instead of just reciting your memorized supposed "answers".. hint to be a real answer, it requires actually paying attention to what you are addressing, which you have not.

NEVER did I say, in any way shape or form that people with higher skills should not get paid more. I said.
#1. That ANY job, even the most menial if worthy of being done is worthy of paying a wage that allows someone to eat, have a safe house over their head and reasonable clothes.

#2 not sure where you get the idea that only highs schoolers and people in school get minimum wage.. OR that anyone making barely above minimum wage is somehow doing well. Even in my town, where I can get a very decent house for $30K, (if you look carefully and can do a little work on your own), it takes at least $8 an hour to really get by without subsidies, particularly if you have kids.

#3. Right now, the disparity between those at the very top and those at the bottom is growing, though the skill levels of those at the top is not growing. The overall profits of companies is not being passed down to workers or to society, it is being held in the hands of fewer a fewer individuals, which is bad for everyone, even the most wealthy in the long run. Its no cooincidence that the roaring 20's preceded the great depression.

HINT: That 45% that supposedly doesn't pay taxes? Does that really mean that 45% of the population is paying too little in tax OR is it that its far easier for politicians to cut taxes than to demand that employers actually pay workers enough so they can afford to pay bit more in the taxes we need to make this country run effectively.

#4. The topic at hand was insurance and health care. You seem to equate thinking that insurance should pay for things means that the care is free. Its not. Insurance is something we buy, either directly and fully or in part, with the remainder coming as compensation for work.. part of our wages. NOTE that this system was set up to benefit employers because they got tax benefits from offering insurance instead of just higher wages. It is also required.

[PLAYER57832]

i just get tired of them bitching about it all the time like it's someone elses fault they bought a 200k house and now johnny needs to have major surgery. .

Except, that is not the real story in most of the country. it is what a few conservative pundits like to pretend is the story because it fits into their "let's support he wealthy" rhetoric.

Also, even when it was the story, bankers used to be held accountable themselves when they loaned money to people who could not afford it. It was one reason why they did not make out 200K mortgages to people making $9 an hour. Now, its the rest of us who are left holding the bag.

And, yes, many people could do with a lot less. HOWEVER, the funny part of your rhetoric is that its not the minimum wage workers or those making $8 an hour, for the most part doing that. They simply cannot afford it, cannot get the loans if they wanted... etc. Its the people making more like 50-80K, even 100K who get caught up in the "lifestyle" and wind up getting too easily in over their head because they THINK they "have something".. and forget about putting aside for tommorrow. Those at the bottom don't have a choice.

PS despite Nightstrike, etc's insults, I have never been on welfare, have always contributed far more to my community than I ever take out. Even in the past few years when we went without insurance and my kids did wind up on Medicare, you can balance that with the several thousand hours my husband contributed, not to mention saving millions in property and directly saving 2 people (himself.. not counting the jointly saved). Oh, and though we are all back on insurance now, insurance that we would pay for without getting any coverage if it were not for the healthcare reform act eliminating pre-existing condition exclusions -- first for kids and now for adults as well.

[Night Strike]

#1. That ANY job, even the most menial if worthy of being done is worthy of paying a wage that allows someone to eat, have a safe house over their head and reasonable clothes.

No job should be mandated to provide those things. People get paid based on the value they bring to the company. Companies are NOT charities. It's not a company's job to pay you for everything you want. You get paid based on the company's needs, not your own. That means you either align your needs to get by (or thrive) on that pay, or you find a second/a different. Or you negotiate with your employer for a raise. People start companies to make money, not to make sure everyone around them gets paychecks (although many small business owners still make sure to pay their employees even if it means they don't get a paycheck themselves). Companies hire workers in order to be more productive and make more money, and those employees get paid based on that added/necessary value.

#3. The topic at hand was insurance and health care. You seem to equate thinking that insurance should pay for things means that the care is free. Its not. Insurance is something we buy, either directly and fully or in part, with the remainder coming as compensation for work.. part of our wages. NOTE that this system was set up to benefit employers because they got tax benefits from offering insurance instead of just higher wages. It is also required.

Employers started offering health insurance to their employees in order to attract new/better workers because the federal government froze wages during WWII. Again, it was the government manipulating the free market that has caused the massive problems we have today (health insurance being the only non-personal choice market). More and bigger government problems won't fix the system.

[thegreekdog]

i just get tired of them bitching about it all the time like it's someone elses fault they bought a 200k house and now johnny needs to have major surgery. .

Except, that is not the real story in most of the country. it is what a few conservative pundits like to pretend is the story because it fits into their "let's support he wealthy" rhetoric.

Also, even when it was the story, bankers used to be held accountable themselves when they loaned money to people who could not afford it. It was one reason why they did not make out 200K mortgages to people making $9 an hour. Now, its the rest of us who are left holding the bag.

And, yes, many people could do with a lot less. HOWEVER, the funny part of your rhetoric is that its not the minimum wage workers or those making $8 an hour, for the most part doing that. They simply cannot afford it, cannot get the loans if they wanted... etc. Its the people making more like 50-80K, even 100K who get caught up in the "lifestyle" and wind up getting too easily in over their head because they THINK they "have something".. and forget about putting aside for tommorrow. Those at the bottom don't have a choice.

NO ONE MAKES MINIMUM WAGE!!! YARGH!

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm

Also, since stahrgazer is not answering my questions, perhaps you can?

[PLAYER57832]

Why does spending 4 years studying somehow give you so much more right to have a decent life than those who just buckle down and work, often very, very hard? That is a better question.

Much to the chagrin of you liberals, not all jobs are equal, and therefore people shouldn't inherently be paid the same amount.

While this is true, it's also true that in the past 4 decades, CEO salaries have risen until they make like 100x of what their lowest worker makes, whereas before that, they made only about 10X what their lowest worker made.

Just curious, how much of that money that goes to CEO's is a product of technology investment and scientific investment, and all other general RnD and innovation? How much of that should the janitor get compared to the scientists, the inventors, the investors, and the visionary?

An intelligent company invests the majority in research.. but then again, most of that has come almost gratis, thanks to government support.

But the point is that even the janitor should make enough to eat decently, have a decent house and clothes. I would add a few extras.

AND... the people who are raking in the millions are NOT the visionaries and scientists. Not by a long shot! Most scientists are lucky to make 50-60K.

[stahrgazer]

AND... the people who are raking in the millions are NOT the visionaries and scientists. Not by a long shot! Most scientists are lucky to make 50-60K.

This. Additionally, many of those visionaries and scientists got laid off to ensure the CEO got his last million dollar bonus, additional platinum benefits, and golden stock options that exponentiate his starting salary.

[Night Strike]

A fast-food chain is slashing employee hours so franchise owners don't have to pay health benefits. Around 100 local Wendy’s workers have learned their hours are being cut. A spokesperson says a new health care law is to blame.

“Thirty-six to 37 hours a week.” That's how many hours T.J. Growbeck works at the 84th and Giles Wendy's restaurant. The money he earns helps him pay for the basics, but that’s not the case for all his co-workers. “There are some people doing it trying to get by.”

The company has announced that all non-management positions will have their hours reduced to 28 a week. Gary Burdette, Vice President of Operations for the local franchise, says the cuts are coming because the new Affordable Health Care Act requires employers to offer health insurance to employees working 32-38 hours a week. Under the current law they are not considered full time and that as a small business owner, he can't afford to stay in operation and pay for everyone's health insurance.

There are 11 Wendy's restaurants in the metro. “It has a huge effect on me and pretty much everybody that I work with,” says Growbeck, who understands the reasoning and says other part-timers at other fast-food restaurants are facing the same problem. “I'm hoping that I can get some sort of promotion because then I would get my hours, but everybody is shooting for that because of the hours being cut.”

Burdette says the decision affects around 100 employees. It was a tough one and he understands why people are upset, but the hour reduction is effective in two weeks for all non-management. Management employees will continue to have benefits as they are officially full time.

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/Fast-Food-Worker-Hours-Cut---185827392.html

[stahrgazer]

Management employees will continue to have benefits as they are officially full time.

I worked fast-food for a while. "Full Time" often meant 15 hour shifts for assistant managers; ten hours was the minimum shift - and "because you're not a minor, we don't have to give you a break," was the response when I wanted five minutes to eat something during my nearly 2-working-days shifts.

Also, while insurance was available, the company didn't pay toward it.

Of course, this was BK, not Wendy's, but one of the a.m.'s had worked at both Wendy's and McD's previously and told me they were all pretty much the same.

Also, almost no employee got more than 30 hours anyway (unless you were an assistant manager or above who had a 10 hour shift minimum... and not a 4-day workweek, either. 5, 6, even 7 days a week if someone took a vaca)

My point is, could this Wendy's company just be using the Affordable Care Act as an excuse to do what it was gonna do anyway since all the other fast food burger joints do it anyway?

[Symmetry]

A fast-food chain is slashing employee hours so franchise owners don't have to pay health benefits. Around 100 local Wendy’s workers have learned their hours are being cut. A spokesperson says a new health care law is to blame.

“Thirty-six to 37 hours a week.” That's how many hours T.J. Growbeck works at the 84th and Giles Wendy's restaurant. The money he earns helps him pay for the basics, but that’s not the case for all his co-workers. “There are some people doing it trying to get by.”

The company has announced that all non-management positions will have their hours reduced to 28 a week. Gary Burdette, Vice President of Operations for the local franchise, says the cuts are coming because the new Affordable Health Care Act requires employers to offer health insurance to employees working 32-38 hours a week. Under the current law they are not considered full time and that as a small business owner, he can't afford to stay in operation and pay for everyone's health insurance.

There are 11 Wendy's restaurants in the metro. “It has a huge effect on me and pretty much everybody that I work with,” says Growbeck, who understands the reasoning and says other part-timers at other fast-food restaurants are facing the same problem. “I'm hoping that I can get some sort of promotion because then I would get my hours, but everybody is shooting for that because of the hours being cut.”

Burdette says the decision affects around 100 employees. It was a tough one and he understands why people are upset, but the hour reduction is effective in two weeks for all non-management. Management employees will continue to have benefits as they are officially full time.

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/Fast-Food-Worker-Hours-Cut---185827392.html

Where will tax payers get their heart disease now?

[Night Strike]

Students across the country are cringing as the new medical insurance law’s mandates eliminate the affordable policies they previously enjoyed, imposing a new financial burden.

“If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free. ” –P.J. O’Rourke, 1993

1903. Is that a year? No, that’s 1,903%, which is how much medical premiums for students have increased at Louisiana’s Nicholls State University this year, thanks to a partial implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

In March of 2010, President Obama signed what is now popularly termed “Obamacare” into law. Much of the new health law depends on making younger, healthy people who don’t use medical care pay for older, sicker populations who do.

College and university students are now feeling the bite.

Up until last semester, basic medical coverage at Nicholls State cost students just $75.05 for two semesters plus the summer session. However, these basic, inexpensive, limited policies don’t meet the Affordable Care Act’s expansive requirements; they’re no longer permitted. Students are just one of many groups who cannot keep their old policies under the new law. Cost of a new policy? $1,503, a 1,903% increase.

“The cost of this insurance policy for Nicholls State University Students is $576.00 for the fall 2012 semester, $576.00 for the spring 2013 semester, and $351.00 for the summer 2013 session. The reason for the increase in price is due to federal changes made to the minimum coverage amounts for health insurance.“1

As illustrated in the table below, Nicholls’ situation is by no means unique—prices are going up at universities around the country, with more to come as Obamacare phases in. The current price hikes result from a new $100,000 minimum coverage requirement, but that cap increases again next year, then quickly rises to a requirement for unlimited coverage. Expect further premium increases.

Table 1 – Sample Price Hikes At Other Universities
Institution old premium new premium increase
Bethany CollegeLindsborg, Kan. 12 months, $445 over $2,000 [2] 349%
The State University of New York at Plattsburgh $440.00 $1,300 to $1,600 [2] 340%
North Carolina public universities $920, two semesters $1,418, two semesters [3] 54%
Lenoir-Rhyne University Hickory, N.C. $245 per year $2,507 per year [4] 923%
University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Wash. $165 a year $1,500 to $2,000 [4] 809-1,112%
Nicholls State University, Louisiana $75.05 per year $1,503 per year [1] 1,903%
Ave Maria University, Florida 65-82% [5]
Clearwater Christian College, Florida $600 per year $1,330 122% [5]
Franciscan University, Ohio Dropped (cost doubled) [6]

Points to Ponder
o The President said you could keep your policy. Students can’t.
o The President said it would cost less. It costs more.
o This increase more than cancels President Obama’s Pell grant increases, making it harder to afford school. So, what the president has given with one hand, he more than retakes with the other.
o Obamacare is designed to get money from people who won’t use it, to pay for those who will. This burden falls heavily on young healthy people.

“But I don’t think we know yet what the impact will be until the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented.”
—UNC President Tom Ross3

Indeed.

http://0363930.netsolhost.com/WordPress/2012/10/30/unaffordable-care-act-sticker-shock-stuns-students-updated-103012/