T1B

Illinois is going to start publishing a "List of Shame" highlighting businesses who refuse to provide adequate health insurance. Much like roaches, businesses like WalMart are loathe to see their business practices put to the light of public scrutiny.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst ... aid08.html

That's a load of crap. Many small businesses would go under if they had to provide full health care benefits for employees, since the way they do it (at least out here) is to require a minimum number of employees in order to qualify for a rate that you can actually afford. businesses with less than 10 employees get screwed big time.

Add to the that horrific workers comp costs out here, and you might as well not be in business.

There's no shame in an unaffordable reality.

How pathetic is this?? Sorry but it's not up to others to determine what "adequate" health care coverage...

I see B is still on his trip characterizing all retail businesses as parasites. Demonstrates that he doesn't understand what a "parasite" even is.

Bushice, health insurance premiums are not based on the size of an employer.

Forcing employers to pay health care benefits is not the answer - because such a strategy exert no pressure on the industry itself to reduce costs.

Which industry are you referring to?

Couple of ways to quickly reduce health care costs:

--states should repeal their laws requiring that insurance providers be in-state;
--states should repeal "shall issue" laws; and
--the federal government should eliminate any tax incentive for employers providing health insurance coverage so that we shift from a third-party insurance system and towards individuals purchasing their own insurance.

Deregulate it utterly! That'll make it cheaper!

sheesh...

Mister Bushice wrote:That's a load of crap. Many small businesses would go under if they had to provide full health care benefits for employees, since the way they do it (at least out here) is to require a minimum number of employees in order to qualify for a rate that you can actually afford. businesses with less than 10 employees get screwed big time.

Add to the that horrific workers comp costs out here, and you might as well not be in business.

There's no shame in an unaffordable reality.

Small businesses are not the target of this law. The article specifically says that only businesses with more than 100 workers and 25 employees on Medicaid rolls will be listed. And even then, they will only list the 100 worst.

BSmack wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:That's a load of crap. Many small businesses would go under if they had to provide full health care benefits for employees, since the way they do it (at least out here) is to require a minimum number of employees in order to qualify for a rate that you can actually afford. businesses with less than 10 employees get screwed big time.

Add to the that horrific workers comp costs out here, and you might as well not be in business.

There's no shame in an unaffordable reality.

Small businesses are not the target of this law. The article specifically says that only businesses with more than 100 workers and 25 employees on Medicaid rolls will be listed. And even then, they will only list the 100 worst.

Bwaahahahaaaa...the 100 worst that provide health insurance, just not at the level someone believes it should be at. :roll:

My how quickly the times change. Not that long ago health insurance was a perk that employers used to woo prospective employees. Now it's a right of the employee? This is what's so disgusting about the crowd that always has their hand out. You try to do something nice for them and next thing you know they're acting like they're entitled to it. Assholes.

Variable, it's called the entitlement mentality and the Left has been infected by this mentality for 40 years...

Variable wrote:My how quickly the times change. Not that long ago health insurance was a perk that employers used to woo prospective employees. Now it's a right of the employee? This is what's so disgusting about the crowd that always has their hand out. You try to do something nice for them and next thing you know they're acting like they're entitled to it. Assholes.

Yet these businesses who don't provide coverage are more than a little afraid of the PR hit such a list would give them. Boo hoo.

Yet these businesses who don't provide coverage are more than a little afraid of the PR hit such a list would give them. Boo hoo.

Of course they are! If you owned a business, I'm guessing you wouldn't want a slew of negative PR coming out about your business either.

This type of tactic is no different than what Jesse Jackson and his Rainbow Push Coalition does. They demand contribution or they put that company on a "list" of racist companies.

Nothing but a fucking shakedown.

Again, the "company car" entitlement is next...book it.

Variable wrote:

Yet these businesses who don't provide coverage are more than a little afraid of the PR hit such a list would give them. Boo hoo.

Of course they are! If you owned a business, I'm guessing you wouldn't want a slew of negative PR coming out about your business either.

This type of tactic is no different than what Jesse Jackson and his Rainbow Push Coalition does. They demand contribution or they put that company on a "list" of racist companies.

Nothing but a fucking shakedown.

Again, the "company car" entitlement is next...book it.

If the lack of medical coverage is no big deal, why the worry about "negative PR"? Yea people have come to expect medical coverage with a job. Just try and get group rates by yourself. And even if you do manage to get into something like a CofC discount program, you're still going to be paying out the ass.

If the lack of medical coverage is no big deal, why the worry about "negative PR"?

What kind of question is that? Their concern over negative PR has no relevance to the perception of whether offering health insurance coverage is a big deal or not.

Negative PR in and of itself is certainly a concern for any business.

You have some whack jobs who believe that they know for the rest of us what "adequate" health insurance coverage is and those who do not conform to their thinking are labeled as pariahs...that's absurd.

Yea people have come to expect medical coverage with a job.

So what? They have a choice if they want to work for a firm that offers it or does not offer it.

And even if you do manage to get into something like a CofC discount program, you're still going to be paying out the ass.

Health care is expensive...especially when you aren't responsible for paying for it.

If the lack of medical coverage is no big deal, why the worry about "negative PR"?

It's the same shakedown tactic used by Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Push Coalition: "Pay us money for this or we'll give you a shitload of bad PR".

Besides in today's day and age of focus groups, target demographics and multimedia marketing campaigns, asking why someone would be worried about negative PR is just asinine.

Variable wrote:Besides in today's day and age of focus groups, target demographics and multimedia marketing campaigns, asking why someone would be worried about negative PR is just asinine.

OK, let's rephrase.

Why should they worry about a negative public reaction? After all, they're within their rights. Why would they automaticly assume public reaction to be negative?

Why should they worry about a negative public reaction? After all, they're within their rights. Why would they automaticly assume public reaction to be negative?

Why do you LIE? *SMACK* Sorry, Detroit was channeling me there for a second.

They are totally within their rights and shouldn't have to worry about a negative reaction, but the left likes to monkey with the public's perception, regardless of the facts of reality. There's nothng wrong with a company not offering health coverage, but if someone tells the general public that it's wrong over and over, after a while, they say "Heeeeeey, wait a second...he's RIGHT!"

That's the way the left propaganda machine operates: up is down, down is up. Why do you think it's now more advantageous in this country to be an illegal alien than a legal one? The left has totally flipped it on it's side. Legality no longer matters. Up is down.

This is hilarious...

B first posted:

If the lack of medical coverage is no big deal, why the worry about "negative PR"?

Variable smacks him for asking an "asinine" question.

So B then says he's going to rephrase the question as:

Why should they worry about a negative public reaction?

That's rephrasing a question??

LMAO!!

Hey, B, the listing itself is negative PR. Why shouldn't these firms be concerned and whyis it so difficult to understand their reaction?

Idiot.

Variable wrote:Why do you LIE? *SMACK* Sorry, Detroit was channeling me there for a second.

You're in California. I'm sure there's a pill for that.

They are totally within their rights and shouldn't have to worry about a negative reaction, but the left likes to monkey with the public's perception, regardless of the facts of reality. There's nothng wrong with a company not offering health coverage, but if someone tells the general public that it's wrong over and over, after a while, they say "Heeeeeey, wait a second...he's RIGHT!"

You mean like the GOP has been doing with their DEATH TAX rants? Or should we talk about how often the Saddam=bin Laden matra has been rehashed by the GOPs echo chamber?

My point is, that tactic is hardly an exclusive province of the "left". And when you say things like "the left likes to monkey with the public's perception, regardless of the facts of reality." your credibility suffers like a bag of crack in a hotel room with Marion Barry.

In fact, it makes me think YOU might be messing with perception.

That's the way the left propaganda machine operates: up is down, down is up. Why do you think it's now more advantageous in this country to be an illegal alien than a legal one? The left has totally flipped it on it's side. Legality no longer matters. Up is down.

Show me ONE millionare illegal alien. JUST ONE.

I didn't fucking think so.

You mean like the GOP has been doing with their DEATH TAX rants? Or should we talk about how often the Saddam=bin Laden matra has been rehashed by the GOPs echo chamber?

Saddam=bin Laden seemed more PC than "they all look alike to us." :D

My point is, that tactic is hardly an exclusive province of the "left". And when you say things like "the left likes to monkey with the public's perception, regardless of the facts of reality." your credibility suffers like a bag of crack in a hotel room with Marion Barry.

When we're talking about using it against Americans, it might as well be an exclusive province of the left. "If you don't agree with my ideas, you are prejudiced against the handicapped/the aged/mexicans/blacks/etc" is standard operating procedure in the Democratic Party and with left special interest groups. The next time I hear a GOP lobbyist or politician do that will be the first.

In fact, it makes me think YOU might be messing with perception.

Actually, I'm not real big on spin or altering perception. If someone is too dim to figure stuff out from plain facts and history, I generally won't spend a lot of time trying to get them to see what's right in front of their face.

Show me ONE millionare illegal alien. JUST ONE.

I didn't fucking think so.

What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China?? Even if I could give you one that wouldn't prove my point or disprove yours.

You want an example of retarded Democratic policy that favors illegals? Here you go:

Illegals currently qualify for in state tuition in CA and there's a bill in the legislature to allow them to attend UC and CSU campuses tuition free. As it stands right now, to attend UCLA for a semester, a legal immigrant would pay the non-resident tuition of $22,407.50, while an illegal resident would pay $7,468.50. Additionally, a US-fucking-citizen from Arizona that attended UCLA would pay $22,407.50 and an illegal alien would pay $7468.50. Please enlighten me as to how this makes any sense whatsoever.

You mean like the GOP has been doing with their DEATH TAX rants?

How is this the same or even similar? The death tax/estate tax is wrong. Besides just another pot of dollars to tax to generate more government revenue there is no reason to tax it. And the fact that it is done when someone dies only further undermines the reasonableness of the tax.

Or should we talk about how often the Saddam=bin Laden matra has been rehashed by the GOPs echo chamber?

So now you've shifted from claiming that Bush made the assertion and that the administration made the assertion to now asserting that this thing you call the "GOP echo chamber" is now running the same line.

Liar. That is all you are.

My point is, that tactic is hardly an exclusive province of the "left". And when you say things like "the left likes to monkey with the public's perception, regardless of the facts of reality." your credibility suffers like a bag of crack in a hotel room with Marion Barry.

Actually you've provided a perfect example that represents your credibility, B.

You haven't provided an example that is even remotely similar to what Variable accuses the Left of.

Show me ONE millionare illegal alien. JUST ONE.

That's your response to Variable's comment?? Come on...yet you have the gall to questiona nother poster's credibility??

It has been the Left that has demanded equal protection for illegal aliens. Demanded driver's licenses. Demanded health care. Demanded state subsidies for college. Made it an issue of discrimination and racism to even suggest enforcing our immigration laws.

That's Variable's point about the Left and their efforts to grant social advantages to illegal aliens.