1)Do you want shops to exist?
2)Do you accept that for them to exist, someone will have to work there?
3)Do you want the government to provide their healthcare?

If your answer to the last question is no, then you need them to earn enough to pay for it themselves. Unless shops choose to pay that amount (and there’s not much incentive: their potential employees don’t have the power to pick and choose at will), you’d have to be in favour of a sufficient minimum wage, or employer-provided insurance. The only other alternative is wanting there to be an underclass of people who cannot afford healthcare.

If your answer to either of the first two questions is no, then frankly, I’m puzzled.

You guys act as if everyone out there has the luxury to just turn down jobs until the perfect one comes along. Evidence of just how elitist and out of touch conservative thinking is with real people and real life.

Here is my problem though. I see people who are unisured or insured by a state system everyday. Almost every single one of them is carrying a cell phone around. I would venture to say they all have color tvs in their house. They often wear designer label clothes

My point is, as a society we have given poor people the out of free medical care. So they choose to spend the little bit of disposable income they have on “luxuries” rather than insuring their families.

I just don’t know how to “incentivize” people to do the right thing, and I am not comfortable with the “State” demanding that the businesses do it for them….

It’s a conundrum…..

what a fuckin selfish kid. Doesn’t it know that Dugger and his pals were smart enough to not be born sick, or catch something, therefore they deserve to keep their money and let you die, or your parents get broke and miserable?

================== That was sarcasm, next isn’t.

How about Calcutta, or Johanisburg.

Dugger, what happens when a kid is born into a broke family, to an uneducated black man who cannot get a job, lives in a neighborhood full of unemployed people (and don’t say it is their fault, because there are not enough jobs, and there are people who are poor, and there kids get malnourished – learning disabilities and lower IQ result, and they have nothing to look forward to, social dysfunction in family and society).

Sell drugs, prostitute, take drugs to escape reality, get more fucked up, watch Dugger drive his caddy and give them the finger while they starve and get sick and die (1/6 death due to poverty in US).
Angry? What a shock! I know where that fuck Dugger lives, and his neighbors are all rich too!

You get mugged, fucked up, or in any way you and your family a victim of crime, well, that is a pretty stupid decision to make, Dugger et al.

Didn’t make that decision? When you decide to say ‘Fuck them, it is their fault’, guess what, brain scientist?

They will become criminals and asshole because their environment of being broke and hopeless does that, it is a fact. Then, the more of these people, the more likely one of them will hurt/rob/kill/ you or family, or pass HIV or any illness to you.

Pretty fucking stupid way to put yourself in jeopardy. But, you chose it, because the more people that are fucked, and the more selfish opulence and waste and uncaring attitude they encounter for Duggerdudes, they more fucking pissed they get.

Maybe, you won’t get mugged, or ever get stuck somehow in a vulnerable spot and meet up with someone.

But, you might be filling your tank, and the nozzle you are holding was held last by someone with the mutated doomsday pandemic virus that kills 50% of it’s victims.

Hey, did you know that the avg lifespan of USA folk is now dropping? It is the only developed country in the world. Your quality of life, and standard of living is also falling in comparison to countries that provide health care, and money, food, and shelter to people who need it, whether they are at fault, or not.

Not only that, but you can feel like a decent human being, instead of fucking selfish leech that got lucky, and had parents, talent, breaks, opportunity etc., and it all is not your choice, Dugger, you are not the one who chooses whether you will or will not get the breaks and opportunities.

You are not the one who is responsible for the life and people that provide you with opportunities, Dugger, you are part of a society of people that work together to make life better for everyone instead of cutthroat violent chaotic (primitive) surroundings and situation.

But now, you want to suddenly draw a line, and say you made better decisions, and people who are poor made bad ones, but it is just an excuse.

You wouldn’t be alive, Duggerfuck, if people didn’t look after each other and provide support for each other, because those are the qualities that allow our societies and opportunities to exist.

Anyone who thinks they deserve more piece of the pie and others can fuck themselves, you are a monster, and not fit to call yourself a caring human being.

I don’t care if some people take advantage and sponge, look what happens to good people without help who need it, and look what happens in places that don’t offer this kind of mentality in their society. I would like to take you to India, and leave you in the ghetto.

Yes, if they have a good steady job that pays them well and gives them health insurance, they will have the time and money to take that hvac course at the local cc, then they’ll be able to get a good steady job that pays them well and gives them health insurance.

conservative & reality: a contradiction in terms.

I think it should be pointed out that is exactly the same kind of dodge that Duger employs, “Why if we give them a decent wage and health care where will it stop? Do we have togive everybody Porches too?” That’s a bullshit argument and you know it, or if you don’t you should.

You guys seem to forget that WalMart needs workers as much as workers need WalMart. And yet you would give WalMart all the advantages to drive down wages and benefits in a race to the bottom for unskilled workers.

If I thought I was to be treated indecently and unfairly by my potential new employer, I wouldn’t shake hands and accept the job. When I accept the job, I understand that the employer informs me what the initial pay is, what my responsibilities will be and what, if any, benefits are provided. I inform him of the skills I can bring to the table. If he likes what he hears, he offers me the job. If I like what I hear, I accept the job. If I don’t, I walk.

If I’m an unskilled worker trying to make it in America, I surely would make every attempt to increase my skills so I can pursue my right to as much happiness as I’m equipped and ready to work for. I don’t have the “right” to a basic standard of living (whatever that is). I only have a right to pursue it. If I refuse to better equip myself for a better standard of living, I have no right to expect someone else to provide it for me.

Because if you are an unskilled laborer whose willing to work you have no right to expect a decent life in America.

you have no right to expect a decent life in America

Since you have determined this new “right” to “expect a decent life,” I’m curious what else we should expect companies to provide to their workers. Surely there’s more to a “decent life” than health insurance?

When exactly did this become the problem with regards to employer provided health care? Does not an individual working at WalMart also need hc for themselves?

You accuse Quaker of resorting to cheap 19th century theatrics when you would literally role back the clock to 19th century working conditions.

It’s just not that level a playing field. I’m a good example. I played and partied and never held a full time job until I was thirty. Finally, I decided to learn to program computers. Within a couple of years I was making good money and had a health plan and a 401K.

Did I study hard? No. I happen to be excellent at math and logic, learning to program took me only a few months of programming for a few hours every night.

Well, did I work hard? Save up to buy a computer, struggle to buy textbooks, etc? Um… no. I have well-to-do parents. They bought most of that stuff for me.

So can I really claim to be more deserving than someone who’s say, just slightly below average intelligence and from a family who really can’t help him out much? Well, I am far more valuable to my employer, so I do deserve more money… but health care? I’m just lucky, I’m not a better person than that guy even if he did make a few bad decisions along the way. The notion that “at some point the individual has to look out for himself and not expect the other members of society to be made to do it” is pretty nauseating when we’re talking about people working full time who can’t obtain health care for themselves or their children. I don’t care how we reach the goal of making healthcare obtainable to them. But requiring large employers to help with the problem doesn’t seem like a bad idea. And if Walmart seems to be singled out, that’s partly because most companies that size do provide health benefits.

Dugger says its irresponsible to have children you can not adequately care for, irresponsible to have children and then expect others to spend their resources to support your bad (or maybe unlucky) life decisions.

and:

The poor shouldn’t have children

If there is, it would appear to be superficial.

This lurid, dime-novel harangue is weak. The problem first and foremost is irresponsible parents who bring children into the world that they cannot care for. Your answer is to make the workers work harder to pay for that irresponsibility, thereby encouraging repetiton of the bad behaviour and further depradation of the workers.

And yours is to get government out of the healthcare business. OK, my words with chosen as much for self-amusement as for illumination of my argument. The point is this: public health has a place within the realm of public policy.

Remember the argument is about forcing Wal-mart to provide health care for its employees. You have transposed that into some sort of 19th century melodrama with children dying excrutiatingly painful deaths – all because of Simon le Wal-Mart.

We’ve got two discussions going on here: one is about Maryland’s bill that applies to all one of the state’s employers with more than 10,000 employees.

As I have illustriously explained to Jay C. above, I have also introduced a side discussion to this thread: Should we have a publicly-funded healthcare system? If so, who pays? If not, what happens to people who can’t afford to go to the doctor?

What about the employers smaller than Wal-Mart that Md. lets skate …. Are their children not out there in the deepest pit of sufferin succotash hell like your melodramatic Wal Mart children?

Yes, if Maryland follows your proposal to eliminate publicly-funded health care.

“After Dugger proposed that the poor shouldn t have children, I asked again:”

Dugger says its irresponsible to have children you can not adequately care for, irresponsible to have children and then expect others to spend their resources to support your bad (or maybe unlucky) life decisions. If you are poor (or rich or in between) and have kids, you look after them – don’t expect Uncle Sugar or Uncle Sam Walton to clean up after your irresponsible mess.

And as polemics go:  Let the children of the poor spread disease amongst us before they die a hideous, painful death to pay for their crime of choosing the wrong parents.

This lurid, dime-novel harangue is weak. The problem first and foremost is irresponsible parents who bring children into the world that they cannot care for. Your answer is to make the workers work harder to pay for that irresponsibility, thereby encouraging repetiton of the bad behaviour and further depradation of the workers. Again, how about economic justice for the workers, the producers?

Remember the argument is about forcing Wal-mart to provide health care for its employees. You have transposed that into some sort of 19th century melodrama with children dying excrutiatingly painful deaths – all because of Simon le Wal-Mart.

What about the employers smaller than Wal-Mart that Md. lets skate by Scott (sorry for the implied insult to all my kilt-wearing kinsmen) free. Are their children not out there in the deepest pit of sufferin’ succotash hell like your melodramatic Wal Mart children?

Dugger, First torture them (if not Yentl, then Neil Diamonds greatest hits)and then MAKE them eat cake

I can only assume at that point, that your question is provided in that context.

Don’t assume.

If you’re going to clip my comments and address a rebuttal to me directly, please be so good as to read and comprehend what I’ve written.

Let’s go back and take a look shall we?

First I asked:

Opponents of this bill, let s hear your solutions. What s your alternative for funding the public health system these working families will have to rely on to care for their children?

After Dugger proposed that the poor shouldn’t have children, I asked again:

So what s you real world solution? Fund the system or let  em suffer?

After Dugger suggested cutting off the poor and Farris promised that the “invisible hand” would take care of them all, I asked again:

If you oppose a tax on employers, how do you propose to fund the public healthcare system? Or do you propose to eliminate it?

Farris imagined a scenario in which Wal Mart closes half its stores in Maryland, so I asked again:

If you oppose a tax on employers, how do you propose to fund the public healthcare system? Or do you propose to eliminate it?

Then you came along to address me directly to do what? Argue that this is a crummy bill.

Give me a suggestion here, Jay. How could I make it any clearer that I was asking:

If you oppose a tax on employers, how do you propose to fund the public healthcare system? Or do you propose to eliminate it?

If you didn’t get it the first four times I posted it, why would I think you’d suddenly understand on the fifth?

If you want to make up an imaginary playmate to fight with, please do. But leave me out of it.

No soup for you, Walmart employees! Duggers got his!