Corporate executives aren’t job creators…

130 posts / 0 new

They’re just greedy. More than 300 employees of the Wendy’s fast food chain in Omaha, Nebraska stand to get screwed by their employer. Rather than complying with the new Obamacare mandate, to offer health insurance to his full-time workers, Gary Burdette – the Vice President of operations for the local Wendy’s franchise, is cutting all of his workers hours to part-time – thus shrinking their paychecks and putting the cost burden of finding health insurance squarely on their shoulders.

Darden Restaurants, which nearly did the same thing, changed its mind after a harsh backlash from customers, and an immediate 37% drop in profits. Burdette argues that he simply can’t afford to pay for health insurance for his workers. My response to that is if you run a business – and you can’t afford to offer the basic essentials to your workers like a living wage and healthcare – then you don’t deserve to be in business in the first place.

Time to bring back business in the public interest.

Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture
Thom Hartmann A...
Joined:
Dec. 29, 2009 10:59 am

Comments

I am unaware that businesses have ever been responsible to the public interest. They are responsible to their owners, are they not?

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 4:59 pm

Thom; You, and the rest of congress need to read the bill.

Healthcare insurance is an employeers OPTION to offer in an employees compensation package. There is no mandate. Obamacare proponents were repeatedly made aware this was going to be a consequence of this, unread before passage, unworkable, mess. My neighbor owns a law firm that employs over 75 people that will all have to become independent contractors to remain employed at their firm. What it will end up doing, is costing the workers hours of pay, benefits previously offered, and many individuals that will go without insurance until the IRS catches up with them.

Before the end of the year you will have a list of employeers to long to mention in every sector of the business world. Big gain though for United Healthcare and others like them. UHC's new 6,000 person campus created just for additional obamacare business, will be finished this year. Who says corporate executives aren't job creators? The construction crew at the UHC facility is running 12 hour shifts.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am

We'll see if employers learn that hiring more part time workers may not be the answer they thought. With more workers there will be more turnover and training required. If customers can organize boycotts against the employers who do this-this employer strategy will be shortlived. Time for the fast food industry to stop depending on the govt to subsidize their employees health care-stop the emergency room visits.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am

Hopefully the law firm will follow the independent contractor requirements and not be vulnerable to employee lawsuits down the road. It's a risk to try and game the IC system with a bunch of legal eagles. And the employees should wise up and ask for more compensation for losing their benefits or go to other firms that offer benefits. And where is it written in the constitution that you have to get healthcare thru your employer? Obamacare is just trying to extend universal coverage within our bastardized profit driven health insurance system. You are going to have bastardized solutions in a bastardized system. End the tie in between employment and health insurance-stop the unfair employer insurance deduction.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am

Employer provided healthcare is an historical fluke in the United States, derived from the World War II period when wage controls prevented employers from using higher wages as an incentive to prosepective employees. Better benefits, including healthcare, were not controlled during that time.

The ACA may tend to divorce health insurance from employment benefits, which might not be such a bad thing, as long as employees receive higher wages to compensate for the loss of health insurance. Since health insurance is not currently taxed but wages are, such a divorce would produce more revenues for the federal government. Higher taxes, in turn, could be used to subsidize health insurance for the poor and ill. Nothing wrong with that.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 4:59 pm

You people are all delusional if you think obamacare is the panacea cure-all for the health care debacle. IT IS NOT! It is merely the expansion of the existing system and gives the health inurance corporations more customers by forcing them to buy their product or forcing employers to furnish it. Health INSURANCE is not the same as health CARE!

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

Actually the employer is in the drivers seat. Twenty nine hours can be classified as a part time worker. Many workers in retail, food, and the lodging industry, were already booked at 30-35 hours per week. The employeer can juggle their staff to keep everyone at 29 hours with no problem at all.

Independent contractors are the next wave of how to employ people in many industries. Many can work from home, hours can be flexible, smaller main office requirements, less potential for legal issues, the list goes on and on. The employer can choose to compensate the employee a monthly cash stipend for expenses for whatever, but they would be taxable unless the independent contractor can show they were used as a legitimate business expense.

The wiser employer may dangle the carrot that the independent contractor has eliminated their costs of parking, fuel, day care, office attire, and a host of other expenses.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am

I don't think anybody thought the ACA would be a "panacea." Indeed, as I recall, many on the left criticized the president because he abandoned the idea of a single-payer system.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 4:59 pm

That is corrrect, darlinedarline1--and those who claimed Obamacare was 'our system's answer to universal health care' were, indeed, the delusional ones. The debate should never have been constrained to 'right to health insurance' but should have always been addressed as a 'right to health care'--but, again, with the corporate-government colluded climate that has become 'America', the sheeple complied to the words offered. 'Right to health insurance' instead of 'right to health care'--that way, as I've said, it keeps the corporations in control with customers instead of doctors with patients even in 'the health care industry'--and, you bet, it can get a whole lot worse thanks to Obamacare and its emphasis on 'right to health insurance' instead of 'right to health care'. Now, all those part-time workers are going to have to find their own 'private insurance' (always more expensive--and always determined in price directly in line with 'pre-existing conditions' despite any HIPPA laws to the contrary)--or pay a 'penalty tax' that doesn't even offer them health care coverage. And, the little people (and their so-called 'government representatives') bought this scam as it was presented to them--lock, stock, and barrel.....now what?

If that does, indeed, mean that more people will be coming to the ER for their 'primary care' (and I think that is exactly what 'the industry' wanted), it will be with corporations claiming that 'their costs have escalated' as more and more is sucked out of the rest of the economy and into the 'health care industry' for it. It's 'the medical industry's' counterpart to 'the defense industry' and, if you think about it, poised to be done for similar reasons--your 'safety and wellbeing'. Good job, sheeple.....

But, considering the fiasco of a 'discussion' I have had over at the 'when does life begin' thread, 'rights' aren't what anything in 'America' is all about any more, is it, sheeple? So, I guess let them word it whatever way they want to.....and, then, run it whatever way they desire....corporations with customers instead of doctors with patients.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote stuff:

I don't think anybody thought the ACA would be a "panacea." Indeed, as I recall, many on the left criticized the president because he abandoned the idea of a single-payer system.

It was abandoned before any open discussion on it was ever made--that way, that pesky idea of 'right to health care' instead of 'right to health insurance' could be avoided.....in fact, that could have been a question addressed to the presidental candidates: Do you believe health care to be a right applied to all--or privilege only to those who pay? And, no matter how you answer that question, can you explain it through the EMTALA law (that treats it like a 'right'--inclusive of 'ER visits whether you can pay or not') AND the for-profit health industry (that treats it like a 'privilege' that goes only 'to those who pay')? But, that would be 'too honest' of a form of questioning, wouldn't it? And, would expose the scam.....and the corporate-government collusion.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Kerry, is Medicare for All healthcare or health insurance? Is the only difference that we insure ourselves instead of selling our risk pool to somebody who will make money off of us?

Healthcare is a social necessity, a 'right for all,' because the alternative is much more expensive to us.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

What is the alternative? Force everyone to purchase health insurance? Let those that do not have or cannot afford health insurance and cannot pay for ridiculously overpriced medical care die?

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

Well, drc2, it is my understanding that Medicare for All would be one form of universal health care. Is universal health care a condition of corporate compliance as if 'insurance'--or government compliance as if a 'right'? I think you would know my answer--what's yours? If you want to call Medicare for All universal health care's form of 'insurance', I think that you are just playing with words. And, word-players love considering this in terms of 'right to health insurance' instead of 'right to health care'.

Health care may, indeed, by a social necessity--but, as I"ve tried to imply with my 'presidential debate question' (that was never asked), our system treats it quite schizophrenically. We pass laws 'guaranteeing universal access'--but, in the interest of the 'for-profit industry', we discuss it as if care is directly proportional to the payment received. 'Law' and 'industry' create a functioning social impasse--in the meantime, the sheeple, as tax-paying consumers, pay for both 'government obligations' and 'for-profit corporate interests'--each assuming that the other offers 'something different'. Does it? Or, perhaps more to the point, should it? Legally, it doesn't. A patient that pays nothing for their service has exactly the same ability to sue for any withheld or misapplied manner of care--using exactly the same 'expert witnesses' in malpractice court--as if it were concerning someone who paid for everything up front (and nothing is ever mentioned in such a court case about whether 'the patient paid or not'). From an 'industry perspective', the premise would more aptly be promoted as 'you get what you pay for'. So, which is it, sheeple?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
What is the alternative? Force everyone to purchase health insurance?

That's pretty much what the ACA does.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 4:59 pm

I bet insurance corporations just love that little directive. What about all the people that can't afford the premiums and are forced to pay the penalty tax? What if they can't afford the penalty tax? Are they going to get health care? If not, then they are still paying for some to get health care and they aren't how is that fair?

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am
Quote stuff:

I am unaware that businesses have ever been responsible to the public interest. They are responsible to their owners, are they not?

I suppose it depends on what is meant by responsible. Business certainly does not exist without its governmental charter, and is therfore dependent upon the public blessing.

Semi permeable memebrain's picture
Semi permeable ...
Joined:
Nov. 10, 2011 8:36 am

Businesses are ultimately reponsible to the owners and investers. More and more a larger part of that responsibility (especially startups) is to get over the hurdles and around the roadblocks of government bureauracracy. If a business provides a good service and/or product the public will come. Governmental charter=bureaucratic permission. Public blessing=happy customers.

The arbitrary governmental mandate for a business OR individual to purchase health insurance from a private for profit health insurance corporation is nothing but more corporate/government collusion. So if a business or individual is unable to afford the cost of premiums or even the penalty tax are they to just go out of business and the individual to go without health care? Remember there is a difference in health INSURANCE and health CARE. Many (especially small) businesses operate on very slim margins. But I guess that doesn't matter to the Congresscrooks or odictator OR to socialist moonbats that have no idea what it entails to run a small business. Obamacare will only be good for creating more government bureaucratic jobs to enforce the mandate. AS is typical of government mandates and interference, It will not help and be detrimental to the already dismal job situtation in the private sector. But maybe the real objective is to create more people dependent on the government by destroying jobs.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am
Quote darlinedarline1:

But maybe the real objective is to create more people dependent on the government by destroying jobs.

You could argue that Obamacare is also set up to make people more dependent upon corporate jobs than small business jobs. It's the group health insurance that is the cheapest option--and that's usually associated with large corporate benefits. Private health insurance (or small group health insurance) is some of the most expensive health insurance around--and it includes adjusting the rates dependent upon any pre-existing conditions that large corporate benefit insurance policies (covered by 'HIPPA laws') don't. I have heard that Obamacare, supposedly, is going to have those private policies bunched to cheaper rates--but, I'll believe it when I see it. So, the most affordable health insurance policy is tied to corporate jobs--making those positions more in demand than small business jobs that don't have such benefits. And, in typical 'supply and demand' fashion, as more people are competing for the same job, that drives the payment benefits down--but, hey, at least you have health insurance benefits that you can afford, right?

And, what does it mean under Obamacare when a person sees that a 'penalty tax' is their cheapest option because they cannot afford the private health insurance premiums (like those part-time workers from Wendy's are going to likely fall under)? Does them paying a 'penalty tax' offer them any health care benefits at all? Or, is that just more money out of their pocket for no benefit to them? But, perhaps, they are paying for 'someone else's benefits' that can get government programs (that's what all taxpayers have been doing that don't have insurance benefits, anyway--now, just more of it with the 'penalty tax' added to it). That is exactly what Dr. Jill Stein (the Green Party candidate for this last presidential election) said about Obamacare comparing it to her own state of Massachusett's Romneycare--it pits the very poor people (they're government's 'victimhood favorites') up against the not quite so poor people (they're the corporate/government collusion's 'new victims'--but, who's 'speaking for them' now?). The very poor people may get a few more government benefits--but the not quite so poor people are going to pay more into it because of that--and, those not quite so poor people may get nothing out of it for themselves. That's 'fair'.....but, who cares what is 'fair' as long as the corporate/government collusion gets their take on it (in both power and money)--away from the sheeple as the sheeple complacently go along.....but, they didn't really have an option when the word game confines the issue to 'right to health insurance' instead of 'right to health care', right?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Darline wrote:" But maybe the real objective is to create more people dependent on the government by destroying jobs."

poly replies: No Darline. The intent is to pad the bottom line of health insurance firms. They wrote the 2,000+ page bill. Canada's universal health care bill was ten pages. Universal care is pretty simple to implement.

Once again, Dems have been bamboozled by the Corporate State and it's lackies.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Obamcare is not going to be the job creater in the private sector it has been touted as doing. It will probably destroy more jobs than it creates, even including those iot does create in the public sector to enforce its mandates.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

Well, it's function is to pad the bottom line of health insurance firms. It will do that very well. When Obama invited health ins. execs to the White House to discuss what they'd accept....this is it.

A corporate give-away under the guise of reform was brilliant.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Business certainly does not exist without its governmental charter, and is therfore dependent upon the public blessing.

Almost anybody can get an LLC (limited liability corporation charter). It isn't very hard.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 4:59 pm

I believe in the universal right to healthcare with the funding at the General fund level to pay for the medicine/patient driven approach. I want to nationalize the drug business too.

My point is that those who make this big fuss about healthcare v. health insurance are confusing the issue. If the problem is the guarantee of healthcare through the private sector health insurance, I agree that the private sector is a useless redundancy with interest added on.

The politics of Corporate made Single Payer a likely loser in Congress. Blame the right people.

Obamacare is a very mild improvement in a bad design. It is not going to cost us more than we were being ripped off for before Obamacare. It is nowhere near as cost/effective as Single Payer. It will cost us more than the best alternative would, but can you deliver the politics for Single Payer? Otherwise, what is your point other than to join Progressives to keep on pushing for Single Payer?

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote stuff:
Business certainly does not exist without its governmental charter, and is therfore dependent upon the public blessing.

Almost anybody can get an LLC (limited liability corporation charter). It isn't very hard.

The point is not whether it is easy or not, but rather that the public is the ultimate sanction. Whether the public is aware of this responsibility is a different question

Semi permeable memebrain's picture
Semi permeable ...
Joined:
Nov. 10, 2011 8:36 am
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

Businesses are ultimately reponsible to the owners and investers. More and more a larger part of that responsibility (especially startups) is to get over the hurdles and around the roadblocks of government bureauracracy. If a business provides a good service and/or product the public will come. Governmental charter=bureaucratic permission. Public blessing=happy customers.

The arbitrary governmental mandate for a business OR individual to purchase health insurance from a private for profit health insurance corporation is nothing but more corporate/government collusion. So if a business or individual is unable to afford the cost of premiums or even the penalty tax are they to just go out of business and the individual to go without health care? Remember there is a difference in health INSURANCE and health CARE. Many (especially small) businesses operate on very slim margins. But I guess that doesn't matter to the Congresscrooks or odictator OR to socialist moonbats that have no idea what it entails to run a small business. Obamacare will only be good for creating more government bureaucratic jobs to enforce the mandate. AS is typical of government mandates and interference, It will not help and be detrimental to the already dismal job situtation in the private sector. But maybe the real objective is to create more people dependent on the government by destroying jobs.

No. They are superficially responsible to investors. As said elswhere here, they are ultimately responsible to the public who sets up the system to give them private property rights and the legal system to enforce the law.

Semi permeable memebrain's picture
Semi permeable ...
Joined:
Nov. 10, 2011 8:36 am

Private property rights are established in the Constitution. And by public, do you mean government or citizenry? Government only sets up hurdles, hoops and roadblocks, ie licensing, permits, fees, code requirements, bureaucratic delays, etc.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am
No. They are superficially responsible to investors. As said elswhere here, they are ultimately responsible to the public who sets up the system to give them private property rights and the legal system to enforce the law.

Oh, yes, they are directly responsible to owners, who can sell their shares anytime they wish, plunging share prices. When share prices fall, corporate raiders descend, and the first ones the new owners hold responsible is management. I have lived through two corporate takeovers; trust me.

The private property rights of corporations are the same private property rights enjoyed by all of us. You can't start diminishing the rights of one without also diminishing the rights of all the others.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 4:59 pm
I believe in the universal right to healthcare with the funding at the General fund level to pay for the medicine/patient driven approach. I want to nationalize the drug business too.

The catch here is that the Constitution requires "just compensation" for property taken by the government. The assets of the pharmeceutical companies alone must be in the hundreds of billions, if not trillions. Right out of the starting gate the government would incur a tremendous cost without providing anybody a single dollar of care.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 4:59 pm

Uh, uh. It is the national security at risk here. There are plenty of ways to do it that only require the political will and power to declare the Commons not for sale.

There is absolutely nothing about the research, production or distribution of pharms that is helped by having privateers own and operate the system. We need to match the system to our public health priorities rather than to what profit drives. Just think of not having to have those ads on tv! I think we could swing the vote on that point alone.

Seriously, I have had it with the Constitution being used to prevent democracy breaking out. It is like Satan and Scripture.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

Uh, uh. It is the national security at risk here. There are plenty of ways to do it that only require the political will and power to declare the Commons not for sale.

The U.S. Constitution applies even during wartime, or at least it ought to. Whatever Constitutional short-cuts that are taking during wartime are typically overturned once security is restored.

Seriously, I have had it with the Constitution being used to prevent democracy breaking out. It is like Satan and Scripture.

Nevertheless, there you have it.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 4:59 pm
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

Private property rights are established in the Constitution. And by public, do you mean government or citizenry? Government only sets up hurdles, hoops and roadblocks, ie licensing, permits, fees, code requirements, bureaucratic delays, etc.

And the constitution is amenable, and is brought into being in the name of we the people. As to the distinction between government and the citizenry, yes democracy and represenative government is a messy business and I am not here to claim our system is efficient or democratic in any fundamental way. My only point is that in anything approaching a democratic system, the rules which create business and private interest achieve their standing through public sanction

Semi permeable memebrain's picture
Semi permeable ...
Joined:
Nov. 10, 2011 8:36 am
My only point is that in anything approaching a democratic system, the rules which create business and private interest achieve their standing through public sanction

Voters and their elected representatives can enact such laws governing private property rights as they sit fit, but they cannot avoid the consequences of their actions. To paraphrase Hobbes, where the rights of property are insecure, no industry is possible.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 4:59 pm
Quote stuff:
No. They are superficially responsible to investors. As said elswhere here, they are ultimately responsible to the public who sets up the system to give them private property rights and the legal system to enforce the law.

Oh, yes, they are directly responsible to owners, who can sell their shares anytime they wish, plunging share prices. When share prices fall, corporate raiders descend, and the first ones the new owners hold responsible is management. I have lived through two corporate takeovers; trust me.

The private property rights of corporations are the same private property rights enjoyed by all of us. You can't start diminishing the rights of one without also diminishing the rights of all the others.

Wel direct and superficial are not contradictory terms, so I stand by my statement. Corporate rights are not te same as private property rights of all us. For one, limited liability does not apply for all of us. But this really misses the point anyway. The point is not whether private property rights are good or bad, but rather what the ultimate source of their legal standing is

Semi permeable memebrain's picture
Semi permeable ...
Joined:
Nov. 10, 2011 8:36 am
Corporate rights are not te same as private property rights of all us

I didn't say that "corporate rights" are the same, I said that the property rights of corporations are the same as the property rights of individual persons.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 4:59 pm

The point was about the ultimate foundation of private property rights and whether that was consistent with your statement that business need not be concerned with the public interest

Semi permeable memebrain's picture
Semi permeable ...
Joined:
Nov. 10, 2011 8:36 am

The elevation of property rights to personal rights is part of the enclosure of our souls by Commerce.

Economic man is a shriven soul project with the desire of reducing control to technique. It is the price of everything and the value of nothing. Oscar Wilde.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

Control is not relinqueshed to technique. Control is established and maintained through manipulation.

Private and personal rights are a good thing. They are not evil. Government's primary mission should be to secure those rights ( for the individual).

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

Private property rights are established in the Constitution.

I don't think this is correct. Certainly, there is the right to be "justly compensated" when your private property is taken for a "public purpose," but even that seems to have been stood on its head with the Kelo decision.

Almost all of what we could call "private property rights" are found in state laws with the foundation of a couple of hundred years of English common law.

"Property rights" of corporations and individuals may or may not be the same, but other facets of existence, primarily limited liability, but also unlimited life and certain laws regarding agency, are entirely different. And those laws are freely changeable. Everyone might be able to get an LLC today, but California could eliminate all future LLC's tomorrow. California can't restrict my right to move to New York.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote stuff:

I am unaware that businesses have ever been responsible to the public interest. They are responsible to their owners, are they not?

This is absolutely correct, and that's how it should be. In fact, corporate altruism is illegal.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote drc2:

My point is that those who make this big fuss about healthcare v. health insurance are confusing the issue. If the problem is the guarantee of healthcare through the private sector health insurance, I agree that the private sector is a useless redundancy with interest added on.

No, on the contrary, drc2, those that equate health insurance to health care are the ones confusing the issue. Is 'car insurance insurance' that same thing as 'cars'? The payment option is not the product. How you think it is and how you think it relates to care just confounds the issue--especially if any and all payment options DO NOT cover everyone--and Obamacare DOES NOT cover everyone. And, those who are left out are still left out--so, how does this really address the problem IF you think that health care is a universal right? In fact, as I keep asking, what do those who pay the 'penalty tax' really get from that extra payment out of their lives? Do they get health care benefits? Or, is that used to pay for someone else? And, how is that universal? In fact, how is that fair? In fact, from the premise of 'equal application of the law' (or is that 'confusing the issue' to the victimhood triumphancy proponents that don't want 'rights' to determine any aspect of government?), how does government 'playing (victimhood) favorites' do that? You are the one confusing the issue.....

Quote drc2:

The politics of Corporate made Single Payer a likely loser in Congress. Blame the right people.

Well, 'blaming the right people' doesn't really solve the problem, does it, drc2? What would really solve the problem with respect to health care would be to establish the purpose in which it should be applied--and, then, be consistent with that application. But, 'the fence riders' don't seem to understand how their part in 'splitting the difference'--or, as my mother used to say, 'pitting the two halves against the middle'--are helping sustain this problem, they aren't 'solving it', either--and, then, claiming who the 'right person to blame' isn't solving it, either.

The right way to solve it is to consider the manner in which it is to be applied and be consistent with that--not 'offer it one way from government' to some people and, then, turn around and do something different for others. And, it certainly doesn't help when some actually do get it at little to no cost to them (as if a right), others are responsible for paying that for them, but, then, those that are responsible in paying taxes for someone else to receive it have to pay separately (to another entity) for them to get it themselves. That form of 'double dipping' just invites corruption and irresponsible management from both 'payment sources'. Once and for all, is health care a right to all? And, if it is not a right to all, why is it a right to any? Government shouldn't be 'playing (victimhood) favorites' because, in doing so, just like how Dr. Jill Stein described this, it makes other people victims (those in the position to have to pay out more and receive less---the 'penalty tax payers'). Does that not matter to those that think that health insurance is the same thing as health care? How about less blame and more thought on how to resolve the problem, drc2? Obamacare isn't going to do it--in fact, Obamacare is likely to make it worse.....it keeps an unfair system sustaining inconsistent applications of health care with inconsistent motives of payment options in place.....and keeps gouging the taxpaying consumers (who pay for all of it) in doing so.....to the advantage of the collusion this works with between corporations and government.....as government still pays for what is paid for the most expensive patients (at the taxpayers' expense) so that corporations can reep more profits from the less expensive patients (at the consumers' expense--but, once again, the taxpayer and the consumer in this are usually the same person being 'double dipped' against).....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
The point was about the ultimate foundation of private property rights and whether that was consistent with your statement that business need not be concerned with the public interest

I didn't say they need not, I said they are not. Corporate executives--the topic of this thread--are and must be concerned with the financial interests of the owners, if they wish to keep their jobs, that is.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 4:59 pm
Quote chilidog:
Quote stuff:

I am unaware that businesses have ever been responsible to the public interest. They are responsible to their owners, are they not?

This is absolutely correct, and that's how it should be. In fact, corporate altruism is illegal.

Explanation would be preferable to exclamation. Law is made by a process. Law guides the rules to which you refer. They are the underlying and primary effect. I am submitting laws in this country are explicity stated to be made by the people .Again the outcome of the process may allow for a playing field similar to the case being made by the anti public interest types arguing here.However, IMHO the arguments presented here continually ignore this basic fact and contine to only point to an effect of this process as opposed to the underlying primary cause.

Semi permeable memebrain's picture
Semi permeable ...
Joined:
Nov. 10, 2011 8:36 am
The elevation of property rights to personal rights is part of the enclosure of our souls by Commerce.

Economic man is a shriven soul project with the desire of reducing control to technique. It is the price of everything and the value of nothing. Oscar Wilde.

Quote Thomas Hobbes:Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 4:59 pm
I don't think this is correct.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides:

No person shall be .. deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 4:59 pm
Quote stuff:
The point was about the ultimate foundation of private property rights and whether that was consistent with your statement that business need not be concerned with the public interest

I didn't say they need not, I said they are not. Corporate executives--the topic of this thread--are and must be concerned with the financial interests of the owners, if they wish to keep their jobs, that is.

A distinction without a difference in my opinion. I am not necessarily disagreeing with the limited frame you suggest, but I am claiming that at least in theory this frame falls within a larger one which iremains consistently unacknowledged here The basic unacknowledged fact regards the ultimate source of power, or at least the one that is proclaimed in our constituion. Whether the public ever cghoose to use it is a different question, and thier seeming apathy in doing so does lead to the conclusion that business can do whatever it pleases

Semi permeable memebrain's picture
Semi permeable ...
Joined:
Nov. 10, 2011 8:36 am
IMHO the arguments presented here continually ignore this basic fact and contine to only point to an effect of this process as opposed to the underlying primary cause.

Let me put this differently.

In the broadest sense, corporations are chartered because it is in the public's interest to have industry, arts, commerce, employment, and so forth. Certainly no corporation dedicated to the destruction of the public's interest would be tolerated, for example, no crime syndicate charters, no child pornography charters, no assassin for hire charters, and so on.

It is also in the interest of the public to encourage entrepreneurship and fair rates of return on invested capital. To accomplish this, private property rights are elemental and it is in the public's interest to guard and protect those rights.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 4:59 pm
Quote Semi permeable:

No. They (businesses) are superficially responsible to investors. As said elswhere here, they are ultimately responsible to the public who sets up the system to give them private property rights and the legal system to enforce the law.

And, how do they honor the public interest other than by paying off public officials? And, how does that confirm the public interest?

Some of us may not have as big a problem with government spending if you could get corruption out of government. But, how are you going to do that? And, certainly, how are you going to do that with a government that sees no obligation to 'all its people' being reasonably met because, after all, it gets to 'play victimhood favorites' (which, also, means it will be able to grant unequal advantages) and can use such an excuse to promote its own corrupted interests (because it doesn't have to explain its actions as if 'all the people' were to have to understand it)--along with the businesses that collude with it....

Quote stuff:

The private property rights of corporations are the same private property rights enjoyed by all of us. You can't start diminishing the rights of one without also diminishing the rights of all the others.

Corporations aren't 'all the people'--and I disagree with corporations getting any rights on its own as if it is 'any of the people'.....right in line with any other organization that I don't think deserves their own 'rights'.....God doesn't 'create corporations', government does....and, just like what God creates, God can take away--what government creates, government can take away....but, it won't do so as long as the 'public officials' are in collusion with (and corrupted by) the very corporations such officials sanction in 'creating'.....so, in that manner, I agree with Thom Hartman, corporations don't 'exist on their own' and shouldn't try having their existence justified as if they had 'the right to exist' but, rather, prove the purpose of their existence to the government that charters it--that would be more consistent with 'public interest'--but, instead of that, 'we' have a government that claims for corporations 'corporate rights'.....as 'we' apparently have no problem having medicine in America determined by 'right to health insurance (a corporate interest)' instead of 'right to health care (a personal interest)'.....and, by such a declaration, continuing the charade of offering American medicine as by 'corporations with customers' instead of 'doctors with patients'....

But, then, when you have people like drc2 that can't see the difference between health insurance and health care, can't see how emphasizing 'the right to health insurance' keeps corporations with customers' in control over 'the industry' instead of 'the right to health care' that would emphasize 'the industry's' management of 'doctors with patients', you can see how 'the people' can get played by corporations with government.....and, that doesn't matter? Just turn around a 'blame somebody else' but yourself, right, drc2? As you have 'faith' that Obamacare (that doesn't address nor answer the question as to whether 'health care is a right' or not) is going to be any different.....

Quote stuff:

The U.S. Constitution applies even during wartime, or at least it ought to. Whatever Constitutional short-cuts that are taking during wartime are typically overturned once security is restored.

We'll never have 'complete security' since 'we' have created a 'war' against a 'stateless enemy' like 'terrorists' are (when it would have been more appropriate to have addressed them as the 'organized criminals' that they are). How does 'war' defeat a 'stateless enemy'? In the meantime, habeus corpus, personal rights to privacy, and increasing the imposition of 'executive orders' (even coming from such a 'nice guy' as Obama) will continue to encroach on anything considered to be a 'constitutional right' to real persons--but, perhaps the 'constitutional rights' to corporations will be continued (more of those 'unequal advantages') to be enhanced as drc2 and others are looking for the 'proper ones to blame', otherwise...

Quote drc2:

.The elevation of property rights to personal rights is part of the enclosure of our souls by Commerce.

Oh, you don't think personal rights can involve property rights, drc2? Or, are you going to throw the baby out with the bath water and in discarding corporate property rights, you are going to discard personal property rights? And, when there is no door to private property for persons, what is that going to do with any rights to privacy? At least the door to private property has authorities have to hesitate to justify their entrance before barging in--but, that's going by the wayside as ones like you seem to have no problem throwing that baby out with the corporate bathwater as the police state ('controlling our enemies'--especially the 'stateless enemies') gets more imposing--think 'Patriot Act' and even the executive orders that Obama 'agrees to'.....all justified impositions against the constitution (that you apparently don't mind) because 'we' are 'AT WAR'--with a 'stateless enemy' that no 'war' can ever actually 'win'.....or, how does a 'war' defeat a 'stateless enemy' like 'terrorism'? Is it enough just to ignore that question, also, on your way to 'finding the right blame', otherwise? As if blame by itself were--or even could be--the solution....

Quote darlinedarline1:

Private and personal rights are a good thing. They are not evil. Government's primary mission should be to secure those rights ( for the individual).

Apparently not if you have government asserting itself 'for the right victims' (not 'all individuals') as it allows corporations to 'profit from that unequal assertion (directly and indirectly)' just like what happens in medicine in America today with the collusion of government with corporations--and as is still endorsed by Obamacare--as more and more will be extracted from the taxpaying consumers for it.....and, just like you said, basically just about any corporate business up against small businesses and individual persons in many 'aspects of government'....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote stuff:
My only point is that in anything approaching a democratic system, the rules which create business and private interest achieve their standing through public sanction

Voters and their elected representatives can enact such laws governing private property rights as they sit fit, but they cannot avoid the consequences of their actions. To paraphrase Hobbes, where the rights of property are insecure, no industry is possible.

In some ways this is a contradiction since 'insecurity' is the driving force of capitalism and compettion. Todays property can be gone by tomorrows changes whether they be initiated by the will of the public through standard marketplace mechanisms or by other forms of public pressure

Though I missed this post for some time and will admit you do indeed address the fac that the pulic has the right tio treat property rights as it chooses.

The language of private property conveys a holiness and sanctity of the untouchable.It lumpifies nuanced examination into this kind of bizzare amorphus land of ethical ambiguity with a backdrop of clean economic efficiency. Rarely do I hear it mentioned that we can draw a pretty clear distinctio between personal private property and that of the property of the business or businessperson. In particular when it comes to the type of private property individuals identify as theri personal belongings, clothes, cars houses, weapons, etc .Yet the private property of business and economics does not occur on such a personal or isolated level. Economic activity requires 'interaction' with the dynamic of public trade and the public discussion of 'how' such trade will be networked Private in this context tends to give off the connotation "not cooperating" with holistic interaction IMHO

Semi permeable memebrain's picture
Semi permeable ...
Joined:
Nov. 10, 2011 8:36 am

Yes they are. The 4th and 5th amendements protect private property rights. At least they are supposed to. But an overreaching government that ignores the Constitution can, I guess, do whart they want with respect to private property rights.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

Kerry- I am really not trying to comment on the way our system of government actually functions or executes its claimed fundamental principles. I really cannot address all the problems you are tossing my way. In short, the media and the sociology of marketing must first be addressed before we ever have a public consciousness capable of taking on a real rational democratric republic or whatever you wish to call it. Additionally, I do believe scale matters, and that re-evaluating the nature of federal government, and the centralization question in general, is going to be an important step in a government and economics which honors the planet and the needs of our fellow inhabitant

Let me add that I started the the work and the left thread here recently which in a way dealth wih your concerns of victimhood. the premise was more on the line that the pseudo working class forces that be seem more interested in creating a dependency state than one that activley promotes work opportunity for the seemingly less capable in finding work.

But in short, and for the moment, I do not see the lack of succesful public input as a cause to increase the power of the elite which I believe to be the main underlying premise here

Semi permeable memebrain's picture
Semi permeable ...
Joined:
Nov. 10, 2011 8:36 am

Currently Chatting

End. Fracking. Now!

California is already dealing with the worst drought in that state's history. So, the last thing residents needed was to learn that some of their dwindling water supply has been contaminated.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system