In order for us to be on the same page, we need to debate this from a little different angle. Do you believe that employment is a contract? If yes, then 2 sides agree on the conditions, like I work 8 hour a day and you pay me $100. What can and cannot do the employee, if the he doesn't like the pay? I am really curious where you got the "socialist" ideas, for lack of the better word, you tell me the right word.
In order for us to be on the same page, we need to debate this from a little different angle. Do you believe that employment is a contract? If yes, then 2 sides agree on the conditions, like I work 8 hour a day and you pay me $100. What can and cannot do the employee, if the he doesn't like the pay?
Yep, that's how employment generally works. I have no disagreements on that stuff.
OK, the benefits are part of compensation, right? Then they can offer any benefits they like; the employee is free to take it, negotiate or reject the contract. The employee cannot force the employer to enter into the specific contract, right? He can't demand the employer to pay him wages he thinks he deserves. So, where does the logic of demanding specific health benefits fit in?
Absolute equality is not attainable. Even 2 men never get the same wage/package, because it is not possible to measure exactly and objectively the amount of employee contributions to the business. I am sure you have seen unhappy employees because they thought they weren't appreciated enough, or resentful ones that thought the college with higher pay wasn't doing good job. In most companies employee share of health insurance is the same regardless age or condition. But some people use a lot more of care then others, in some cases the difference is paid by the company. Do you want to count this portion as a compensation too. In one word, life is very complex and it's not possible to make it absolutely equal or fair. From the other hand, by making something equal, we usually make something else unequal. What is the best approach? I think, fine tuning is the way to go. I already told you about regulated systems, top down command systems are not the best ones. As you see, my reasoning is pragmatism. Agree?
No two people are equal, obviously. Yet our country is based on the concept that regardless of differences, everyone is equal.
But some people use a lot more of care then others, in some cases the difference is paid by the company.
Do you know how insurance companies work? They cover many, many people, collect premiums from many, many people, and use those many, many small payments to cover the needs of the few.
In one word, life is very complex and it's not possible to make it absolutely equal or fair.
No shit. Just because something is difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't try at all.
From the other hand, by making something equal, we usually make something else unequal.
our country is based on the concept that regardless of differences, everyone is equal. You wrong-everyone is not equal, but has equal rights. Big difference.
Of course I know how insurance works. Some company are self insured, which means that they collect premiums and then pay for services from their own pocket. Note, I said some companies.
Just because something is difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't try at all. Fools learn from their mistakes, clever - from fools' mistakes. It was tried by others. From the other hand, the idea of being somebody's experiment isn't very attractive to me - I'm too old for that. As we all know, usually older people are conservative, one day you'll be too. I am not patronizing, just warning. If society wants to try something new, it's should be done very carefully and thoughtfully. That wasn't the case with aca. I know that you aren't brainwashed zombie, but honest person and will agree with that statement.
I disagree, but we can leave that to personal opinion.
...but has equal rights.
This is exactly my point, though. Why do you think female employees should have fewer rights than male employees?
Some company are self insured, which means that they collect premiums and then pay for services from their own pocket.
Yep, and either way, by blocking birth control Hobby Lobby will be paying more directly as a self-insurer or paying higher premiums as a normal insurer.
...one day you'll be too.
I like to think I have higher standards than that. :)
Why do you think female employees should have fewer rights than male employees? No, I think women should have more rights then men, we deserve it, in general. I don't think female employee should have less rights at all. My whole point was that the issue we talking about is not about rights, but about individual contract. If we consider free contraception a right, then we have to consider all other material goods as right too. What is more important that or food? How about shelter? Who deserves more sympathy - a woman with a job who has to pay for her own contraception or a homeless person in NYC in February? Doesn't he have a right for a roof? This is a reason I call it a phony issue. You see how far we can go. In my humble opinion, this is exactly the reason left pushes not important issues like free contraception. They are testing the ground with little issues that most don't care. I see people saying - let them have it. Then, the next step, and another little one - forward towards socialism. Does it make any sense to you?
by blocking birth control Hobby Lobby will be paying more directly If they want to pay more, fine. Who I am to tell them pay more or less? If their business decision isn't so good, they will pay for it. I am for freedom.
I like to think I have higher standards than that. Do you mean my standards are lower then yours? Maybe, but my standards are realistic.
It's not free, the person is working a job for it. But, as we discussed the person can't set her own compensation. It is an agreement, so both sides have to agree.
Yes, Article 25. Does it mean that if he can't afford it, somebody has to provide it for him?
Nothing is more anti-woman, then pro-abortion.
I want to live in country of laws, not country of group pressures. Are you just having fun by teasing me?
Should it be allowed to pay women less because they are women? Women aren't paid less, men don't get free contraception either. The main thing is that they pay whatever they want and nobody is obligated to take the offer. I think people rather have higher wages then something free they might don't even want.
Nothing is more anti-woman, then pro-abortion. Everybody with a little life experience knows that. Have you ever heard about "maternal instinct"? Did you read "American Tragedy". Men are a lot more interested in abortion then women.
Who are referring as a marginalized group? What law are you talking about? Is it the one that government already broke like 100 times?
We should be talking about corruption, not silly topics like this. But if we do fight each other, then we won't have time for serious things. Isn't it convenient for some?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
lafinjack.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
politicartoons2014-06-30 10:39 am
no subject
no subject
no subject
If yes, then 2 sides agree on the conditions, like I work 8 hour a day and you pay me $100. What can and cannot do the employee, if the he doesn't like the pay?
I am really curious where you got the "socialist" ideas, for lack of the better word, you tell me the right word.
no subject
Yep, that's how employment generally works. I have no disagreements on that stuff.
no subject
no subject
no subject
In most companies employee share of health insurance is the same regardless age or condition. But some people use a lot more of care then others, in some cases the difference is paid by the company. Do you want to count this portion as a compensation too. In one word, life is very complex and it's not possible to make it absolutely equal or fair. From the other hand, by making something equal, we usually make something else unequal. What is the best approach? I think, fine tuning is the way to go. I already told you about regulated systems, top down command systems are not the best ones.
As you see, my reasoning is pragmatism. Agree?
no subject
No two people are equal, obviously. Yet our country is based on the concept that regardless of differences, everyone is equal.
But some people use a lot more of care then others, in some cases the difference is paid by the company.
Do you know how insurance companies work? They cover many, many people, collect premiums from many, many people, and use those many, many small payments to cover the needs of the few.
In one word, life is very complex and it's not possible to make it absolutely equal or fair.
No shit. Just because something is difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't try at all.
From the other hand, by making something equal, we usually make something else unequal.
Such as?
no subject
You wrong-everyone is not equal, but has equal rights. Big difference.
Of course I know how insurance works. Some company are self insured, which means that they collect premiums and then pay for services from their own pocket. Note, I said some companies.
Just because something is difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't try at all.
Fools learn from their mistakes, clever - from fools' mistakes. It was tried by others. From the other hand, the idea of being somebody's experiment isn't very attractive to me - I'm too old for that. As we all know, usually older people are conservative, one day you'll be too. I am not patronizing, just warning.
If society wants to try something new, it's should be done very carefully and thoughtfully. That wasn't the case with aca. I know that you aren't brainwashed zombie, but honest person and will agree with that statement.
no subject
I disagree, but we can leave that to personal opinion.
...but has equal rights.
This is exactly my point, though. Why do you think female employees should have fewer rights than male employees?
Some company are self insured, which means that they collect premiums and then pay for services from their own pocket.
Yep, and either way, by blocking birth control Hobby Lobby will be paying more directly as a self-insurer or paying higher premiums as a normal insurer.
...one day you'll be too.
I like to think I have higher standards than that. :)
no subject
No, I think women should have more rights then men, we deserve it, in general.
I don't think female employee should have less rights at all. My whole point was that the issue we talking about is not about rights, but about individual contract. If we consider free contraception a right, then we have to consider all other material goods as right too. What is more important that or food? How about shelter? Who deserves more sympathy - a woman with a job who has to pay for her own contraception or a homeless person in NYC in February? Doesn't he have a right for a roof? This is a reason I call it a phony issue. You see how far we can go.
In my humble opinion, this is exactly the reason left pushes not important issues like free contraception. They are testing the ground with little issues that most don't care. I see people saying - let them have it. Then, the next step, and another little one - forward towards socialism. Does it make any sense to you?
by blocking birth control Hobby Lobby will be paying more directly
If they want to pay more, fine. Who I am to tell them pay more or less? If their business decision isn't so good, they will pay for it. I am for freedom.
I like to think I have higher standards than that.
Do you mean my standards are lower then yours? Maybe, but my standards are realistic.
no subject
It's not free, the person is working a job for it.
Doesn't he have a right for a roof?
Yes, Article 25. (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a25)
...this is exactly the reason left pushes not important issues...
This issue was pushed by the right by being anti-woman.
Who I am to tell them pay more or less?
Then why do you live in a country of laws?
no subject
But, as we discussed the person can't set her own compensation. It is an agreement, so both sides have to agree.
Yes, Article 25.
Does it mean that if he can't afford it, somebody has to provide it for him?
Nothing is more anti-woman, then pro-abortion.
I want to live in country of laws, not country of group pressures.
Are you just having fun by teasing me?
no subject
Sure. Should it be allowed to pay women less because they are women?
Nothing is more anti-woman, then pro-abortion.
How do you figure?
I want to live in country of laws, not country of group pressures.
Why is Hobby Lobby allowed to skirt the law and apply pressure to a marginalized group?
no subject
Women aren't paid less, men don't get free contraception either. The main thing is that they pay whatever they want and nobody is obligated to take the offer. I think people rather have higher wages then something free they might don't even want.
Nothing is more anti-woman, then pro-abortion.
Everybody with a little life experience knows that. Have you ever heard about "maternal instinct"? Did you read "American Tragedy". Men are a lot more interested in abortion then women.
Who are referring as a marginalized group? What law are you talking about? Is it the one that government already broke like 100 times?
We should be talking about corruption, not silly topics like this. But if we do fight each other, then we won't have time for serious things. Isn't it convenient for some?