Health reform lawsuit appears headed for Supreme Court - Polidicks

[QUOTE='[sluggo];32512706']Yes, I do. But the content of my posts, and the quality of insults you can spew at me is not what we should be discussing. Personaly I am tired of you "Anyone Who doesn't agree with me is an evil racist bigoted idiot" nonsense. [/quote] I've seen a lot more posts complaining about being called a bigoted racist than I've seen posts calling you a bigoted racist. [quote] Can you please explain to me regulations help the economy? Or why should we let politicians with no business experience decide what is best for business through regulations?[/QUOTE] Did it ever occur to you that maybe regulations aren't about what's best for business, but what's best for the people?

[QUOTE=-Mud-;32512852]I've seen a lot more posts complaining about being called a bigoted racist than I've seen posts calling you a bigoted racist. Did it ever occur to you that maybe regulations aren't about what's best for business, but what's best for the people?[/QUOTE] Well, if industry is so heavily regulated, it is worse for the people. Sure health and safety regulations are fine, but why do you need to fill out 50 applications to get a loan? If it costs more to hire and train employees than they will make your business, why should they hire?

It seems to me that this entire discussion would be a whole lot more palatable if the first thing people did when they saw someone express a dissenting opinion was something other than a personal attack with no logic behind it, designed purely to discredit their argument without actually having to try. To Glaber's credit, he has yet to attack anyone, despite all the shit everyone seems to give him.

[QUOTE=dialogical;32513040]It seems to me that this entire discussion would be a whole lot more palatable if the first thing people did when they saw someone express a dissenting opinion was something other than a personal attack with no logic behind it, designed purely to discredit their argument without actually having to try. To Glaber's credit, he has yet to attack anyone, despite all the shit everyone seems to give him.[/QUOTE] His argument often consists of little more than him going "OBJECTION!" and posting some biased article every now and again. Occasionally he'll make some actual attempt at it, but most of the time it's just "Oh yeah, well Obama did something bad once too!". [editline]27th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE='[sluggo];32512899']Well, if industry is so heavily regulated, it is worse for the people. Sure health and safety regulations are fine, but why do you need to fill out 50 applications to get a loan? If it costs more to hire and train employees than they will make your business, why should they hire?[/QUOTE] Why do I get the impression you know very little about regulation with that "50 applications to get a loan" thing? Cite specific regulations that you claim are "hurting business". The Affordable Care Act is null for this, considering it will at this point cost more to repeal than to simply implement.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32513240]His argument often consists of little more than him going "OBJECTION!" and posting some biased article every now and again. Occasionally he'll make some actual attempt at it, but most of the time it's just "Oh yeah, well Obama did something bad once too!". [editline]27th September 2011[/editline] Why do I get the impression you know very little about regulation with that "50 applications to get a loan" thing? Cite specific regulations that you claim are "hurting business". The Affordable Care Act is null for this, considering it will at this point cost more to repeal than to simply implement.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98164,00.html[/url] Don't just read the headings, there is allot more things within the text. The first link leads to this: [url]http://www.socialsecurity.gov/employer/pub.htm[/url] This link claims you need to in total fill out 12 forms, which then needs to be approved. Then all of this is involved: [url]http://www.irs.gov/publications/p51/index.html[/url] And this: [url]http://www.irs.gov/publications/p505/index.html[/url] Then this, on hiring foreign workers: [url]http://www.ssa.gov/employer/hiring.htm[/url] Which leads to these: [url]http://www.irs.gov/instructions/iw2w3/index.html[/url] [url]http://www.ssa.gov/employer/how.htm#how[/url] ------------------------------------------------------ Seems like a bit much, just for hiring one person. [editline]27th September 2011[/editline] Also, Check out these: [url]http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=97877,00.html[/url] [url]http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040sh.pdf[/url] [url]http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040sh.pdf[/url] [url]http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10021.html[/url] [url]http://www.irs.gov/publications/p15a/index.html[/url] [url]http://www.irs.gov/publications/p926/index.html[/url] [editline]27th September 2011[/editline] BTW Look at all of the links those provide.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];32513524']The first link leads to this: [url]http://www.socialsecurity.gov/employer/pub.htm[/url][/quote] I went over it, counted around 6/7 forms, and only 7 if you're employing in Puerto Rico. [QUOTE='[sluggo];32513524']This link claims you need to in total fill out 12 forms, which then needs to be approved.[/quote] Uh, no. See above. [QUOTE='[sluggo];32513524'][url]http://www.irs.gov/publications/p51/index.html[/url][/quote] On this I see 1 form (Form 943), and some information about agricultural tax. It seems like you just picked a page with a lot of words and sections, and thought it would come out to lots of cumbersome regulation. [QUOTE='[sluggo];32513524']And this: [url]http://www.irs.gov/publications/p505/index.html[/url] Then this, on hiring foreign workers: [url]http://www.ssa.gov/employer/hiring.htm[/url] Which leads to these: [url]http://www.irs.gov/instructions/iw2w3/index.html[/url] [url]http://www.ssa.gov/employer/how.htm#how[/url] ------------------------------------------------------ Seems like a bit much, just for hiring one person. [editline]27th September 2011[/editline] Also, Check out these: [url]http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=97877,00.html[/url] [url]http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040sh.pdf[/url] [url]http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040sh.pdf[/url] [url]http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10021.html[/url] [url]http://www.irs.gov/publications/p15a/index.html[/url] [url]http://www.irs.gov/publications/p926/index.html[/url][/QUOTE] These are all the finer details of specific policies. If your complaint is that there's "too much law" and a lot of reading involved in knowing what the law is, then that's just lazy. When I post a source I include quotes from the source that demonstrate my point. You shouldn't expect your opponent to go through your sources for you to find your argument.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32513642]I went over it, counted around 6/7 forms, and only 7 if you're employing in Puerto Rico. Uh, no. See above. On this I see 1 form (Form 943), and some information about agricultural tax. It seems like you just picked a page with a lot of words and sections, and thought it would come out to lots of cumbersome regulation. These are all the finer details of specific policies. If your complaint is that there's "too much law" and a lot of reading involved in knowing what the law is, then that's just lazy. When I post a source I include quotes from the source that demonstrate my point. You shouldn't expect your opponent to go through your sources for you to find your argument.[/QUOTE] I am making an argument that there is just to much law. It is highly cumbersum just to have to abide by so many things.

I guess what I'm saying is can we instead focus on the issues? I there argument is flawed, point it out. There's no need to point it out, then call them a retard. All these discussion turn into shit flinging extravaganzas. I wasn't picking on any one person, just it seems a little civility could go a long way in maintaining a constructive dialogue. Also, these would be a lot more constructive if we treated them like discussions, and not debates. If you enter one of these threads so entrenched in your beliefs that you are unwilling to look at the other side, then there can be no advancement. No one person is totally right in these threads. We all have pieces and idea that when used together can create a peaceful agreement. It's in the compromise.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];32513693']I am making an argument that there is just to much law. It is highly cumbersum just to have to abide by so many things.[/QUOTE] Your argument is that there's too much to read? Are you kidding me?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32513804]Your argument is that there's too much to read? Are you kidding me?[/QUOTE] I don't think you understand. With that much law, it would take weeks for a small business owner to hire an employee, and read just what they have to do with that employee. Plus, all of it is so filled with loopholes for big businesses that they will be able to get rid of all of it. It is not only hugely cumbersum, big completely unfair to small businesses.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32513804]Your argument is that there's too much to read? Are you kidding me?[/QUOTE] readin' is 'ard [editline]27th September 2011[/editline] so's spellin'

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32513804]Your argument is that there's too much to read? Are you kidding me?[/QUOTE] And that there are so many quadruple and beyond negatives that you need a team of lawyers and a scratch pad to find out what is and isn't covered under the law.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];32514126']I don't think you understand. With that much law, it would take weeks for a small business owner to hire an employee, and read just what they have to do with that employee. Plus, all of it is so filled with loopholes for big businesses that they will be able to get rid of all of it. It is not only hugely cumbersum, big completely unfair to small businesses.[/QUOTE] How can you say this when you don't even know how to spell the word cumbersome? I think a small business owner can manage it a bit better than you.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32514264]How can you say this when you don't even know how to spell the word cumbersome? I think a small business owner can manage it a bit better than you.[/QUOTE] Sinse when have we been disussing my spelling ability? Every time I debate someone here I have to put the conversation back on track, and pull it away from insults towards people with different opinions. My spelling skill has always been horrible, and it doesn't matter. Anyway, please actually challenge my points.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];32514337']Sinse when have we been disussing my spelling ability? Every time I debate someone here I have to put the conversation back on track, and pull it away from insults towards people with different opinions. My spelling skill has always been horrible, and it doesn't matter. Anyway, please actually challenge my points.[/QUOTE] Your argument is that it's be hard for employers to understand law and that there's too much of it, and so they don't hire. I find it very hard to take that kind of argument seriously if you can barely spell your words correctly.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32514393]Your argument is that it's be hard for employers to understand law and that there's too much of it, and so they don't hire. I find it very hard to take that kind of argument seriously if you can barely spell your words correctly.[/QUOTE] I find it hard to take you serious when you cannot challange my points.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];32514439']I find it hard to take you serious when you cannot challange my points.[/QUOTE] Okay, if you really think I'm not "challenging your points", let's go back to your last "point": [quote]I don't think you understand. With that much law, it would take weeks for a small business owner to hire an employee, and read just what they have to do with that employee. Plus, all of it is so filled with loopholes for big businesses that they will be able to get rid of all of it. It is not only hugely cumbersum, big completely unfair to small businesses.[/quote] This is fairly simple to solve. Find a law consultant, have them draw up a summary of the requirements, and there you go. Even if you can't do that, what makes you think that it would take "weeks" to read or figure out? Your point is based on nothing but speculation.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32514519]Okay, if you really think I'm not "challenging your points", let's go back to your last "point": This is fairly simple to solve. Find a law consultant, have them draw up a summary of the requirements, and there you go. Even if you can't do that, what makes you think that it would take "weeks" to read or figure out? Your point is based on nothing but speculation.[/QUOTE] A consultant will cost a good deal of money to hire. Money that any small business may not be willing to pay, when they are already taking a risk hiring an employee. Why should they have to pay money just to know what to do to spend more money, which they may get sued because of, or may not get a return on. If it is no longer profitable, do to regulations, to hire an employee, why should an employee be hired?

[QUOTE=Glaber;32508097] You are not being forced to buy a good or service when being taxed as Tax is not a good or service. Taxes are how the government gets funded. A form of fee that Section 8 of the US Constitution gives the US and State level governments the authority to collect that can be placed on a good and/or service regardless of weather you like it or not. If You honestly think that taxes are a good or service, well then you're worse off than me.[/QUOTE] "The individual mandate is a requirement that all individuals who can afford health-care insurance purchase some minimally comprehensive policy. For the purposes of the law, "individuals who can afford health-care insurance" is defined as people for whom the minimum policy will not cost more than 8 percent of their monthly income, and who make more than the poverty line. So if coverage would cost more than 8 percent of your monthly income, or you're making very little, you're not on the hook to buy insurance (and, because of other provisions in the law, you're getting subsidies that make insurance virtually costless anyway). Most people will never notice the mandate, as they get insurance through their employer and that's good enough for the government. But of those who aren't exempt and aren't insured, the choice will be this: Purchase insurance or pay a small fine. In 2016, the first year the fine is fully in place, it will be $695 a year or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is higher. That makes the mandate progressive. " Why is defence, law enforcement, public libraries, public parks, public roads and fire protection not services, but healthcare is? [editline]28th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE='[sluggo];32512045']I hope it is gone as soon as possible. Regulation hurts business.[/QUOTE] Eisenhower disagrees with you. [editline]28th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE='[sluggo];32512706']Can you please explain to me regulations help the economy?[/quote] Company regulations is more of a worker and consumer rights issue, not so much of a fix all issue. Wages, hours, pensions, benefits, sick days, all of these things that are guaranteed through law, are regulation. Now, specifically, it depends on which company. Banking regulations ensure consumer security, HMO regulation ensures patient security, enviornmental regulation ensures the security of, well, then entire fucking planet. [quote]Or why should we let politicians with no business experience decide what is best for business through regulations?[/QUOTE] They don't decide business practices. They don't run a business, they regulate what they can't do to the human beings that make up their company, inside and out.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];32514717']A consultant will cost a good deal of money to hire. Money that any small business may not be willing to pay, when they are already taking a risk hiring an employee. Why should they have to pay money just to know what to do to spend more money, which they may get sued because of, or may not get a return on. If it is no longer profitable, do to regulations, to hire an employee, why should an employee be hired?[/QUOTE] So just get the forms sent out, fill them out, and send them back. This isn't an impossible task.

[QUOTE=Ridge;32514224]And that there are so many quadruple and beyond negatives that you need a team of lawyers and a scratch pad to find out what is and isn't covered under the law.[/QUOTE] Not in any way shape or form, a quick look on the wikipedia details exactly what comes into effect and when. Anyone with google can find out in under 5 minutes, even people effected the most by this law; businesses. It's a reform of the entire United States healthcare system, and you're surprised it's a bit big? There's a reason why things that take into effect are being spaced over the course of the next few years.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32514875]So just get the forms sent out, fill them out, and send them back. This isn't an impossible task.[/QUOTE] No, but it is one that might discourage a new business owner.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];32514717']A consultant will cost a good deal of money to hire. Money that any small business may not be willing to pay, when they are already taking a risk hiring an employee. Why should they have to pay money just to know what to do to spend more money, which they may get sued because of, or may not get a return on. If it is no longer profitable, do to regulations, to hire an employee, why should an employee be hired?[/QUOTE] If you did any research you'd find out that most businesses effected by this law are large corporations, and this bill attempts to protect the finances of small businesses while encouraging them to provide healthcare options to employees. NOW, the bill isn't forcing them too, though there are some mandatory things that will effect them, but again, a quick glance online will give you your answers. But if they choose to follow the bill and give to their workers, they will receive a 10% tax credit per year. I'm sure that'd be enough to hire a consultant if you're so exceptionally unable to do it yourself. Businesses spend massive amounts of money in excess fees per year, even if this wasn't the case, a consultant would be pittance.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];32514974']No, but it is one that might discourage a new business owner.[/QUOTE] Oh don't be ridiculous. You really think the bigger companies that are achieving record profits are being "discouraged" from hiring because they might have to send for a few forms or hire a legal consultant if worst came to worst? Okay, so maybe the owner of a local ice cream shop is unaware of what he actually needs to do, that's going to happen no matter what kind of regulation you have in place, and wouldn't improve in any kind of free market. What new business owner is just going to say "eh, I could fill out these forms to get some new staff, but fuck it"?

[QUOTE='[sluggo];32514974']No, but it is one that might discourage a new business owner.[/QUOTE] On top of what, sluggo? The entire risk of starting a new business, buying new property to base your business out of, developing inventory, trying not to rack up legal fees, hiring staff, developing a stable work environment for them, AND trying to make your business start off? It's pence compared to the rest of your expenditures. And if you're a small business, it's actually beneficial to them. They get tax credits and insurance breaks.

[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32514928]Not in any way shape or form, a quick look on the wikipedia details exactly what comes into effect and when. Anyone with google can find out in under 5 minutes, even people effected the most by this law; businesses. It's a reform of the entire United States healthcare system, and you're surprised it's a bit big? There's a reason why things that take into effect are being spaced over the course of the next few years.[/QUOTE] The healthcare bill came in at 1,990 pages in length. It's full of exceptions and contradicting clauses and lawyer speak.

[QUOTE=Ridge;32515191]The healthcare bill came in at 1,990 pages in length. It's full of exceptions and contradicting clauses and lawyer speak.[/QUOTE] You're ignoring the fact that it's online and categorised, so you can find specific parts of it, and the fact there are summaries of almost all parts all over the internet, most notably wikipedia. But even then, if you're dead in the water and absolutely insistent in knowing every inch of the law; Boo fucking hoo, you have to read a bit. I read a large part of it, Lankist read the whole thing, I'm sure there are many other people interested in it who have read it and we don't even need to read it. It's the length of two rather lengthy books, sure it's not pleasant, but if you're going through the trouble and ignoring all the paths to avoid it, then i'm sure it's not that bad. Name me one HR bill that isn't full of "lawyer speak" and exceptions, that's the point of a bill is to detail it out, including exceptions. And what contradictions? You seem to be absolutely adherent to the fact it's so long, but you seem to act like you know how many contradictions there are.

[QUOTE=Ridge;32515191]The healthcare bill came in at 1,990 pages in length. It's full of exceptions and contradicting clauses and lawyer speak.[/QUOTE] Are you [B]SERIOUS?!?![/B] A piece of legislation is full of LAWYER SPEAK? Say it ain't so. [editline]28th September 2011[/editline] Next you'll be telling us that russians speak russian!

I don't speak none of that fancy lawyer speaking words

[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;32510048]Fixed.[/QUOTE] what the fuck no you are dodging this so much Your constant explanation for why it should be mandatory has been "because it is mandatory". Now you claim your explanation is "because I think it's good" and you won't say why. [I]Say why, that's what I want.[/I] I can't just say "this job plan is automatically good because the economy is important"