Rachel Maddow calls it: It is going to happen.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

  Dan + Gemvita said:

But its only really knowledge workers that really have that ability. Your bargaining power is your knowledge and experience. Most workers are not really in this position. Any job that can be automated will or be replaced by the lowest cost of labour possible. This potentially leaves a lot of people out of work.

You can look at that issue in different ways. A worker should be competitive and better themselves as much as possible to better themselves and their standard of living. However, not everyone will have the opportunity to do this, and even knowledge workers depend on a strong consumer economy to buy the products they create.

In other words: People are inherently stupid/incapable of thinking for themselves?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

  mawilson said:

Some people put them on to masturbate.

WHY??????????????

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

  Dan + Gemvita said:

But its only really knowledge workers that really have that ability. Your bargaining power is your knowledge and experience. Most workers are not really in this position. Any job that can be automated will or be replaced by the lowest cost of labour possible. This potentially leaves a lot of people out of work.

You can look at that issue in different ways. A worker should be competitive and better themselves as much as possible to better themselves and their standard of living. However, not everyone will have the opportunity to do this, and even knowledge workers depend on a strong consumer economy to buy the products they create.

If the worker does not have the knowledge and experience necessary to do the job, why should an employer be forced to hire or retain the person? You just made the best argument possible why unions have made themselves irrelevant: They can no longer provide the skilled workers that employers are looking for.

[Danno 1,228]

  w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r said:

The penalty is financial, not jail time. And a wide range of households will be exempt from the mandate anyway.

But what we won't be exempt from is the new avenue Gov will have to control people....... for our own good mind you.

Anything that is not specifically spelled out in the bill of rights is up for grabs.

... not that those pushing for HC are "plotters of evil", in fact this may be the limit of their damage.... but the future is certain.

Remember Hillary -back in the day- proposed taxing bullets to pay for heath care costs.

It's the natural course of events when we embrace collectivism....."What you do effects all of us now so we DO have a right to be in your business."

[Dan J 277]

  Paul and Vanessa said:

In other words: People are inherently stupid/incapable of thinking for themselves?

That is a blunt way to put it, but in some cases, yes.

But even if everyone were trained as a knowledge worker, how many can the economy actually sustain? There is a limited demand for accountants or engineers. Right now in many fields, the demand exceeds supply, but if we expect everyone to be trained in a knowledge field, the reverse will probably happen.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

  Danno said:

But what we won't be exempt from is the new avenue Gov will have to control people....... for our own good mind you.

Anything that is not specifically spelled out in the bill of rights is up for grabs.

... not that those pushing for HC are "plotters of evil", in fact this may be the limit of their damage.... but the future is certain.

Remember Hillary -back in the day- proposed taxing bullets to pay for heath care costs.

It's the natural course of events when we embrace collectivism....."What you do effects all of us now so we DO have a right to be in your business."

The only way to stop the practice of denying people coverage due to pre-existing conditions is to enforce a mandate.

[Dan J 277]

  Lone Ranger said:

If the worker does not have the knowledge and experience necessary to do the job, why should an employer be forced to hire or retain the person? You just made the best argument possible why unions have made themselves irrelevant: They can no longer provide the skilled workers that employers are looking for.

You missed the point. Employees in low end jobs are replaceable because they often don't need much training. Our economy needs these people to earn a living wage to sustain the rest of the economy.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

  Lone Ranger said:

If the worker does not have the knowledge and experience necessary to do the job, why should an employer be forced to hire or retain the person? You just made the best argument possible why unions have made themselves irrelevant: They can no longer provide the skilled workers that employers are looking for.

Dan is referring to being competitive within the job market. Not everyone has the capacity to become a highly skilled working professional and given that our economy depends a good bulk of low-skilled labor, denying them the bargaining power to negotiate their wages means excluding a lot of Americans from living the dream.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

  Dan + Gemvita said:

That is a blunt way to put it, but in some cases, yes.

But even if everyone were trained as a knowledge worker, how many can the economy actually sustain? There is a limited demand for accountants or engineers. Right now in many fields, the demand exceeds supply, but if we expect everyone to be trained in a knowledge field, the reverse will probably happen.

Well, you can't expect everyone to go to school to become a Marine Biologist and then expect there to be work for everyone.

This is why people, especially before starting college need to look at the career path that might be available to them and what's in need.

Granted many jobs now days don't even need a college education to do at all, yet many companies require it. There's such an ignorance by people and by companies when it comes to 'skill' now days, it's ridiculous. I think if everyone just took a step back and looked at where we are today, we'd be a lot better off.

Not everyone can think for themselves in the right manner or is too determined to do something that just isn't feasible. It doesn't mean we should babysit those people either. Sometimes failure is one of the best things that can happen to a person, company, or even a society for that matter.

  w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r said:

The only way to stop the practice of denying people coverage due to pre-existing conditions is to enforce a mandate.

Why would an insurance company by any means want to take on a guaranteed risk?

There again, the politics of this health care bill is all about blaming/punishing insurance companies and does nothing to fix the actual problems of COST.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

  Dan + Gemvita said:

You missed the point. Employees in low end jobs are replaceable because they often don't need much training. Our economy needs these people to earn a living wage to sustain the rest of the economy.

Why? Who are you benefiting in the long run? Making work wastes resources and capital.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

  Paul and Vanessa said:

Why would an insurance company by any means want to take on a guaranteed risk?

Because we the people are saying they must. That's what HCR does, above everything else. We, the people, are telling our insurance overlords that insurance industry profits are secondary to providing health care access to all Americans.

Besides, with the mandate, they'll do just fine.

[Danno 1,228]

B Y the way, I think it will pass too.

You can't have that much money, chair seats and favors being offered without finding takers.

It's a coin toss but I think it will pass.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

  Galt said:

Dan is referring to being competitive within the job market. Not everyone has the capacity to become a highly skilled working professional and given that our economy depends a good bulk of low-skilled labor, denying them the bargaining power to negotiate their wages means excluding a lot of Americans from living the dream.

If you keep lowering the bar to include more people in the American dream, than you just dilute the experience for those that made the effort to achieve on their own. By lowering the bar, you lower the rewards of success, That is not the American dream. That is Progressive mediocrity.

[Dan J 277]

  Lone Ranger said:

Why? Who are you benefiting in the long run? Making work wastes resources and capital.

Supporting people who's jobs have been shipped overseas also wastes resources. Its better they are productive in some way than not?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

  Paul and Vanessa said:

Well, you can't expect everyone to go to school to become a Marine Biologist and then expect there to be work for everyone.

This is why people, especially before starting college need to look at the career path that might be available to them and what's in need.

Granted many jobs now days don't even need a college education to do at all, yet many companies require it. There's such an ignorance by people and by companies when it comes to 'skill' now days, it's ridiculous. I think if everyone just took a step back and looked at where we are today, we'd be a lot better off.

Not everyone can think for themselves in the right manner or is too determined to do something that just isn't feasible. It doesn't mean we should babysit those people either. Sometimes failure is one of the best things that can happen to a person, company, or even a society for that matter.

Why would an insurance company by any means want to take on a guaranteed risk?

There again, the politics of this health care bill is all about blaming/punishing insurance companies and does nothing to fix the actual problems of COST.

Not babysit. Just give workers the opportunity for collective bargaining. Thankfully, there are unions like the UFCW (united food and commercial workers union), that have helped people who work in places like your local grocery store, maintain a living wage and benefits like health insurance. Although someone working in grocery isn't going to make it big (unless they get into management), they can afford a comfortable standard of living....and deservedly so.

  Lone Ranger said:

If you keep lowering the bar to include more people in the American dream, than you just dilute the experience for those that made the effort to achieve on their own. By lowering the bar, you lower the rewards of success, That is not the American dream. That is Progressive mediocrity.

Is that what happened after WWII when the unions helped build the largest Middle Class in America as well as one of the most prosperous generations?