NotProvenGuilty's Comments (87)

“True but it is a step in the right direction and brings corruption to the forefront.”

“You're suggesting the Teabagger movement has something in common with the Boston Tea Party.

I guess there's the word "tea."”

“Yes I do and I understand it better than any here. I saw how people lived in East Germany and it was't pretty at all. How many of you have lived it and seen it with your own eyes? I am seeing the desecration of the Constitution of the United States and of liberty.”

“I have no idea what that's supposed to mean aside from you didn't like what I said. Do you think Friedman will advocate cutting Israeli aid to the bone in order to affect change? Because that is what it would take. If he was serious he would have spelled it out explicitly in this piece or said something to effect of "cut as much as it takes" to get their attention that we're serious this time. His long track record says he won't go nearly that far in his "radical new approach".
And what makes Friedman someone you'd listen to about anything, let alone the Middle East. He thought the invasion of Iraq was a great opportunity to stabilize the region.”

“There's nothing precise about that at all. And knowing him, he wouldn't advocate enough of a cut to effect a real shift in policy.”

“It's almost like, "let's see how much can I get away with", then if caught, compliance will follow with a"oh darn", it was a nice ride while it lasted....

I fear with the right's mentality, we have fallen into an abyss sometimes...”

“You are absolutely right. We set the rules. If the contractor breaks them, they do not get a new contract, their employee is subjected to criminal procedure, and the contractor is fined. Since when do we turn our backs on gang rape? And then we pretend that we are shocked at Abu Garab? These kinds of things do on in our own prisons on a daily basis and nothing is done to stop it.”

“... and more specifically on enforcement, the way these things work (of course) is that suppliers don't get to do business with the firm unless they agree to these things. There may be some random audits, but not everything is auditable (like rape). However, publicizing the policy informs employees of their rights, and violations of the policy can lead to termination of the contract, retroactively. It usually doesn't come to that; once the violation is noted, the supplier usually remedies and complies. But the threat of losing the business is the lever which induces suppliers to do the right thing from the start. No biggie. This is common sense and what is meant by enforcement.”

“Insightful, very good.”

“A high shock value is a guarantee that the message gets across. Personally, I don't think it's offensive. More like "tough love." If you want people to become aware of serious environmental problems, any mean is OK with me.”

“Reposted:

Oppenents of a public option cite the coverage mandate and penalties as why all employers will drop private insurance and put all employees on the public plan. The argument goes like this: A coverage mandate calls for all employers to provide coverage for employees. Failure to do so results in a fine of $750 per employee. Private coverage costs an employer on average $1200-3000 a year. Therefore, employers will drop the private insurance plans in order to save money. $750 per employee is less than $1200-3000 per employee.

This logic is flawed in a simple but fundamentally important way. Currently, employers are not required to provide health insurance, yet many still do. They provide coverage as a benefit or perk. So currently employers have the option of paying $1200-3000 a year per employee for coverage, or paying $0 by simply not providing coverage. Oppenents of health care reform hinge their argument on the idea that employers will no longer offer private insurance as a perk/benefit.

Private insurance will still be offered as an employment benefit just like now. Employers that currently do not provide coverage will have the option of paying the penalty (still cheaper than coverage) or providing private insurance as a further perk. Additionally, subsidies will be put in place to offset the costs for small businesses having to now provide insurance or pay the penalty.

So where is the driving force for employers to drop private coverage?”

“You libs are always pushing for welfare for people who need it. What about welfare for insurance company CEOs, huh? Why discriminate against them? Hippocriateses!

/snark off/”

“the common denominator is they are all broke or going broke. see canada and france for starters.”

“Excellent post.”