Rights? What rights?

[Gaspar]

I love the language of these debates.

We can use the precedent for all kinds of fun stuff.  Lets play the entitlement game:

Good sex is the key to a happy marriage.  Many companies refuse to pay for Viagra=Men are being denied access to erections.
It's a war on marriage!

Transportation is necessary for most employment. Companies are refusing to provide company cars or pay bus fair and parking for employees=People are being denied access to transportation.  It's a war on employment!

Indoor plumbing is necessary for good hygiene and health in general.  An overwhelming number of employers are refusing to pay their employee's water and sewage bills=People are being denied access to basic hygiene.  It's a war on hygiene!

Vitamin C is necessary for people to avoid getting Scurvy.  Unscrupulous companies across the country are refusing to pay for oranges for their employees=People are being denied access to vitamin C.  Argh matey!! Yr wagin a war on healthy scalawags!

You work somewhere.  They pay you money.  That's the way it should be.  Anything else they give, provide for use, or gift you, is a benefit, by definition, an 'enhancement', not an entitlement! 

[Townsend]

You work somewhere.  They pay you money.  That's the way it should be.  Anything else they give, provide for use, or gift you, is a benefit, by definition, an 'enhancement', not an entitlement! 

I'm glad my employer enhances this place with heat then.

[Gaspar]

I'm glad my employer enhances this place with heat then.

Does he do the same for your home?

[Townsend]

Does he do the same for your home?

Yes.  It's called compensation.  It's one of the benefits I get for working at my place of employment.

[RecycleMichael]

This is a comedian Paul F. Tomkins idea about his job in retail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9iOSqEC_G8

[Townsend]

This is a comedian Paul F. Tomkins idea about his job in retail.

Swell, right next to it are a group of "reaction" videos to 2 girls one cup.

[Gaspar]

Yes.  It's called compensation.  It's one of the benefits I get for working at my place of employment.

Excellent! 

So your employer gives you access to heat, and food and indoor plumbing (I assume) by paying you a wage that you then CHOOSE to spend on the items that are important to you.

So, tell me, if an employer opts not to directly pay for birth control for employees, how does that "deny them access" from purchasing it for themselves, as you do with your heat?  Are they not compensated for their work, just as you are? 

[Townsend]

Excellent!  

So your employer gives you access to heat, and food and indoor plumbing (I assume) by paying you a wage that you then CHOOSE to spend on the items that are important to you.

So, tell me, if an employer opts not to directly pay for birth control for employees, how does that "deny them access" from purchasing it for themselves, as you do with your heat?  Are they not compensated for their work, just as you are?  

This is because they want to search you and your car?

Yes, I am excellent.

Now if you're trying to make a point that no business should supply medical care, that's sad.  It would be so much more expensive for all of us if we had to pay for that many more uninsured.

[Gaspar]

This is because they want to search you and your car?

Yes, I am excellent.

Now if you're trying to make a point that no business should supply medical care, that's sad.  It would be so much more expensive for all of us if we had to pay for that many more uninsured.

But Your Excellence, you already blurred that line...when I asked if your employeer paid for your heat at home, you replied.

Yes.  It's called compensation.  It's one of the benefits I get for working at my place of employment.

Ahh then. . .If you are talking of collective purchasing power, would it not make sense for employers to pay for other expensive "benefits" like food, shelter, transportation, child care, pedicures, lawn service?  By your logic, wouldn't rolling these things into benefit programs reduce the cost everyone has to pay?  If that is indeed the case, why has the cost of healthcare increased instead of decreasing?

Once you turn down this road, attractive benefits soon become necessary entitlements, and collective purchasing builds monopoly and collusion. This forces government to impose regulation, and increases the cost of administration.  Those costs are naturally passed to the consumer, and here we are.  30-40 years ago, medical insurance paid for by an employeer was a very special benefit, designed to attract the best employees to the best jobs, at the best companies. Now, even entry level employees expect healthcare to be paid, and every plan is administered by a megga-insurer with a thousand layers of administration to deal with tens of thousands of pages of regulation.

Because it is an entitlement now, people don't care how much it costs, they just want it, and it better be good! As a result, it has actually become far more expensive for everyone.  What used to be a benefit is now considered a "right" of employment. 

In your home, you CHOOSE how you set the thermostat.  The electric/gas company then sends you a bill for what you USE.  If your bill is $400 one month because you set the thermostat to 73, you may CHOOSE to turn it down to 69.


It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights – the "right" to education, the "right" to health care, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery – hay and a barn for human cattle. – Alexis De Tocquiville

[Townsend]

But Your Excellence, you already blurred that line...when I asked if your employeer paid for your heat at home, you replied.
Ahh then. . .If you are talking of collective purchasing power, would it not make sense for employers to pay for other expensive "benefits" like food, shelter, transportation, child care, pedicures, lawn service?  By your logic, wouldn't rolling these things into benefit programs reduce the cost everyone has to pay?  If that is indeed the case, why has the cost of healthcare increased instead of decreasing?

Once you turn down this road, attractive benefits soon become necessary entitlements, and collective purchasing builds monopoly and collusion. This forces government to impose regulation, and increases the cost of administration.  Those costs are naturally passed to the consumer, and here we are.  30-40 years ago, medical insurance paid for by an employeer was a very special benefit, designed to attract the best employees to the best jobs, at the best companies. Now, even entry level employees expect healthcare to be paid, and every plan is administered by a megga-insurer with a thousand layers of administration to deal with tens of thousands of pages of regulation.

Because it is an entitlement now, people don't care how much it costs, they just want it, and it better be good! As a result, it has actually become far more expensive for everyone.  What used to be a benefit is now considered a "right" of employment. 

In your home, you CHOOSE how you set the thermostat.  The electric/gas company then sends you a bill for what you USE.  If your bill is $400 one month because you set the thermostat to 73, you may CHOOSE to turn it down to 69.

So you're against all healthcare.  I disagree.  I want people to have healthcare.

I also think seat belts are a good idea as well as food safety, child labor laws, women's health services, etc.

So we disagree on many things.

[Gaspar]

So you're against all healthcare.  I disagree.  I want people to have healthcare.

I also think seat belts are a good idea as well as food safety, child labor laws, women's health services, etc.

So we disagree on many things.

But Your Excellence, that is a leap.  I am not against home ownership because I don't think it's the employers responsibility to buy their employees homes.

I'm against forcing people into dependent situations and then using those situations for economic and political gains.

I'm against the creation of protective and artificial market forces that inflate the costs of necessary goods, services, and resources.

I'm against anything that separates the consumer from the freedom to choose, and makes him dependent on the choices of others.

I want everyone to have healthcare, and I want them to choose how and from whom they obtain it.

[Townsend]

I am not against home ownership because I don't think it's the employers responsibility to buy their employees homes.

Ah, so you've changed your position.

[Gaspar]

Ah, so you've changed your position.

Ah, so we have reduced this to an adolescent debate.  I assume we are done then.

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

[Townsend]

Ah, so we have reduced this to an adolescent debate.  I assume we are done then.

Yeah, I'll be honest with you.  It wasn't a debate.  I stopped reading your posts in entirety a long time ago. 

[Red Arrow]

It wasn't a debate.  I stopped reading your posts. 

That would explain a lot.