The flaw with your argument, and your mistaken impression, is that Obamacare will not outlaw private practice. Also, if I do not want to participate in Obamacare, I still have to pay for those who do. Is that fair? Fair, a term you uberliberals like to throw around.

Please explain "acceptable standard of living".
What defines an "acceptable standard of living"?
How was it determined?
And if you want me to see your side of the picture and agree with it, please do not try to pass off generalizations as standards.
Not everyone has to have a cell phone.
Not everyone has to have cable TV.
Not everyone has to have home access to a computer or internet.
From my perspective, these are luxuries of convenience, not necessities. I have to work to afford them, and if I cannot afford them I should not have them. If I cannot afford them and have them, I am living beyond my means.

The above are just three examples of what the left in this country believe are needs of everyone that should be fulfilled by those who can afford it. If those who cannot afford it cannot get it, it is not fair.
Since I have moved on to that topic, explain what fair is or what is fair. Fair according to Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fair
That is another thrown about by the left that just irks me to no end. Is it fair that I work hard just to have the efforts of my hard work confiscated to go to the awaiting hands of someone who refuses to work because someone convinced them everyone else owes them?

WalMart is a bad example because their practice has always been to not have many full-time employees since Sam Walton died. He ran the company, for the most part, the way most companies should be run. After he died, the BoD started the company down a bad track, IMO. I refuse to shop there anymore. Made in America used to be the motto of WalMart. Now it is Made in China, Assembled in America, if you are lucky. Consumers are the cause of that "little" change. Most American's want cheap, low quality disposable goods instead of high quality, more expensive goods.

WalMart, McDonald's, Burger King, these employers are not the ones that normally maintain a large staff of full-time employees at the store level. Turnover is high so why should companies of this type invest in full-time staff. Many companies have also moved to using temporary agencies to handle their hiring needs and if they find a good employee, they sometimes hire them in-house. But, because of Obamacare, many no longer do even this much.

If a company wants to get away from the requirement to pay overtime, they can just promote that person to a salaried position.

And people hold up Canada as being such a great country. They probably have even more restrictive immigration than we do, and they say we have bad and restrictive immigration policy.


People leave their home countries and move to the United States of America on a daily basis for a better life, some even move to countries other than the USA but that is outside this scope. Some of them even leave countries with lots of social programs. Are you calling them stupid? This country was built on immigration from countries around the world. How many other countries can claim as diverse a population as the USA. Look at your own family tree and see how far back it goes before crossing an ocean or international border. Yeah, I guess it is "stupid to move to a whole new country and leave your friends and family behind"
I work in an office that, if not for people moving from other countries to this one, would not exist. The owner, and every employee aside from myself, are foreign born naturalized citizens or legal residents.

Talk to my Chinese co-worker about how well change is accepted by the current government there.

Who decides what is better?
Define better please. As better is a relative term, to what are you comparing.

It is not wrong to say that the 40+ hour overtime pay requirement is moot when employers are cutting back on full-time employees and cutting employee hours to less than 40 hours. The law is still in place for those times when an employer does require an employee, part-time or full-time, to work over 40 hours when it comes to over-time pay, which is what my comment was about, if not clearly stated for you.


So you are telling me that the feds would not impose some sort of penalty on employers for not allowing the use of comp time?
If the employer gives an employee comp time in lieu of overtime pay, the government is denied tax dollars.
If the employer allows the employee to use the comp time, the government is denied tax dollars.
If the employer gives the comp time but does not allow the employee to use it, the government is denied tax dollars.
As I have not read the bill and really have no desire to read it, I am salaried so get screwed anyway,

Especially since the government is not getting anything from the denial of use of comp time and nothing from the institution of comp time if the legislation is passed. They are not collecting taxes from over-time pay. And we all know how the government loves to eke out all the tax money they can get, deserved or no.

I imply US Workers working in US companies on US soil, and you through Bangladesh out. Another country, another set of rules and while not totally applicable, is about 95% inapplicable. The only reason US companies move overseas for cheap labor is the American consumer refuses to see what is going on. Again, if it is a bad company, endorsing bad practices, STOP purchasing the goods and services.

And if I am living in such a fantasy land, why do so many people still believe c*******m and/or socialism is a great way to govern the people when we have world-wide proof that in those governments, only the governors are better off, and the governed always end up in a state worse than before the new government came into power?

Looking back at history, even a representative republic is bound to fail when the citizenry stop taking an interest in what their governors are doing. As it was the closest thing to what we have, look at Rome.

Other countries do not restrict the flow of people to and from Cuba, why are people from those countries not heading there. Add to it that Canada/US relations are so great and there seem to be no restrictions to US citizens residing there, why is the entire population of the US not emigrating there?

If the Democrats were so interested in getting bipartisan support:
Why did they not include Republicans in the process of creating the bill?
Why did the Republicans have to make the first move?
Republicans rejected the idea because it is bad policy for all, not JUST because it is a plank in the liberal platform and has been for over 80 years.


Why do you think the United State of America has to look outside it own borders for standards? Have you actually looked at the statistics of Universal Health Coverage the world over. The possibility of forced euthanasia. Those incapable of providing to the common good can see no coverage at all. And in the end, only the rich, which includes many politicians, will receive the best health care.

I am a veteran and I go to the VA Hospitals for most of my health care. That is a very good example of socialized health care and it is not great. But that may be due to this administration's hatred of veterans and its desire not to take care of those who served. Yes, I said it, but I was in the system before Obama got into office and the service at the VA hospitals was just as bad under Bush. While the VA System is not great, it is a very good example of what Obamacare is not going to be. The way Obamacare is set up, and this is from conversations with both private practice doctors and with doctors in the VA Hospital ranks, health care in this country will decline not be improved by it.

My company, in the last three years, has had the cost of insuring us increase over 40%. Obama kept spouting how coverage was supposed to go down, how insurance rates were going to drop. Where are the drops? Obamacare just helps the insurance industry and the government; it will, in the end, hurt the public much, much more than it will help. If you think Obamacare is going to be so great, talk to your doctor(s) and get their thoughts.

One more thing, DALE, why do you want the government to control your healthcare. That is exactly what Obamacare does. It gives the government more control over you.

I agree this is the most glaring flaw with the bill. The fact the comp time is not guaranteed. If it was not for this I would be all for it.

Take this into consideration. Many employers are cutting back to part-time only employees due to the "wonderful" institution of Obamacare.
I have never worked anywhere in which the employer paid overtime for working over 8 hours in one day, only when working more than 40 hours in one week.
Taking away the 40 hour work week overtime requirement is a moot point for most people in that case.


The best way for people to get big business to stop screwing workers, as you put it, is to quit working for them. Eventually, they will have to change their practices to entice employees to stay.

As long as people 1) continue to work for bad businesses and 2) consumers continue to buy the products of bad businesses (to me this one is key), businesses will try to take every advantage they can. Start your own business and see if you do not do the same.


If the Democrats had introduced this bill, would this comment be the same? And do not try and tell me the Democrats would not have introduced it, they are just as much in the pockets of big business as every other political party.
Regardless of who introduced the bill, as written, it is bad.