I.R.S. Bars Employers From Dumping Workers Into Health Exchanges

Good, if only laws could be passed that prevent the public from having to invite those to dinner whom work they would be set.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: nenothtu

So libertarianism (the kind that's the closest of kin to anarchy) is your thing. Every person for himself and no societal laws or restraints. That's cool.

I'm not quite sure how you got there from what I posted. It seems a stretch, and a forced one at that.

I kinda think we have some good laws for some very good reasons.

So do I. I also realize that we have some very bad laws, for bad reasons.

Such as the contracts corporations made with and broke and the lies they told their workers and even their stockholders out of sheer greed, of which this, what is happening with the abuse of the ACA, is a prime example and what the law is trying to prevent.

That would be a matter of contract law to settle. It's still not my job to "protect" either workers OR corporations in spite of themselves. One would think that the "ACA" (which is no such thing as what the name implies) has modified those contracts unilaterally, and therefore voided them.

The ACA prevents nothing other than the freedom of choice. "Abuse"? It was passed to be used, now people are being penalized for using it.

That's "abuse"?

But yeah. Sure. Yep yep. Every man, woman, and child for himself and herself, which is exactly the kind of conditioning these same corporations used as an excuse as they cut benefits to the b-o-n-e and then ship off the jobs when that ran out.

That would be a matter for in-depth debate, since it's an in-depth issue and nowhere near as simplistic as you appear to think it is.

For starters, don't let your children work for a corporation, then you can take them out of that plea for sympathy and appeal to emotion that you've constructed there. Then you can consider attempting to take control of your own life, and you (whether male or female, thus covering both) can them take YOURSELF out of that appeal to emotion.

But no, wait, if you do that, then you simply don't have an argument any more. That probably wouldn't do, now would it?

WHY on Earth would you agree to put control, of your own life into the hands of some corporation, anyhow? WHY would you agree to live by the whims that they want to give you if you aren't happy with what they give? If you don't, however, then you have no argument, per the above.

It doesn't matter what they promise if you're not going to take it anyhow.