Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In defense of not working: We need a nation of free agents unafraid to bail on a lousy job
The Week ^ | 02/11/2014 | Matt Lewis

Posted on 02/11/2014 7:51:15 PM PST by SeekAndFind

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-22 last
To: SeekAndFind

“... since they might no longer put in a ton of time at work simply to get health insurance through their employer.”

That’s patent Boo Chit right there.

ObamaCare® mandates full time employees receive insurance.

It describes and regulates that full time shall be considered 30 hours per week.

Just how many hours less per week are they going to work?

Why are you promoting bouquets of flowers, unicorns and settles?

Isn’t the American Ethos hard work? Self determination?

If people work less hours that will necessarily have a negative impact on payroll taxes.

That can’t be good for the treasury.

If they work less hours won’t they take home less pay?

That would result in them spending less money on clothes, movies, concerts , etc.

Heck, working less hours, taking home less pay might result in a down grade from your abode to something more affordable.

Maybe they will choose to ride a bike everywhere as they can’t support car ownership.

Maybe they Flintstone it everywhere and lie through their teeth about how much they love to walk.

But, let’s face it; you were on some psychedelic when you wrote this trope of contrived intellect.

I’m guessing you get paid by the word.

People aren’t going to work less. Everyone wants stuff. Hell, they want lots of stuff.

They will continue to work 40 hour weeks or look for jobs that will give them 40 hours so the can make more money.

Yer a fiction writer of sheep dip drivel.


21 posted on 02/12/2014 12:14:22 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

You’ve got a point.

If individuals purchased health insurance directly, the U.S. would move closer to a market-based healthcare economy, which could start containing healthcare costs.

Until the CONSUMER of health care is the person bearing the responsibility for costs of both insurance and health care, we will have a system that is unworkable.

Would this increase choice or limit it? Would it increase individual freedom or limit it?

Are individuals too stupid to choose from 20 self-purchase plans as opposed to the 2 or 3 offered at work?

And what happens when you’re 50 and lose your job and health insurance ? (good luck )


22 posted on 02/12/2014 10:40:12 AM PST by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad and lived with his parents .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-22 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson