"Article 25
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection."
That doesn't say that your company has to provide you with any of those things, just that you are entitled to them from somewhere. Bringing this up as an argument against what the CEOs are doing here is fallacious.
*shrug* What America has right now is a national system of forcing people to buy private insurance, with a few hard-to-use systems as backups in case you can't. It's no surprise at all that companies will do what they can to avoid paying extra money while providing that insurance, particularly in the case of businesses that sell low cost goods (such as fast food and pizza places). This sort of thing is exactly what I expected when Obama's health care plan was passed (my parents health insurance tripled in cost without increasing benefits in the immediate aftermath).
As far as having philosophical and legal weight, the reason the document is called "wishy-washy" is because it is. It is a fluffy, nice sounding document that does absolutely nothing to compel anyone. "Everyone has the right to this." Awesome. Who secures that thing? Who provides it? In the case of medical care, is it paid for by employers or the government? Who do you turn to when the person responsible fails to provide? Forget consequences, let me demonstrate.
I believe that everyone in the world has the right to adequate food for him/herself and their family.
Am I now responsible for provide food to everyone in the world who does not have it? Are you going to punish me for failing to do so? Of course not, because a statement that people have the right to something is not the same as a statement making someone responsible for providing or defending that right.
So yes, we ratified that document. The only weight it carries as a result is that we believe these things are basic rights. The US government is entirely within its rights to try and force private companies to provide these things to their employees and only cover the gaps where people are unemployed, and private companies are entirely within their rights to avoid paying the money for this if they don't want to. (The way around all of this, of course, is to not leave this decision in the hands of private companies who, for better or worse, will prioritize profits... but as that's not the system we have, there's not much we can do about it atm).
Well we wandered off so, I guess, I'll summarize my thoughts on the matter. If he wants to use Obamacare as an excuse to layoff people then by all means, he can. However, national healthcare reform has been a political goal for decades. Obama was hardly the first president to try it. He is just the first who actually managed to get it done. Sooner or later, the rules regarding healthcare, health insurance if you prefer, were going to change. So, they did. While what we ended up with after the lobbyists got done gutting it could hardly be called perfect. At least Washington finally got something done about it.
Now if some want to excuse it through some sort of willful ignorance regarding what made his success possible in the first place? They can do that too. That doesn't mean it will have any relationship with reality. It will just be one more thing that the people and government of this nation have worked so hard and so long to make possible. And, yes, I do see the irony in that.
Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot.
Who had nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor.
Who had almost stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
And who had personally wet himself, at the Battle of Badon Hill.
Most of them don't. Many union based businesses have medical plans for their workers, it's the retail and food chain industry that are the worst of them all. If you aren't in a union job, you don't get squat in North America unfortunately. People who have benefit plans either need to work in some form of large manufacturing industry or work for some other big money business like a law firm or government worker.
Yes, Romney introduced Romneycare but it is not exactly the same as Obamacare. Also, Romney said he would repeal Obamacare if elected which he does indeed have the power to do if he were president. Romney's plan was different than Obamacare though he never gave us a super detailed description. I guess we will never find out how things would have been now. BUt, hey remember this is what you wanted...you got it...TOYOTA!
In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.This is why people ban guns. Gun supporters don't know what guns are.Shotguns I'll give you (provided you're allowed 12 and larger gauges... because I mean... come on...) but not .22s.
And at the same time, many people who lose their jobs for this reasoning, especially now that it has been made public that many companies don't want to pay for healthcare for their workers, have a legal right to sue those said companies for termination without a just cause. You can't just up and fire someone without legal reason, and laying off people because the company CEO is a greedy fucking asshole who doesn't want to pay for your survival, is reason enough to sue them. I hope these companies are ready for it because the shit storm is coming. If I were an American who lost my job just because the company doesn't want to pay for a bit of healthcare, I'd sue the company into changing their tune really bloody fast.
Check me out....Im └(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐ Dancing, Im └(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐ Dancing.
My Gaming PC: MSI Trident 3 - i7-10700F - RTX 4060 8GB - 32GB DDR4 - 1TB M.2SSD
Now please explain to me, why I should give my empolyees healthcare with the money I saved from paying less taxes? This makes absoluetly no sense. No businessman would invest the money he saved from lower taxes into healthcare or more workers - this is a totaly stupid and unrealistic idea.
if costs increase for employers, many of them will pass that cost on to their employees. Right or wrong, it's just a fact. There will be lots of employers who will hire exclusively for below 30 hours. I worked for one for a few months. Many employees where 90% of them were either under 30 hours or contract workers through an agency. The contract workers got 40 hours to do the extra work that needed to be done, but the company workers were limited to 30 hours. Again, right or wrong, it's not surprising.
Same goes for sales. Costs go up, the business owners are not going to just eat that cost, they are going to pass that cost to the consumer. So these little food places are going to be full of part time workers and the cost of a burger/pizza/whatever will go up. It definitely sucks, and you can argue it's not right, but either way it's going to happen.
Easy there fella. I feel like we're headed for dark places. Maybe you should sit this one out before you confess to something.
As I stated, there are different degrees of greed. You would probably be interested to know that a lot if CEOs have sociopathic personalities. Lack of empathy is a big one.
It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.