Company Policy: We are not hiring until Obama is gone'

[Listening]

If they want to hire, they must have demand. Meaning that if they don't hire, they will be unable to meet the demand and will lose money. This is bullshit.

If you believe this shit, you are a dumb ****.

While your premise isn't altogether true, there are elements that should be examined.

First, if they "want" to hire, they must have some buisness case that requires addtional manpower, assets, or resources. Not all business cases are simply based on increased demand. It could be other reasons and some of them may not warrent hiring under an uncertain environment.

So to call it BS is not a sure thing, although I do have a problem with someone who publishes this kind of stuff because it looks more like a political play.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[2. Your second claim is that the GOP is blocking Obama's infrastructure projects.

You have not proven that claim.

I think that as adults here we ought not be demanding proof of common knowledge, or what should be common knowledge to anyone paying attention:

House Republicans: White House plan for infrastructure bank

"Dead on Arrival." Now we'll probably hear that dead on arrival means something other than dead on arrival.

 

[Listening]

Been saying this for quite some time. They want to crush America. They want no taxes..and no regulations. They would sell poison as mother's milk if given the chance.

Your posts are getting more stupid by the day.

The market is very self regulating as long as you don't keep competition out.

Do you really believe the FDA has kept you healthy and that without it you'd somehow get sick ? If you do, then you are the moron.

 

[Dr.House]

daveman called it...

NYcuminhisrear fails again...

Almost sad, but we've seen it for years...

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're doing it again, arrogant prick. I told you what my claim is, and you stamp your feet and insist it's something else.

You've made three claims in this thread:

1. That the situation of a company in MA is exactly the same as that of a company in GA.

You have not proven that claim.

2. Your second claim is that the GOP is blocking Obama's infrastructure projects.

You have not proven that claim.

3. Your third claim is that you know more about a GA business owner's business than he does -- despite the fact that you know nothing about the business involved and have never owned your own business.

You have not proven that claim.

You really do expect people to believe what you say simply because you say it, don't you?

Boy, are YOU in the wrong place.

Please note I'm laughing AT you.

History suggests you will dismiss this post as unworthy of your time and look down your nose at me.

Read my signature. It applies to you.

Is that your way of conceding that this idiot in Georgia doesn't actually face any government regulation that any other company does,

including those that are expanding AND hiring?

yes or no will be sufficient.

How in the name of Gaea's gallbladder did you ever get the asinine notion that you're an intelligent human being?

What part of 'yes or no will be sufficient' didn't you understand?

 

[daveman]

[2. Your second claim is that the GOP is blocking Obama's infrastructure projects.

You have not proven that claim.

I think that as adults here we ought not be demanding proof of common knowledge, or what should be common knowledge to anyone paying attention:

House Republicans: White House plan for infrastructure bank

"Dead on Arrival." Now we'll probably hear that dead on arrival means something other than dead on arrival.

Here's something you're going to have trouble comprehending:

If Obama wants something, it's not automatically a good thing, nor does it mean he should have it.

Take some deep breaths and let your heart rate come down.

The plan sounded like more failure waiting to happen. You should be grateful to the GOp for not letting it embarrass Obama.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[2. Your second claim is that the GOP is blocking Obama's infrastructure projects.

You have not proven that claim.

I think that as adults here we ought not be demanding proof of common knowledge, or what should be common knowledge to anyone paying attention:

House Republicans: White House plan for infrastructure bank

"Dead on Arrival." Now we'll probably hear that dead on arrival means something other than dead on arrival.

Here's something you're going to have trouble comprehending:

If Obama wants something, it's not automatically a good thing, nor does it mean he should have it.

Take some deep breaths and let your heart rate come down.

The plan sounded like more failure waiting to happen. You should be grateful to the GOp for not letting it embarrass Obama.

That's not material to the FACT that Obama's infrastructure plan was being blocked by the Republicans,

which is exactly what I originally said, and exactly what you were too ******* ignorant and uninformed to know was the truth.

 

[daveman]

Is that your way of conceding that this idiot in Georgia doesn't actually face any government regulation that any other company does,

including those that are expanding AND hiring?

yes or no will be sufficient.

How in the name of Gaea's gallbladder did you ever get the asinine notion that you're an intelligent human being?

What part of 'yes or no will be sufficient' didn't you understand?

What part of "prove your claims" is giving you trouble?

I know you think you deserve to, but you don't give orders around here, Skippy.

Arrogant prick.

 

[daveman]

I think that as adults here we ought not be demanding proof of common knowledge, or what should be common knowledge to anyone paying attention:

House Republicans: White House plan for infrastructure bank

"Dead on Arrival." Now we'll probably hear that dead on arrival means something other than dead on arrival.

Here's something you're going to have trouble comprehending:

If Obama wants something, it's not automatically a good thing, nor does it mean he should have it.

Take some deep breaths and let your heart rate come down.

The plan sounded like more failure waiting to happen. You should be grateful to the GOp for not letting it embarrass Obama.

That's not material to the FACT that Obama's infrastructure plan was being blocked by the Republicans,

which is exactly what I originally said, and exactly what you were too ******* ignorant and uninformed to know was the truth.

So you support an Obama plan that will cost more jobs that it will create?

You've drowned in the damned Kool-Aid.

Now, how about those other two claims of yours, Skippy?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Again, if you have evidence that this idiot is under special more onerous federal regulation than anyone else, and it's Obama's fault, then prove it.

That's your claim. If you can't support it with evidence, then it's baseless.

You're doing it again, arrogant prick. I told you what my claim is, and you stamp your feet and insist it's something else.

You've made three claims in this thread:

1. That the situation of a company in MA is exactly the same as that of a company in GA.

You have not proven that claim.

2. Your second claim is that the GOP is blocking Obama's infrastructure projects.

You have not proven that claim.

3. Your third claim is that you know more about a GA business owner's business than he does -- despite the fact that you know nothing about the business involved and have never owned your own business.

You have not proven that claim.

You really do expect people to believe what you say simply because you say it, don't you?

Boy, are YOU in the wrong place.

Please note I'm laughing AT you.

History suggests you will dismiss this post as unworthy of your time and look down your nose at me.

Read my signature. It applies to you.

Is that your way of conceding that this idiot in Georgia doesn't actually face any government regulation that any other company does,

including those that are expanding AND hiring?

yes or no will be sufficient.

You can chuck duck and dive all you like. Doesn't make you any more correct.
You know NOTHING of that person's business. In fact you have never operated a business nor have you cared to. You are an expert in lip service.
Was it that Holiday Inn Express you stayed in last night that made you an expert?

 

[Inthemiddle]

All these whiney ass corporations. Don't want to hire until Obama's gone? Fine. I see no reason to appease economic terrorists. Let them do what they want. Their company will fail when they cannot produce enough to keep themselves going because they want to throw temper tantrums.

 

[thereisnospoon]

All these whiney ass corporations. Don't want to hire until Obama's gone? Fine. I see no reason to appease economic terrorists. Let them do what they want. Their company will fail when they cannot produce enough to keep themselves going because they want to throw temper tantrums.

Hey genius..It is mostly small business, the back bone of employment in the US, that is cutting back on hiring.
They are also throwing a tantrum ,yes?

 

[Listening]

All these whiney ass corporations. Don't want to hire until Obama's gone? Fine. I see no reason to appease economic terrorists. Let them do what they want. Their company will fail when they cannot produce enough to keep themselves going because they want to throw temper tantrums.

Yes, well that was certainly fun to read.

They are producing enough already. They just don't want to produce more. Big difference.

BTW: if there isn't enough...guess what happens ? Either China makes it or the price goes up.

So we pay more and people are out of work.

Way to go !

 

[JoeB131]

All these whiney ass corporations. Don't want to hire until Obama's gone? Fine. I see no reason to appease economic terrorists. Let them do what they want. Their company will fail when they cannot produce enough to keep themselves going because they want to throw temper tantrums.

The thing is, they don't have to hire more to produce enough. They can produce more by simply requiring overtime from employees who are barely in a position to say no.

 

[LoneLaugher]

All these whiney ass corporations. Don't want to hire until Obama's gone? Fine. I see no reason to appease economic terrorists. Let them do what they want. Their company will fail when they cannot produce enough to keep themselves going because they want to throw temper tantrums.

The thing is, they don't have to hire more to produce enough. They can produce more by simply requiring overtime from employees who are barely in a position to say no.

You said a lot here. I wonder if you even know it.

 

[JoeB131]

All these whiney ass corporations. Don't want to hire until Obama's gone? Fine. I see no reason to appease economic terrorists. Let them do what they want. Their company will fail when they cannot produce enough to keep themselves going because they want to throw temper tantrums.

The thing is, they don't have to hire more to produce enough. They can produce more by simply requiring overtime from employees who are barely in a position to say no.

You said a lot here. I wonder if you even know it.

I understand the implications perfectly. I'm afraid you don't.

A business is in the business of making money. If it can do so by doing a) as easily as b), and by not doing b), they get rid of an administration that they don't like and is an impediment to their business overall, then a) becomes the better choice.

Now, personally, I think they should hire more people because that would be good for the country. But they won't. That's not their interest. Many of them aren't even American companies anymore.

I can't work up a lot of sympathy for Obama in this case, because he's a guy who authorizes a tax credit for private planes, and then demonizes the people who fly in them. He takes bags of money from the Wall Street Crooks, and then plays up to the OWS shitters.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The thing is, they don't have to hire more to produce enough. They can produce more by simply requiring overtime from employees who are barely in a position to say no.

You said a lot here. I wonder if you even know it.

I understand the implications perfectly. I'm afraid you don't.

A business is in the business of making money. If it can do so by doing a) as easily as b), and by not doing b), they get rid of an administration that they don't like and is an impediment to their business overall, then a) becomes the better choice.

Now, personally, I think they should hire more people because that would be good for the country. But they won't. That's not their interest. Many of them aren't even American companies anymore.

I can't work up a lot of sympathy for Obama in this case, because he's a guy who authorizes a tax credit for private planes, and then demonizes the people who fly in them. He takes bags of money from the Wall Street Crooks, and then plays up to the OWS shitters.

I no longer have to wonder.

 

[Full-Auto]

I think that as adults here we ought not be demanding proof of common knowledge, or what should be common knowledge to anyone paying attention:

House Republicans: White House plan for infrastructure bank

"Dead on Arrival." Now we'll probably hear that dead on arrival means something other than dead on arrival.

Here's something you're going to have trouble comprehending:

If Obama wants something, it's not automatically a good thing, nor does it mean he should have it.

Take some deep breaths and let your heart rate come down.

The plan sounded like more failure waiting to happen. You should be grateful to the GOp for not letting it embarrass Obama.

That's not material to the FACT that Obama's infrastructure plan was being blocked by the Republicans,

which is exactly what I originally said, and exactly what you were too ******* ignorant and uninformed to know was the truth.

Dufus an infrastructure bank is not a plan. It is the white flag of surrender. Trying to bypass congress. How many private banks do you want to add to the fed.

Dumbass....................

 

[JoeB131]

You said a lot here. I wonder if you even know it.

I understand the implications perfectly. I'm afraid you don't.

A business is in the business of making money. If it can do so by doing a) as easily as b), and by not doing b), they get rid of an administration that they don't like and is an impediment to their business overall, then a) becomes the better choice.

Now, personally, I think they should hire more people because that would be good for the country. But they won't. That's not their interest. Many of them aren't even American companies anymore.

I can't work up a lot of sympathy for Obama in this case, because he's a guy who authorizes a tax credit for private planes, and then demonizes the people who fly in them. He takes bags of money from the Wall Street Crooks, and then plays up to the OWS shitters.

I no longer have to wonder.

No, you don't. I understand perfectly well what's going on...

Obama is a class a fuckup, and if the GOP was halfway competetant, they'd be beating him like a drum right now..

His only hope is that the GOP will nominate someone who is a bigger foulup or otherwise toxic, because if he was running against himself, he'd lose.

 

[geauxtohell]

[/B]

You already posted the bolded part of your post about a month or two ago. Basically word-for-word.
And as I told you back then, I work in the health care industry and have done so for 15 years and I work in strategic planning.
You may think you know damn near everything, but I have my doubts. Otherwise, you'd have a clue that the way Medicare pays bills including CAT Scans, is the basically same way they paid bills under other administrations. Also, as I was in the technical side of health care for ten years (20 years all told in technology) , I very, very aware of the mark-ups in regards to technology. Technology has super high mark-ups in about every business sector.
You're way you bias to be objective, otherwise you wouldn't be posting such one-sided BS that doesn't grasp reality. It's like you trying to blame all the regulation on Obama, when in fact instituting regulations goes back decades by presidents of all stripes.

"Never mind the USA is ten times the size of other supposedly single payer countries... those countries can't provide single payer and are going broke"

Obamacare isn't single payer. Like a majority of Americans, I'm all for Single Payer and not for Obamacare.

So you are telling me that the statistics I showed and CAN show about your local hospital DID NOT come from:
Medicare Hospital OPPS Identifiable Data Set.
The file includes hospital outpatient billing data for 100% of all Medicare
fee-for-service claims for outpatient services provided during the
twelve months ending December 31.2009.

In other words THESE ARE THE REAL claims filed and the cost the hospital reported ---AND MEDICARE is OK because of this stupid law:
"In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay.

So idiot, your local hospital pads and passes on to Medicare their costs of complying with EMTALA.

NOW EMTALA created the unintended consequences of good intentions to the amount of $47 billion a year is padded and passed on to those that pay, i.e. insurance companies, Medicare and OUT of Pocket!

AGAIN though being the ignorant idiot that FAVORS single payer.. you have shown how dumb you and fellow supporters are as to health costs!

When you combine the "EMTALA affect" with what 90% of physicians have identified, "$600 billion in Defensive Medicine" you have the 800 lb gorilla!
Almost $1 trillion of the $2.5 trillion spent all due to RULES and Regulations intended to like you favor "help everyone"!

BUT IT doesn't obviously and so YOU FEEL "single payer" will with a lineage of "trying to help everyone" that has caused $1 trillion a year in waste will improve health care delivery?

Sorry but you are as most naive,ignorant people are grossly uninformed!


Instead of "feeling" do a little "thinking"!!!

The Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA)was passed in 1986 by a Democratic Congress. Who was president then? And did that president try to veto the legislation? NO!
I am in agreement with the effect of EMTALA on the cost of health care.
Also, you seem to have a problem with helping the poor and the elderly. You seem to want to throw these people off the cliff. While most physicians favor Single Payer because it lowers the cost and eliminates and it eliminates the tight reins insurance companies have on the physicians, plus there's all that paperwork they have to do while working with private insurance companies.
In a poll of physicians in Massachusetts taken five years after Romney Care shows that doctors don't want to go back to the status quo you seem top favor.

The Reagan administration pushed for EMTALA after the patient dumping scandals of the 80s.

It's a good law. However, the de facto fall out is that everyone gets a primary survey no matter what. Then if you find anything on primary survey you are obligated to treat it.