Sea World to Cut Hours for Part Time Employees

Saturday, September 14, 2013 11:26 AM

I certainly hope it's not meaningless, but if it's helping resolve your cognitive dissonance, I understand. It's a necessary step.

There is often a serious backlash in a system that is presented with an alternative or shift in direction. Not only is it expected, it's a part of change happening.

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2013 11:29 AM

This is the 21st century. If we as a nation can't provide access to healthcare for all our people, then we're failing--not to mention falling far behind the rest of the modern world.

+1Loading
Saturday, September 14, 2013 11:37 AM

Being so much better off than people in Third World countries makes one wonder why we even had a "War on Poverty" in the first place. Oh, that's right, we didn't compare poverty here to poverty in other places then, we just went about FIXING it!

Nice to know our thought leaders have taken us to a place where those in the worst of circumstances (composed very largely of women and children, mind you) should show such gratitude for having the most meager of circumstances in "the land of plenty." Shaking my head over that...sad days indeed.

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2013 12:00 PM

People may not like or agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. But a Supreme Court ruling can't be unconstitutional.

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2013 12:06 PM

Ensign Smith said:

This is the 21st century. If we as a nation can't provide access to healthcare for all our people, then we're failing--not to mention falling far behind the rest of the modern world.

Agreed. It's too bad we're providing/making them buy insurance coverage. Because providing health care seems like a better idea.

rollergator said:

Nice to know our thought leaders have taken us to a place where those in the worst of circumstances (composed very largely of women and children, mind you) should show such gratitude for having the most meager of circumstances in "the land of plenty." Shaking my head over that...sad days indeed.

Because saying the United States has one of the worst poverty rates is essentially saying we suck because in the big world picture, those in the top 10% don't have it as good as those in the top 1%.

It's a really bizarre way of trying to make things somehow seem like the US sucks compared to other countries.

There's no doubt people here are legitimately hurting, but the 4th highest child poverty rate is incredibly misleading. It grades individual countries on a curve and then compares those different curves.

For a group that often argues the scientific merit of coaster polls, I find it funny that we're turning a blind eye to what's so wrong with this statistic.

slithernoggin said:

Is it the law of the land? Yes; passed by Congress, signed by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court: with all its imperfections it's what we have now.

slithernoggin said:

People may not like or agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. But a Supreme Court ruling can't be unconstitutional.

To me, these are the scariest arguments of all.

"The government said so. So deal with it."

Yikes.

+4Loading
Saturday, September 14, 2013 12:11 PM

I find no real merit in comparing ourselves to other countries - we should be looking within and fixing what is so obviously broken here. Just because people in other countries are better off or worse off doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to make the best of OUR situation.

I don't want millions of people relying on the welfare state any more than those who qualify as the "conservative" contingent. I do want people who work full-time making their employers tons of money to make enough themselves to be part of the solution, and not part of the problem. And honestly, when the company you work for is making record profits year after year, you shouldn't be asking yourself how you're going to deal with yet another (effective) pay-cut.

Last edited by rollergator, Saturday, September 14, 2013 12:12 PM
+3Loading
Saturday, September 14, 2013 12:19 PM

For profit insurance companies provide non-healthcare coverages without spiraling costs like with have with healthcare. So that can't in and of itself be the problem.

And with those other types of insurance coverages, insurance companies have incentives to deny claims. For profit businesses in general have incentives, like Sea World is doing in the subject of the OP, to reduce any and all expenses. So that can't be the problem in and of itself either.

To me, the much bigger issue is the effect of subsidies. General economics provides that if you subsidize something, you will get more of it and the price will go up. We tend to want to subsidize a lot of things. Then when prices go up, we tend to want to fix the problem with more subsidies. What did Einstein say about insanity?

What other product or service is sold/delivered with neither the buyer/consumer nor seller/provider knowing the cost of the product or service? And with neither party having any real incentive for the price to be reduced? If we want to reduce healthcare costs, we need to find ways of creating incentives to reduce costs. The consumer and provider are in the best position to reduce costs yet we have a system that gives neither party those incentives.

As for the Supreme Court never being unconstitutional, I agree that its scary to think just because the government says so, it must be right. And Oliver L. Brown would probably disagree in any event. :)

So roller, what is your solution? Limit number of part-time workers a company can have? Increase the minimum wage? Something else?

Last edited by GoBucks89, Saturday, September 14, 2013 12:22 PM
+2Loading
Saturday, September 14, 2013 12:44 PM

While I agree with a lot of your post, I just wanted to touch on this:

GoBucks89 said:

For profit insurance companies provide non-healthcare coverages without spiraling costs like with have with healthcare. So that can't in and of itself be the problem.

Because other industries don't equate having the insurance with the basic necessities of said industry.

For example:

You don't use your home insurance to do basic updates and maintenance on your home. Every time you paint, it's not billed to your insurance and you don't need to show proof of insurance to get into Home Depot.

And then once there, when you mention that you need to paint, Home Depot doesn't automatically throw in paint brushes, buckets, paint thinner, base paint, a ladder and drop cloths as "a precautionary measure."

But somehow this is exactly how our health care system works. If you want to take cash and just buy a gallon of paint...good luck. And the response to fixing this is to provide and/or require everyone to buy home insurance.

It's truly insane. You have that right.

Last edited by Lord Gonchar, Saturday, September 14, 2013 1:36 PM
+3Loading
Saturday, September 14, 2013 12:57 PM

OhioStater said:

I certainly hope it's not meaningless, but if it's helping resolve your cognitive dissonance, I understand. It's a necessary step.

I was angling for an "And how does that make you feel?" response, but I appreciate the free therapy session regardless.

I certainly hope you don't think I was implying that child poverty in our country is meaningless. Context.

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2013 2:38 PM

Our current system of insurance-based access to health care is preventing them from getting what is, in my view, something they are entitled to have access to as a fundamental human right in a society as advanced and resourceful as ours.


I don't agree with this premise any more than I believe the "4th in the world" proclamation. No child is denied access to health care. We may not have an efficient means of paying for it/etc...but no children are out there dying in mass while hospitals lock their doors...

I don't deny problems. But sensationalizing with stats like "4th in the world" or painting a picture that children are denied access leads to irrational legislation like the ASA. There is a segment of the population that truly believes that the USA has the 4th largest real poverty rate for the children. There is a segment that truly believes that children are dying in the parking lots of hospitals because the mean old doctors won't treat them.

In the end, thousands of workers get to see their hours and earning potential slashed because political zealotry reigned unchecked. Not one child is in a better position than they were before ACA. In fact, they are probably worse off now that mom and dads hours are cut.

And to add insult to the madness...the very people who utilized sensationalism to pass this bill are either exempt or begging to be exempt. You have the AFLCIO out there begging for further subsidies so their members don't have to feel the same pain as a Sea World Worker. Some of their members are calling for an outright repeal. Who among us believes that Obama won't cut them a backroom deal?

Maybe only the children of union members or ACA supporters are what really matters. I say that if the law is so bad as to be exempted for even ONE entity...then EVERYBODY should be exempt.

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2013 3:18 PM

To me, these are the scariest arguments of all.

"The government said so. So deal with it."

Do you know scares me? People who see the government as something apart, something separate from the citizens of this country. We, the people...the consent of the governed... these aren't meaningless phrases.

The ACA was passed by a Congress elected by we, the people, signed into law by a President elected by we, the people, and upheld by the Supreme Court, fulfilling one of its Constitutional roles.

Regardless of what any of us thinks about the ACA, it is the law. That's a simple fact, not an opinion. There have been many laws passed that I don't agree with, some that I despised -- but I respected our process of making laws in this country.

______________________

Also: yes, our health care system is insane.

Last edited by slithernoggin, Saturday, September 14, 2013 3:19 PM
+1Loading
Saturday, September 14, 2013 3:20 PM

slithernoggin said:

People may not like or agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. But a Supreme Court ruling can't be unconstitutional.

So many things wrong with this. The constitution was intended to limit the federal government's power over the states'. The very reason we're now dealing with a federal government that's too big for its (and our) own good is because unconstitutional laws have been passed, many due to some of the Supreme Court's awful rulings.

But the fact that 5 flawed human beings have been given the power to decide what's right or wrong for an entire country, when we already have 536 people in congress and the executive branch that are supposed to keep each other in check is another argument altogether.

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2013 3:23 PM

slithernoggin said:

Regardless of what any of us thinks about the ACA, it is the law. That's a simple fact, not an opinion. There have been many laws passed that I don't agree with, some that I despised -- but I respected our process of making laws in this country.

And many laws have been overturned, repealed and whatnot because the people spoke up. It happens all the time. To say something is a law and that is that is to not understand the system or it's intended purpose on any level.

+2Loading
Saturday, September 14, 2013 3:59 PM

Just curious if you looked at the list of countries; it isn't 4th in the entire world, it was 4th on the list of countries included. Off the top of my head, I think that was about 35 or so? Here.

The message being, compared to countries like us, the US does suck at taking care of the problem of child poverty, funding quality education, and several other measure related to the well-being of kids. You can pretend the problem doesn't exist.

I certainly hope you don't think I was implying that child poverty in our country is meaningless. Context.

Well I know I feel better. :)

Last edited by OhioStater, Saturday, September 14, 2013 4:01 PM
+0
Saturday, September 14, 2013 4:09 PM

Vater said:

But the fact that 5 flawed human beings have been given the power to decide what's right or wrong for an entire country, when we already have 536 people in congress and the executive branch that are supposed to keep each other in check is another argument altogether.

I'm gonna go out a limb and bet that you weren't as.unhappy about it when five flawed human beings picked our president back in 2000.

+6Loading
Saturday, September 14, 2013 4:10 PM

^^^ I somewhat agree with that. First degree murder and death by lethal injection "is the law" and "that is that", but it doesn't mean I or someone else doesn't understand what that penalty incurs or its designed purpose (using that as an example). It does mean however, that I know in that one particular state, first degree murder is punishable by law, and the maximum punishment for that crime is death by lethal injection. But I also believe and agree with the reverse side of the coin, which is by letting the system such as the ACA continue their turmoil, it only creates more mistakes and a faulty system. Thus, saying this is the law, or that is that, is definitely not understanding the system or its intended purpose. It just letting inhumanity from corrupted corporations spread their disease, "literally"!

In Ontario, taxpayers pay a great deal of money from their annual income every year to the government, mainly the health ministry, to pay for health care, (believe me our taxes here are high on everything and anything). But like you said gonch, why should I have to deal with the middle financial guy every time I go and see my doctor? I am happy to say we don't deal with that at all here. Even going to see the "family doctor" in Ontario requires the clinic to register and file even a simple general assessment made by the doctor, which is then billed to the ministry of health so the funds can be supplied back to the hospital or clinic. Everything has a price on it in Ontario when you see a doctor or a physician. Just telling him you have a cold has a price tag. The citizens continue paying their taxes wether they rise or fall and abide by the rules and we continue to have long term health care coverage. Its a simple as that here.

Last edited by CoasterDiscern, Saturday, September 14, 2013 4:12 PM
+2Loading
Saturday, September 14, 2013 4:23 PM

OhioStater said:

The message being, compared to countries like us, the US does suck at taking care of the problem of child poverty, funding quality education, and several other measure related to the well-being of kids. You can pretend the problem doesn't exist.



But it's still measuring poverty relative to the wealth of the country.

All this is measuring is disparity of wealth within our country. Compared to a lot of other countries we have a greater disparity of wealth.

Hell, if we just make everyone poorer, then the percentage of children living 50% below the median income would go down. Does than mean everything is suddenly better? No, it just means we're all worse off.

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2013 4:39 PM

Ensign Smith said:
I'm gonna go out a limb and bet that you weren't as.unhappy about it when five flawed human beings picked our president back in 2000.

The 2000 decision was a driving force behind the ACA decision. Court was viewed as being very political. 2000 decision highlighted that for many people. Though, without getting into the decision itself, the 2000 election in Florida was within the margin of error (depending what standard you wanted to use of what votes counted, the outcome was different). Would have been just as legitimate to determine it with a coin flip as is done often as the last in a long list of tie breakers in other contexts. But I don't necessarily think that what works for the last playoff spot in a sporting contest would work for the legitimacy of the presidency and the federal government itself.

I don't think Roberts wanted to see that political trend in the Court's decisions continue with what was the next big case before it. And right or wrong (I think more wrong), the Court is viewed as belonging to the Chief Justice. Roberts knew he wasn't going to convince any of the liberal judges to vote against so he cast the vote in favor (even calling the mandate something which the law itself does not: a tax).

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2013 4:40 PM

OhioStater said:

We have the world's 4th worst rate of child poverty.

I am pretty sure this statement is what had people thinking you were talking about the entire world.

+0
Saturday, September 14, 2013 4:40 PM

But that's how we measure and define poverty. A family of four that earns at least 50% below the median income is in poverty, correct? I know it gets adjusted for number of kids, etc...frankly I'm not 100% of all that goes into the equation. Here's 2012.

I don't think any statistic or measure is perfect, and like I said in my original post (or second, I've lost track), no one is saying being poor in the US is as bad as it gets...far from it.

Last edited by OhioStater, Saturday, September 14, 2013 5:15 PM
+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2019, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...