New, Improved Obamacare Program Released On 35 Floppy Disks

[iceaura]

So you agree the Switzerland has NO minimum wage written into law. Yes, it does have collective bargaining agreements between individuals and employers. I have no problem with this so long as the employer is a private company.

No, still wrong: it has one collective bargaining agreement politically negotiated between the nation's collective labor reps and the nation's collective employer reps, establishing a single minimum wage for the entire country. The country has one minimum wage, it applies to every major employer both corporate and government alike, it is legally binding, and it is enforced at gunpoint by the government. It is the tenth highest national minimum wage in the world, higher than the US Federal minimum wage, higher than the minimum wages of any of its neighbors except France.

You can't even get this stuff right with the information posted directly in front of your face, the internet at your fingertips.

So, yes, Switzerland has a high minimum due to being more capitalistic

It is going to the polls in a couple of weeks to vote on a guaranteed minimum income for every Swiss adult, paid for by taxes. Right now it looks like the idea will be voted down - but it's something the Swiss find reasonable to consider.

The Swiss medical insurance system resembles Obamacare, except it forbids making a profit on the basic required coverage that all plans must provide. When the Heritage Foundation invented Obamacare, and Mitt Romney adopted it for Massachusetts to head off the growing popularity of single payer plans, they included capitalistic profit under the daydream that it would create "competition" and "drive down prices". The Swiss are not that naive, and not that ignorant of the mechanisms of capitalistic markets, but even the Swiss ahve not been able to avoid the higher costs of bureaucratic inefficiency associated with multiple payers and corporate competition in medical care - the Swiss system is one of the most expensive on the planet.

ZeroHedge: A stunning 57% of 18-29 year olds disapprove of Obamacare.

That's good news. Maybe when guys like you have died off we can get what we all want and have already paid for - single payer, with its cost benefits and higher quality care delivery.

 

[Write4U]

No, the State is inherently bad. Which is why, for Americans, it was limited. Well, it's no longer limited. When you can't wipe your arse without requiring to pass numerous Federal Regulations - that's not a 'Limited' State.

Show me a study that the generic term State implies an inherently bad Thing?

I'm using the foreighn States because you are not normalized to their culture - so you can clearly see the inherent immorality. If you were from KSA, you'd just as likely to be singing praises to the King and 'thank's God for the good service of the Morality Police - else we'd corrupt like you Westerners'.

Actually, having spent 17 years in Europe and So. America as well as Canada, I am quite normalized to various cultures and States.

I'm not sure if religion was such a major factor - however the separation of powers was intended to LIMIT the role of the State in our lives. Both federal and local. It's simply NOT limited. You're here in this thread along with nearly every member on the board arguing we need to INCREASE the power of the Federal Government.

That is a bald faced lie. No one here has advocated for increased power of the Federal Government. As I understand it, most are arguing for due diligence of the people's representatives. Prove your point with a link or apologize.

At one point you said something to the effect we need to lose Civil Liberties to be 'Free'. You're arguing it's better for the nation if we become less prosperous as a nation. This is insane. It's literally Orwellian double-speak. Which would be interesting if one weren't actually forced to live with the consequences.

That is a bald faced lie. Prove your point with a link or apologize.

One more time, you're arguing "we" (those of us stamped 'American') have to lose our Civil Liberties and by definition become less prosperous - to gain freedom.

Yet another lie. One more time, I am not (and have not) arguing we have to lose our civil liberties. That is a false assertion.
Name me a freedom which you have lost, or have you lost prosperity? Blame Big Business for that, not the State.

Ever hear of doublespeak? It's when language deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Here, I'll show you where you fit in:
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery [loss of civil liberties]
Ignorance is strength.

You are the master at double speak, you are the one posting this, no one else has.

(a) It's not voluntary, the State will issue a fine if you do not sign up. You've lost the freedom to live your life without State coercion.

The State will issue a fine if you try to use Medical facilities without paying for it. Seems fair to me, don't you think so? Or do you want to preserve the freedom to get sick and become a financial burden to someone else? And you will get sick, or old and in need of help. Do you believe in sticking someone with your medical bills, while you enjoy your freedom from enforced participation in an all inclusive system that minimizes the financial impact of providing services without due compensation? I thought that was a Libertarian ideal.

Why should I 'stop whining'. And when did the application of logic become 'whining'? You may not like the conclusion deduction draws - but too bad. Deal with it.

It becomes whining when there is no longer and application of logic in the argument. Then it becomes a tedious list of complaints and false assumptions, also known as whining.

At least we agree on what the word 'State' means.

I hope not, by your definition only anarchy (total freedom from authority) allows for freedom and prosperity. IMO, you are applying the wrong definition of the word State. Your use of the word is more like "state of affairs", which I grant needs a lot of attention. But it has nothing to do with the organization of an infrastructure of a LEGAL system which is beneficial to and for the protection of individual civil rights for the entire population of that State (legal entity) and provides a legal framework for a free market Economy.

I'd also like to know your rational for why West Germans were prosperous and East Germans were less prosperous (significantly so). This is in response to your notion we just need to elect the right people. East and West Germany shared geographical location, language, culture, food, holidays, traditions, family values - both people wanted good healthcare, nice food, lots of vacation time - yet East Germans were nearly starving by the end. Their State needed to physically erect barriers to prevent people from 'escaping' their socialist paradise. Why do you think that was the case?

Because the East Germany belonged to a Federation of Communist States, where West Germany was a independent Democratic state.

Don't you see Michael, you provide your own proofs that Communism that an "overregulated" Communist Economic system clearly does not work and everyone else here has clearly demonstrated that an "unregulated" Capitalist Economic system also does not work.
That is the "laissez faire" system Reagan and Bush tried, to the near collapse of the worlds economy. Of course there were a few who benefitted from this completely skewed economy. But it was not the State.

 

[Michael]

The Little Red Book
Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
- Chairman Mao Zedong; 1964

Look at all those little happy Socialists - ever wonder why socialist States start spying on their own people - for the good of those people? Ever wonder why some people will argue we must lose our civil liberties to gain freedom? Slavery actually IS freedom.

 

[Michael]

No, still wrong.

Switzerland has NO minimum wage written into law. It's that simple.

Again, I have no problem with free people negotiating for the price they want to sell their labor into the market per hour.
This is a contractual issue. Once the contract is freely agreed to then the State has the role of ensuring compensation is paid if one party should not live up to their end of the contract. This is the LIMITED role of Government. In a true free society even that would be voluntary - and it would work perfectly well because both laborer WANT to sell their labor and company representative WANT to buy labor. The key is to remove regulations, use sound money (notice the Swiss weren't stupid enough to join the Euro) and with proper education teaching people HOW to access capital and participate in markets a fair equilibrium will be reached.

SO, one more time - Switzerland has NO minimum wage written into law. It's that simple.

 

[Michael]

Show me a study that the generic term State implies an inherently bad Thing?

This doesn't make any sense - the word "State" is a term. I've posted the Princeton University's link. The FACT is the State can and does and IS obligated to initiate force against innocent people. I've posted many examples, from KSA, NK and even the USA's war on drugs. These are 'case studies' that demonstrate the FACT the State has this ability. And it does. There's no argument here.

Further, initiation of force against innocent people is immoral.
See: Ethics

That is a bald faced lie. No one here has advocated for increased power of the Federal Government. As I understand it, most are arguing for due diligence of the people's representatives. Prove your point with a link or apologize.

Last year the Government did not have the power to coerce innocent people into buying private healthcare products. Next year it will. That's an increase in Government's power over the innocent citizens lives.

That is a bald faced lie. Prove your point with a link or apologize.

What era do you live in?

What good is "freedom" if only 20% of the population succeed and get to enjoy their freedom while the rest has the "freedom" to toil for slave wages and live in virtual indentured servitude disguised as "freedom" where 40 million people have no access to affordable health insurance.

What freedoms are you talking about that everyone has a right to? Last I heard was the "Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness". These rights (freedoms) are guaranteed by government which is "of the people, by the people, and for the people" through free and open elections.

You even have the freedom to elect corrupt politicians, who then try to take your Right (freedom) to vote from you so that they can remain in power.
What greater freedom can you ask for? Thank the founders for trying to install a system of checks and balances which is slowly being eroded by misguided or just plain corrupt "professional" politicians.

Which freedoms do you enjoy now which are threatened by government? Name just a few freedoms which enrich your life and ask yourself if government is taking them away or trying to protect you from them being taken away by unscrupulous entities, through laws and regulations set by your freely elected representatives in a public forum called congress.

Maybe I misinterpreted your position. You're in favor of the Government mandating all 'free' citizens either purchase a private healthcare product or pay a tax/fine? Further, when you say "What good are freedoms" and then go on a diatribe about how most people are toiling for 'slave-wages' - how am I supposed to read that?

Did you know "The Founders" didn't even pay Revolutionary War windows? How could they without using the State to force poeple to pay a tax? They couldn't - and they argued why it was immoral to do so. That we should FREELY and VOLUNTARILY pay for War Widows - but not the State. That's how much they did NOT want nor trust the State, the one they created - interfering in the citizens lives. They'd be rolling in their graves if they heard of ObamaCare.

Yet another lie. One more time, I am not (and have not) arguing we have to lose our civil liberties. That is a false assertion.
Name me a freedom which you have lost, or have you lost prosperity? Blame Big Business for that, not the State.

Are you serious? Obamacare uses the State to force citizens to pay for a private healthcare product or pay a fine/tax if they do not. This means you are no longer free from State coercion in regards to your healthcare. Not to mention millions and millions of lines of regulations that restrict just about every aspect of your life. Christ, even marriage is regulated by the State.


Lets back up to the helmet rule. Here we have all these Swedish not wearing helmets. IF, suppose, some State agency suddenly imposed a fine for not wearing a helmet - would you consider the Swedish society, less or more free to live their lives? Did they lose or gain civil liberties? ObamaCare REDUCES our freedom. Affordable healthcare is NOT achieved by LOSING freedom. You're arguing we need to lose civil liberties to be 'freer' (have healthcare). This is Orwellian: What you're saying is Freedom is Slavery. That we need to lose civil liberties to be 'freer'. That if we retain our civil liberties we're somehow 'less' free. That Freedom is Slavery.

NO IT'S NOT.

But don't worry, both the Left and Right wings of the Authoritarian Party want us to be Slaves. Now that they control our currency and force us to pay them in it - we pretty much are. They can even sell Bonds that our children have to pay back. And you wonder why we can't afford healthcare? Slaves usually can't afford much.

Because the East Germany belonged to a Federation of Communist States, where West Germany was a independent Democratic state.

This isn't an explanation of why. So what if East Germany belonged to a Federation of Communist States? This doesn't explain why they had such a poor economy. It doesn't explain why they had to resort to spying on everyone. It doesn't explain why they had to resort to severely restricting civil liberties and freedom of movement.

 

[Michael]

RE: "Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness".

You are free to live your life, to your civil liberties and to pursuit you happiness. You are not free to take from others as part of 'pursuing your happiness' because now you're taking away someone else's right to pursuit their happiness.

Or at least that's what the 'Founders' envisioned.

 

[Write4U]

RE: "Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness".

You are free to live your life, to your civil liberties and to pursuit you happiness. You are not free to take from others as part of 'pursuing your happiness' because now you're taking away someone else's right to pursuit their happiness.

Yes and you pay membership dues to contract for the protections of the State, so that you may enjoy all the other liberties and freedoms. But in a free market society, every service requires payment. Even government services, without which you would not last but a few months.

Or at least that's what the 'Founders' envisioned.

Yes and they also envisioned a taxation to provide for the legal framework to protect those rights. It's in the Constitution.

But today we can envision what happens to a society which is deprived of even a bad dictator as Saddam Hussein. After the State officially ceased to function a civil war immediately ensued. Proof that in a vacuum private forces will try to dominate, until a new Constitutional State has been formed with powers of enforcement. Personal Freedom is relative to other people's personal freedoms and certainly does not mean or even imply Unlimited freedom.

You need only look at recent history and a few post-apocalyptic films to see how easily civilization collapses into anarchy and the use of force by individuals on each other.

Where will your rights to Life, Liberty, pursuit of Happiness be then?

 

[Write4U]

Michael, perhaps this tale of State might illuminate the principle on which this Nation was founded.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863

Was the message an act of enslavement to the State or an act of of power to establish lawful freedom from oppression and the protection of individual rights? Did this speech elevate the dead as paying an ultimate tax for the freedoms you enjoy now, but complain about the cost of a cup of coffee and the use of force by the State to protect your freedoms.

When a State is benign and has the welfare of ALL its citizens as a primary obligation, then it is an asset to the citizens of The State of the United States, not a mortal detriment, which you predict with such certainty. I predict civilization will continue to evolve as will our democratic system, which is the ultimate judge, and has the ultimate power by the vote of the people themselves.
Then declare your cooperation to the majority will on those issues you do find necessary to maintain a Lawful State.
I really cannot see why you should have any objections to such a solution of a Matter of State. The majority rules, the minority cooperate to the extend possible. Until the next elections......

 

[Grumpy]

Michael

My God you live in 100% pure squiggle-induced delusion. Ever read SnowCrash? You may find it illuminating:

I live in delusion? You are the one quoting the Heritage Foundation and the WSJ, I'll stick with more...unDeminted sources, thank you. I'm beginning to see how you got so screwed up, you probably think Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are scholars. "Index of Economic Freedom" sounds like something from the Ministry of Information(how's that for literary reference?). I guess it depends on what Jim Demint and Rupert Murdoch define as freedom. Somehow I doubt it includes what the majority of the citizens of those countries would consider being free. Freedom from hunger, freedom from need, freedom from poverty, freedom from slavery? only the monied interest's freedom from responsibility to and freedom to steal from the populace is reflected in that chart. Yes I've read Snowcrash, I liked Neuromancer better. I would like to recommend you read The Hunger Games, you'll see yourself in the mirror, but not in the role of the heroine.

Grumpy

 

[Tiassa]

Waiting for the (Brain-) Worms

You are the one quoting the Heritage Foundation and the WSJ, I'll stick with more...unDeminted sources, thank you.

Oh, thank you so very much. That word is going to stick in my head for weeks, damn it.

I can't believe I never noticed that one before, though. Good one. I am diminished by my failure.

 

[joepistole]

Michael
I live in delusion? You are the one quoting the Heritage Foundation and the WSJ, I'll stick with more...unDeminted sources, thank you. I'm beginning to see how you got so screwed up, you probably think Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are scholars. "Index of Economic Freedom" sounds like something from the Ministry of Information(how's that for literary reference?). I guess it depends on what Jim Demint and Rupert Murdoch define as freedom. Somehow I doubt it includes what the majority of the citizens of those countries would consider being free. Freedom from hunger, freedom from need, freedom from poverty, freedom from slavery? only the monied interest's freedom from responsibility to and freedom to steal from the populace is reflected in that chart. Yes I've read Snowcrash, I liked Neuromancer better. I would like to recommend you read The Hunger Games, you'll see yourself in the mirror, but not in the role of the heroine.

Grumpy

You know it’s pretty bad when they are reduced to citing each other as expert references. And that explains why they are so often wrong about nearly everything.

 

[iceaura]

Again, I have no problem with free people negotiating for the price they want to sell their labor into the market per hour.
This is a contractual issue. Once the contract is freely agreed to then the State has the role of ensuring compensation is paid if one party should not live up to their end of the contract.

Switzerland has a national, government enforced minimum wage, negotiated by the political representatives of Labor (leftwing, by definition) with the political representatives of Capital (rightwing, by definition). It is not a contract, it is a legal minimum wage. Its enforcement has nothing to do with one party claiming breach, or either party failing in its obligations to the other and the wronged party demanding enforcement. It cannot be opted out of by mutual agreement, no major employer can choose whether or not to be party to it, and no employee can hire on other than under its provisions. Upon violation, the State does not "ensure compensation is paid", but rather prosecutes the perpetrators of a crime against the State. At gunpoint.

You were wrong, when you claimed Switzerland had no minimum wage. You were wrong, when you then claimed that various minimum wages in Switzerland were negotiated between employees and employers. Now you are wrong in claiming the wage is a contract between signatory parties. Have you run out of ways to get this very simple matter wrong?

 

[Michael]

Yes and you pay membership dues to contract for the protections of the State, so that you may enjoy all the other liberties and freedoms. But in a free market society, every service requires payment. Even government services, without which you would not last but a few months.

Yes, I agree, when you consume a good or service, you should pay for it. This isn't the point. The point is the State FORCING/COERCING a person to pay for (State-licensed) Private Healthcare goods and/or services - THAT is a LOSS of Civil Liberties.

And it is, I fail to see what's so hard to understand here.

2010: Citizens are NOT forced by the State to purchase a State-regulated healthcare good/service or pay a fine to the State.
2014: Citizens ARE forced by the State to purchase a State-regulated healthcare good/service or pay a fine to the State.
This is a loss of Civil Liberty.

Freedom is Slavery is it? We need to lose more civil liberties, become less prosperous - to gain our freedom. Become slaves, to become free. This shouldn't be all that hard to understand. But, one more time: We do not need to lose more civil liberties, the path to prosperity is not becoming LESS free. Prosperity requires MORE freedom - not less. More. But don't worry, we will lose more civil liberties, along with our privacy, and you'll be get your overpriced Government run ObamaCare where the incompetent physicians (~1 in 25) and/or sociopathic physicians (~1 in 73) will be protected by their Unions and incompetent bureaucracies - they'll be the ones taking care of you. You think Public Housing is bad? You think it's insane students can graduate from Public Schools with a 47% functionally illiteracy rate. You haven't seen anything yet.

Yes and they also envisioned a taxation to provide for the legal framework to protect those rights. It's in the Constitution.

To protect the right to steal from others by force? Are you insane? To protect the right to force people to buy a healthcare good or service from a state-certified and state-licensed 'healthcare' provider? You think THAT was the intent of the US Constitution?

So stealing is now a virtue is it? Using the State to steal through force from young adults - to pay for their grandparents healthcare. Yeah, let's see how this one plays out.

But today we can envision what happens to a society which is deprived of even a bad dictator as Saddam Hussein. After the State officially ceased to function a civil war immediately ensued. Proof that in a vacuum private forces will try to dominate, until a new Constitutional State has been formed with powers of enforcement. Personal Freedom is relative to other people's personal freedoms and certainly does not mean or even imply Unlimited freedom.

You need only look at recent history and a few post-apocalyptic films to see how easily civilization collapses into anarchy and the use of force by individuals on each other.

Where will your rights to Life, Liberty, pursuit of Happiness be then?

Ever been to Detroit? Half a century of unbroken Progressive Democratic rule has turned Detroit (once the richest city in the word) into a literal post-apocalyptic nightmare. Guess what? Those Detroit public servants - they're seeing the end result. I hope they saved up enough of those 13 month pay checks they granted themselves along the way.



But don't you worry, you're going to get public ObamaCare, and you're going to get public 'healthcare' Unions, and you're going to get public employee quotas, and all those dumb-arse highschool students who can't read or write are probably going to kill you one day. This isn't something I need to wonder "if" about. Not all statistics are published - the word statistics comes from the words 'science dealing with data about the condition of a state'. Guess what? The people on the inside, we're the one's who collect the data.

So, do enjoy your ObamaCare.

 

[Michael]

Was the message an act of enslavement to the State or an act of of power to establish lawful freedom from oppression and the protection of individual rights?

Using the State to force innocent people to purchase a state-certified state-licensed private healthcare good or service is a form of Fascism. It's immoral. And like all societies built on immorality - will end badly. This will end badly. It may take awhile, Detroit didn't collapse in a decade, it took multiple decades putting one foot in front of the other. We will get there too.

You've spent page after page after page we need LESS civil liberties.
OK, you're going to get LESS civil liberties - good for you. You get your wish.

When a State is benign and....

The State, by definition is a group of humans with the legal obligation to initiate force against innocent groups of humans. It can't BE benign. It's inherently immoral.

has the welfare of ALL its citizens as a primary obligation,

What do you mean 'its citizens'? Are you suggesting we're owned by the State?

then it is an asset to the citizens of The State of the United States, not a mortal detriment, which you predict with such certainty. I predict civilization will continue to evolve as will our democratic system, which is the ultimate judge, and has the ultimate power by the vote of the people themselves.

And I predict we'll continue to lose more civil liberties and the State will expand it's powers to spy on 'its Citizens'. That's what a State does - it's uses it's power over 'its Citizens'. Just like a Farmer does with His Cattle.

Let's see who's correct. Next year we'll see if State Regulations are reduced and we become freer - or expanded, and we continue to lose civil liberties. Let's see if the State Spying is ended, or expanded, maybe made permanent.

Yeah, I know you think Big Brother loves you - but you're wrong. He despises you and is just as likely to use you as a political pawn as he is to turn you into cannon fodder. Those Oligarchs you think Big Brother is protecting you against... no, they ARE the State. When you say 'its Citizens' - what you really mean is you/we are the property of the State.
In reality - you're the 'Oligarchs Citizens'. They own you. They own me.

Now be a good little Tax Cattle and pull the magic Left-Right lever once every couple of years. Good for you. Moo moo mooo....

Then declare your cooperation to the majority will on those issues you do find necessary to maintain a Lawful State.
I really cannot see why you should have any objections to such a solution of a Matter of State. The majority rules, the minority cooperate to the extend possible. Until the next elections......

And the majority in KSA still support their morality police. Why? Because people are taught to think incorrectly. People are taught to BE property, and soon, they WANT to be property. These are the same State authorized group of humans who forced 15 young girls back into a burning building. Yet the Public in KSA love them as you love your master. Oh, and the 'Majority' of Founding Fathers were in favor of Slavery. Being in the 'majority' isn't the same as being 'moral'.

And I don't have to cooperate with - I can cooperate without. I'm not the one who's going to be attending a Public Hospital. I don't have to worry about seeing someone incompetent. I don't have to worry about crossing paths with a smooth-talking sociopath. Again, take a good look at Public Housing - that's your Public Hospital in 15-25 years. You'll see.


There's one other way the 'majority' can decide to 'cooperate' - individual States can peacefully 'vote' to succeed from the Union. If the 'majority' win that vote - by your own logic, the minority will just have to live with the decision. Let's hope some votes start to happen sooner rather than later. Don't you agree? I'm guessing by 2035-40, we'll start to see serious talk of legal, peaceful, succession. See, we're not moving to the outback of Alaska.

 

[Michael]

The argument we need to lose civil liberties (become less prosperous) for the good of society is an oxymoron. We do not need to lose more civil liberties. But, you're in luck. Thanks to Public Schooling, most people think just like you. So, we have and will continue to lose more and more civil liberties. We'll also lose our privacy. Over time, we'll become a poorer nation. You can tell your grandkids about the time you stood up for the 'freedom' of people to be forced by their State to pay for goods and services from privately-owned, State-licenced, State-regulated Oligarchic 'healthcare' providers.


Do be sure to enjoy the ObamaCare.

 

[paddoboy]

Do be sure to enjoy the ObamaCare.

They could do better, but at least it is a start. Good stuff!

 

[Michael]

Switzerland has a national, government enforced minimum wage, negotiated by the political representatives of Labor (leftwing, by definition) with the political representatives of Capital (rightwing, by definition). It is not a contract, it is a legal minimum wage. Its enforcement has nothing to do with one party claiming breach, or either party failing in its obligations to the other and the wronged party demanding enforcement. It cannot be opted out of by mutual agreement, no major employer can choose whether or not to be party to it, and no employee can hire on other than under its provisions. Upon violation, the State does not "ensure compensation is paid", but rather prosecutes the perpetrators of a crime against the State. At gunpoint.

You were wrong, when you claimed Switzerland had no minimum wage. You were wrong, when you then claimed that various minimum wages in Switzerland were negotiated between employees and employers. Now you are wrong in claiming the wage is a contract between signatory parties. Have you run out of ways to get this very simple matter wrong?

One more time: Switzerland has NO minimum wage written into law. Neither does Germany, Singapore, Austria, Liechtenstein, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Italy, Norway, or Sweden.

As for collective bargaining - I fully support collective bargaining. I fully support using the courts to press for compensation should one side not live up to their contractual agreement. I fully support private unionization, as long as it's voluntary. Public Unions OTOH are an abomination.

 

[Michael]

They could do better, but at least it is a start. Good stuff!

I'm curious: If you had to guess - what do you think the percentage is, of Australians who enter an Australian Public Hospital and are not given the correct healthcare treatment?

1 in 1000?
1 in 500?
1 in 50?

What do you think that number is?



Given Australians are now the one of the most unhealthy obese people on planet earth - and the incidence of cardiovascular disease is sky-rocketing just how much money do you want taken away from other public goods and services and instead spent on Australian 'Healthcare' for all these obese patients. Given we live in a world with a finite amount of resources - just how much more would you like to divert away from education to 'service' the cardiovascular diseased public? I say more, because Australia is already 'second last' on education spending relative to other first world nations (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (oeCD) report). So? How much LESS do you want to spend on Educating the next generations of Australians so you can pay for the current 'epidemic' tidal wave of obese Australian cardiovascular patients? Maybe cut AU educational spending down to very last?

Would that be better? Just get in more immigrants to fill in the 'skills' shortage and keep the economy going 'strong'.

 

[iceaura]

One more time: Switzerland has NO minimum wage written into law.

Switzerland has the tenth highest minimum wage on the planet. http://www.therichest.com/business/the-top-10-countries-with-the-highest-minimum-wages/

You were wrong when you said there wasn't one, when you backed up and said there were separately negotiated ones, when you backed up further and said it was a "contract", and so forth. Now you retreat into the technicality that the amount is not specified by the law backing it, therefore it does not exist. Whatever.

Neither does Germany, Singapore, Austria, Liechtenstein, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Italy, Norway, or Sweden.

Amazing what freedoms are possible when one has socialized medicine, eh? Germany, btw, does have minimum wages written into law, but they are set up by region rather than nationally - a bit like the US, where they are set up by State, only without the Federal floor rate. One reason Germany may need them is that it does not have single payer medical care.

 

[paddoboy]

.

She'll be right mate!