KD in CA Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 It is just a matter of time. Most of us are at least one generation removed from when times were like that. If the clock has to be turned back 75 years or so... So be it. We need to take a step back. 468085[/snapback] I'm sorry....you are suggesting that continued expansion of governmental authority over private enterprise is progress? That's worked like a charm throughout history. What exactly do you think is being "turned back"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 I'm sorry....you are suggesting that continued expansion of governmental authority over private enterprise is progress? That's worked like a charm throughout history. What exactly do you think is being "turned back"? 468121[/snapback] Don't let the fact that kids today can't even locate Hawaii on a map fool you. Our educational system is top-notch (as long as you do not compare it to anything). We have straight 'A' students. Why? Because anything else would hurt their feelings and we would have to change from red pens to purple pens to mark "differences in opinion."** ** You cannot call them "mistakes" for fear of being sued by the parents for ruining the psyche of their kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Exploding deficits, regulation to the point of stifling advances, government dependency, etc. Yup. Things are much better now. 468112[/snapback] We are a lot fatter. Things must be better? Trust me things were a lot worse. My father was raised on black bread and lard... He has some heart problems today in his 70's (probably genetic... not helped by enviro though... A doctor once checked him out some years ago and he explained how he was raised and what he ate. You know what the doctor said? "Were you a migrant worker?" Basically he could have answered yes. Kids started on the farms in WNY during those days at 6 years or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 We are a lot fatter. 468130[/snapback] Which is a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Which is a good thing? 468136[/snapback] I was being saracastic. Sure beats being emaciated. Has there ever been a happy medium in our society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Why don't we just let people buy their health insurance directly from the insurance companies, just like we do with every other form of insurance? 467863[/snapback] Most companies have an expert who reviews health care plans and tries to find the best fit for their employees in terms of price vs. plan benefits. Also, insurance companies only have to deal with one person at the company who understands the specifics of the policy. Additionally, employers withhold employee contributions and make one payment to the insurance carrier monthly to cover all employees. Under your scenario, the insurance company has to deal with each individual in regards to administering the policy and processing payments. The individual is responsible for reviewing plan choices and making a decision based on their needs. Do you feel that the average person as well as 50% that are below average can make an intelligent decision regarding the plan they need to personally buy? How long before employers decide to make things easier by withholding premiums and making payments to the companies? In this manner we come full circle, the employer administers the plan but no longer pays for it. Don't you think that employees might demand a raise if the employer no longer contributes to their medical insurance? If not, won't the employees realize that they just got screwed? I think that even the 50% that are below average would understand that they just got bent over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Exploding deficits, regulation to the point of stifling advances, government dependency, etc. Yup. Things are much better now. 468112[/snapback] Stop with the facts. They get in the way of awesome emotional "debate." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 Stop with the facts. They get in the way of awesome emotional "debate." 468262[/snapback] Gee Mr. Spock... Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 Has anyone seen any exploding pythons here? No? OK. I'll look in another thread. Go back to what you were doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Probably because there isn't one. Individual health care in America is an exclusive-use limited resource governed by a free-market economy, period. Reforming it the way everyone would like would require one of two things: making it a non-exclusive use resource (a practical impossibility), or change the economic system under which it operates (an impractical possibility). The only other option is to accept that individual health care is a privilege, not a right. Frankly, there is no good option. Fixed resources + elastic demand = not everyone participates, no matter what your economic model. Every "solution" I've ever heard is either a mechanism for transferring the privilege from one class to another, or rationing it so that no one gets to participate. 457907[/snapback] Sorry, can't agree with you on this one. First off, only in the good ol' USA is health care considered a "privilege" when you're talking about developed countries. Where do we draw the line on "supply and demand"? Should that principle apply to life itself? I think not. I read in USA today recently that less than 60% of employers now offer health insurance. That's a HUGE PROBLEM, whether we like it or not. So lets not pretend everyone in the country is well off enough to afford health insurance. I happen to have very good employer based health insurance. This is becoming a rarity for too many. The answer of " oh well, not all can participate" may be ok when it comes to plasma TV's or a fancy car, but it seems just too crass for a "civilized" nation to say "that kid is dying over there. Too bad his mom couldn't get a better job." There should be some sort of national health care or large size emplyers should offer it. Period. Anything less is well...uncivilized! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Here's the major problem with America today. People who work at WalMart should not be having 4 kids. If you can'f afford children, guess what....DON'T EFFING HAVE ANY!!!!!!!!! 461830[/snapback] Good point. There are way too many people in the world as it is. Don't burden society with any more than necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Good point. There are way too many people in the world as it is. Don't burden society with any more than necessary. 474470[/snapback] It is a good point... But, it will never stop happening... Never has and never will. Historically, big families was seen as "Social Security." That is have 8 kids in the hope one makes it and supports you in your old age. Think they care about "burdening" society. Probably not. Educating is the only way out of this trap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Good point. There are way too many people in the world as it is. Don't burden society with any more than necessary. 474470[/snapback] Especially if you can't afford to raise them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Especially if you can't afford to raise them. 474482[/snapback] Again... They are not thinking about that... They are thinking about the kids providing for them later in life. In America, this mentality has been slowing. I bet a good part of the third world poor still adhere to this thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts