|
|
| ||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
dmaestro 06-Feb-12, 15:27 |
 minimum he's wildly exaggerating now. Fact checkers give him Pinnochios. Romney's state was 47 out of 50 while he was guv...etc. Palin, Gingrich et al are correct that Romney isn't accurate. There is a lot more being added to the 200 pages of dirt on Romney that McCain had every day. GOPers are going to wake up and find that when it all comes out they will be holding their noses to vote for Romney as the lesser evil but he isnt as appealing to middle America as they thought. |
|||||||||
|
maestro done alone, have grown, new ones started, an economic boom occurred, etc... I mean you can't take away 18 years from him. But, let us say that 10K was the number. That is a lot of jobs! |
|||||||||
|
the job situation in the UK year high. The actual number of unemployed people in the UK could be higher than any point since the early 1990s. The jobless is expected to rise again when new figures are published by the Office for National Statistics. But unemployment in the UK could be more than twice the official total if a different counting measure was used, highlighting the true scale of joblessness. The higher figure was revealed using an American measure, which includes people in part-time jobs because they cannot find full-time work, and recent redundancies. Welfare minister Lord Freud said the government was "not complacent. With more people in the labour market we know that competition for those jobs is tough and we will continue to make it our priority to find people work." The job market remains grim, with unemployment continuing to rise to record levels and a big shift towards part-time work. The number of full-time jobs fell. One in three jobseekers has been looking for work for over a year. They are taking jobs for far lower pay and shorter hours. But people cannot afford to do this indefinitely. What the country lacks is credit for small businesses to grow, and growth in full-time jobs paying decent wages. " >> |
|||||||||
|
changeling 15-Feb-12, 07:52 |
era of politics. It is the way of conservative governments to pull the pin on small business and government employment, whilst spouting the opposite. |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Chaz You are full of crap. Here is the year end statement from my wifes employer here in San Diego (manually entered but with true numbers): These numbers are benefits ONLY... NOT including the salary paid. She is an average employee in an average department in a "good" company. Benefit.................Company..........Employee ...........................Cost..................Cost (Deduction) Medical Insur.........$11,006...........$984 Dental Insur. ............1,056.............336 Empl. Assist.Prog............28 ...............0 Life/AD&D....................415 ...........169 Div. RSA......................126 ...............0 Fed.Unemployment.......238 ...............0 Medicare...................1,056 .........1,056 Social Security...........3,057 .........3,057 401K Contributionq.....2,942 ............** ......................================== Total Paid Benefits....21,426.............** You don't need to know. The company paid well OVER $21,000 for this one employee. (In addition to the salary) Where do YOU get off saying the business are not going to do it? I really take exception to you spouting off like you know anything. You obvisously were NOT ever the CEO of any corporation. You do not have a clue what you are talking about. This company is a "good" employer obviously, but they certainly are not the only one like this The country is littered with "good employers" and to say "thay ain't gonna do it" just makes you look as dumb and foolish and partisan as dm. |
|||||||||
|
dmaestro 15-Feb-12, 13:07 |
increasing employee contributions, co pays etc. Competitive pressures will increase employment of temp and part time workers with reduced benefits. Unless a national health plan is established more and more will not be adequately covered. |
|||||||||
|
softy no. we need a public option. |
|||||||||
|
Softy ... |
|||||||||
|
dmaestro 15-Feb-12, 13:59 |
checking. The bulk of experts agree employer provided health care is unsustainable and doomed. It isn't the core mission of a business, it is a societal respnsibility. |
|||||||||
|
chaz I blew up at your statement that implies that businesses are greedy capitalists who do not care for employees and they are unwilling to spend any money on their employees. That simply is false and stupid. Most employers do everything they can do acquire and keep good employees. It is very competitive for good employees. Poor employees are a dime a dozen, though. It may be that employee coverage is unsustainable, but that would be because our stupid government is making it so. If you remember all the positive things that we have discussed that would bring costs down... none have come about. If you remember that BO promised to bend the cost curve down... that has gone the other way. EVERYBODY is looking for an exemption. |
|||||||||
|
Softy ... Businesses ARE in the business of making money, and they want the least amount of employee expense they can. That's why jobs go overseas, cheaper labor costs. The more part-timers, the less benefits costs. Etc. Do you or don't you want universal health care coverage? If you don't want it (especially for those who can't afford it), how will they get medical attention? In expensive emergency rooms that you and I pay for? Is that your remedy? Just start there. |
|||||||||
|
dmaestro 15-Feb-12, 16:12 |
and fewer are being covered, an unsustainable trend. By covering everyone we get a healthier society and pay the true costs. |
|||||||||
|
dmaestro 15-Feb-12, 17:56 |
Human life and well being can be valued in money and so health care should be a profit making enterprise where each person stands on their own. Don't have government or non profit cooperatives compete with for profit conglomerates in the health care business which would interfere with the desire to maximize health insurance industry profits, since we all know letting the rich get richer is good for the rest of us as the wealth trickles down. Nobody should be forced to buy insurance just in case they get ill. And everyone should only pay their fair share based on current actuarial data like like insurance--don't take money from me to pay for Joe or Jane's health. When Joe, Jane and I are young and healthy, we should pay rates accordingly, with a reasonable profit for the insurance industry. As Joe or Jane get older or develop health conditions, their premiums should rise rapidly according to their risk, so stop stealing money from all those young folks for others problems! And it is just too bad that medical costs are a major cause of bankruptcies, because that is just life. They just need to choose between health and being poor, that is all. And by the time those folks retire, health insurance may be unaffordable because of the actuarial risk, but that is fine as long as a stripped down Medicare can keep them alive a little longer--and if they are poor and ill, well they just lost the genetic lottery and life just isn't fair, and that is all. All I ask is don't pull the plug on my Granny, but I don't wanna pay for yours. Needless to say, the only real death panels today are the health insurance industry decisions that it just costs too much, but money is money and life is increasingly expendable. Gotta worry about not killing sperm and eggs with that evil birth control instead. |
|||||||||
|
dm If you will rewrite it so it is readable, I promise to read it... but I'm not going to get sick by looking at that mess. You can do better than that... slow down, take a deep breath... try paragraphs... break up your thoughts into little meaningful sentences. You can do it. You have done it before in the past. |
|||||||||
|
dmaestro 15-Feb-12, 20:01 |
|
|||||||||
|
dm I have no qualms about providing coverage for certain things to everybody. The problem is that somebody has to pay for it. When you say that "everyone needs to contribute something", you are obviously forgetting: You are exempting illegal aliens from paying for it. You are exempting the "poor" from paying for it. You (BO & administration) have exempted thousands of businesses, unions, individuals & states from paying for it. So, you are really only asking people who work (and did not manage to get an exemption) and make over $40k or $50 k per year to pay anything, right? And, you are trying to cover everything under the sun in all the plans that you are giving away to everybody for "free". For example, you want to give away free contraception pills and devices to every woman in the country... except it isn't free... somebody will have to pay for it. You think by saying that you will force the insurance companies to pay for it, that it will then be free. But, we all know that the insurance companies will not pay for it. They will raise the premiums for those who are forced to buy it, so insurance costs will continue to go up for all those forced to buy it... exactly opposite what BO promised. We know enough of human nature to understand that when something is given to you (people in general) free that they will value it less. People who receive free health care services and know that it will always there will not bother to adhere to healthy life styles... they will eat, drink, smoke and not exercise because they know their health care is there for them and therefore average health will deteriorate rather than get better. We also know that as the insurance premiums go up and up, more and more people and companies will drop coverage altogether. At first they will pay the fine, which will cost less. After awhile though, nobody will even pay that and everyone will get covered by the government... we will become a single payer system. THAT is the real goal right there, is it not? |
|||||||||
|
Softie |
|||||||||
|
dmaestro 15-Feb-12, 23:35 |
|
|||||||||
|
softy covering the poor for preventative care will save us billions of dollars - why are you so against saving money? you keep talking about the cost of insurance coverage, but you continue to ignore the obvious - we now pay for emergency room care at about 10-20 times the cost of preventative care. there is no free lunch bruce. we have 3 basic choices: 1) we let the poor die without insurance and/or health insurance, 2) we continue to let them use the emergency rooms and hospitals for the first line of health care at an exorbitant cost to society, or 3) we provide everybody with basic insurance and save billions of dollars while maintaining our moral back bone. will you address that? or will you continue to shriek about illegal aliens and the poor not paying their share? |
|||||||||
|
Softy ... Even though I don't believe for a minute you want to "just let people die," I was commenting on the logic of your previous posts that suggested the poor somehow ought to pay for their insurance or be able to elect not to have it. If they can't afford insurance they either will use emergency rooms (at your and my expense) or have no medical choices, then die. Then you go on to dismiss me ... OK (I'm not dismissing you!) ... but I'm still interested in how you rationalize health benefits for the poor. Are you still part of this useful process? |
|||||||||
|
dmaestro 16-Feb-12, 10:48 |
health care. Should health for american citizens be dependent on wealth? How do conservatives propose to help the poor when short of a fraction of the 1% nobody can realistically pay extensive medical expenses out of pocket? |
|||||||||
|
chaz Now, you want to pull a "John Kerry" and flip-flop your answer. (You did mean it before you didn't mean it.) OK, I'll accept that none of you really mean that, and we can proceed. The entire health care takeover by the Federal government is an issue of control, freedom, rights and responsibilities... not so much who pays what, although that is also included. The Constitution limits things the government can do. If it is not enumerated (specified) in the Constitution, the federal government does not have the authority. The unlisted things (things not enumerated in the Constitution) are left to the States and the people to decide. That means, for example, that Mitt Romney is correct when he says that health care in Massachusetts can be determined to operate one way and health care in New York or California can be operated in another way. It means, for example, that the federal government has no right to force people to buy any particular product, at any particular price. And, it has no right to force all companies to make available any particular product or option. It means that states and people DO have the right to choose to buy a product or to NOT buy the product. Being without health care insurance is their choice, although not a wise choice. Your concern that everybody have health care insurance is noble, but unworkable as you can see by all the exemptions. By working within the capitalistic system, adjusted regulations properly, reforming the legal system regarding health care lawsuits, allowing insurance to be sold across the country etc. etc. etc. cost could be driven down substantially. By eliminating the magnate of free health care (and several other benefits) for illegal aliens, these costs would be driven down substantially. By requiring work and/or education for unemployment, welfare, and/or health care benefits we could reduce substantially the cost of these benefits by getting more people into employment and tax paying status. Lastly, I have ALWAYS agreed that there should be a "safety-net" for those who are unable to work because of physical or mental disabilities. For those, who choose not to have coverage AND are able to work or be educated and do not, then I do support a bare-minimum coverage that allows help in case of catastrophic personal disaster. What is wrong with that? |
|||||||||
|
Softy ... Before going on into all the rest, let's start with your even better response to these beginning point questions. |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
The large issues are dealt with very well. It is intellectually dishonest, now, to pick at the edges as if the majority were at issue. |
|||||||||
|
DoK ... |
|||||||||
|
DoK ... |
|||||||||
|
chaz, when did my opinion have to run thru your administrative office? If you have another, which is rare, state it. Otherwise it is dishonest to pick at something very smart and very comprehensive because the details are not concrete in your mind. dok |
|||||||||
|
dmaestro 16-Feb-12, 17:41 |
conservatives brain is likely to be hard wired emphasizing distrust. So rather than examing the practical effect on those without adequate insurance, he focuses on the fear that someone is getting away with something. Of course the practical result is that money matters in regard to health care quality. Let the poor and uninsured eat cake! |
|||||||||
| ||||||||||
