Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
look...being poor sux.....but being poor isnt the end of the world......and I am not only a true believer in the theory that being poor can make you rich if you learn from it...I am an actual success story.
It is why I preach as I do. I experienced it.
You are an anomaly, and likely didn't start out (from birth) poor (neither did I). It was a summer. Before that, as a kid, you likely had regular doctor and dental (teeth are also attractive to would be employers), didn't grow up snuffing exhaust fumes...
look, we probably will never agree, and I appreciate what understanding you have, but I not only studied all this, but I lived it, and I don't attribute my tenuous position on the lowest rungs of the lower middle class on my ability to cope with the ever changing bullshit that is the economy that came to be while I was in my senior year of high school; I attribute my coping skills to the childhood that includes regular doctor and dental care, decent schools in upscale neighborhoods, being white and blonde and blue eyed in a society that rewarded that quirk of fate with preferential treatment from the cops that followed me home on drunken nights out and called my father instead of arresting me to the employers who hired me instead of someone else who might have been more dedicated to whatever business in question, that my father HAD his own business to go back to when the other hired a man to an executive position after I worked three weeks straight double shifts once he fired everyone else for smoking pot in the walk in coolers, that every advantage OF growing up middle class rather than poor led me to seek college education...
the whole "there but for the grace of god,"
rather than the FUCK YOU I GOT MINE
that I see here, on the news, in op ed pieces, from the Heritage Foundation...
it is NOT so simple. It just isn't. And the era from which you pulled yourself up from bootstraps doesn't EXIST anymore.
well said...
Then the concentration of our society should be to eliminate the issues you described...not to find a way to disguise the end result of the issues.
I have said on this board many times....a generation is going to have to suffer for us to find a way to prevent going bankrupt as a country AND to acheive the land of opportunity this country was supposed to be.
Let that generation be our generation for we are the generation that created the mess we are in.
Heck...and I mean this...tax me at 70%.....let me suffer.....well...not me, I am retired...but tax my revenue from my retirement at 70%....tax all of us at 70%....let us all suffer....stop the spending...pay off the debt...and take some revenue and apply it to progrmas that will monitor the growth and development of all children so all children will have the advantages you and I had when we were growing up...and I dont mean TV's and AC....I mean a chance for a higher education....
But we are going in the wrong direction. As I said, we are putting more effort into making peopole comfortable as opposed to the efffort to allow people to be comfortable on their own.
But, alas, none of our elected officials have the balls to do it. Kick the can down the road.....sadly, the road has a dead end.
That's pretty much the "tough shit" response I was figuring on. We're also saying that to the employees of that business and their families. That's a helluva price to pay for this beast.
.
Employer provided health insurance was ALWAYS a stupid idea. But you couldnt' even put single payer on the table.
And there's the problem. Forcing businesses to be responsible for health insurance administration and costs is absolutely -- and I don't use this term often -- stupid. Everyone should have their own plan, and yes, by that I mean everyone should have at least base coverage for prevention and diagnostic services. Imagine how much that would save us in the long run, getting to illnesses before they became expensive. And imagine the size of the monkey that would come off the backs of business.
What would your suggestion be other than to allow people to be left without health insurance and to continue to have unanticipated medical expenses be the cause of 50% of our bankruptcies?
Here's my opinion, currently priced at $0.02: A four-step approach (I'll spare you the details, you'd thank me!):
Significant cost savings, a healthier populace, free market plans, low-income people are helped.
- Comprehensive cost containment including value-based insurance design, tort reform focused on the massive costs of defensive medicine, electronic records, etc.
- Medicare-for-all, portable, individual basic chassis for preventive and diagnostic services, saving us huge money in the long run, not to mention the massive cost savings of no longer needing Medicare and Medicaid funding structures
- Free market supplementary coverage with regulated minimum coverage where each insurer could package and price plans
- Lower-bureaucracy national funding mechanism for low-income citizens
My little pipe dream. Neither party would want this.
.
A few examples off the top of my pointy head:
That's a start.
- Lead by example, stressing independence over dependence
- Minimize financial roadblocks to people such as income taxes, especially for the middle class.
- Maximize efficiencies in regulation by understanding that MORE regulation is not necessarily BETTER regulation; effectiveness is the key
- Minimize redundancies in regulation
- Maximize incentives for effort and risk-taking through the tax system
- Promote a culture of effort, self-discipline and responsibility at every opportunity
.
I can handle specifics. I have to sleep for work tonight, so take your time. I'll be back around midnight.
Doubtful I'll be motivated enough to get to it. I suspect an intelligent person could flesh it out on their own.
.
Employer provided health insurance was ALWAYS a stupid idea. But you couldnt' even put single payer on the table.
And there's the problem. Forcing businesses to be responsible for health insurance administration and costs is absolutely -- and I don't use this term often -- stupid. Everyone should have their own plan, and yes, by that I mean everyone should have at least base coverage for prevention and diagnostic services. Imagine how much that would save us in the long run, getting to illnesses before they became expensive. And imagine the size of the monkey that would come off the backs of business.
What would your suggestion be other than to allow people to be left without health insurance and to continue to have unanticipated medical expenses be the cause of 50% of our bankruptcies?
Here's my opinion, currently priced at $0.02: A four-step approach (I'll spare you the details, you'd thank me!):
Significant cost savings, a healthier populace, free market plans, low-income people are helped.
- Comprehensive cost containment including value-based insurance design, tort reform focused on the massive costs of defensive medicine, electronic records, etc.
- Medicare-for-all, portable, individual basic chassis for preventive and diagnostic services, saving us huge money in the long run, not to mention the massive cost savings of no longer needing Medicare and Medicaid funding structures
- Free market supplementary coverage with regulated minimum coverage where each insurer could package and price plans
- Lower-bureaucracy national funding mechanism for low-income citizens
My little pipe dream. Neither party would want this.
.
thanks for your comments.
but again, i've said it many times on this board and elsewhere... the concept of tort reform is simply a mechanism by which insurance companies hope not to be responsible for the damage caused by their insured. questionable claims comes to about 2% of the costs associated with health care. and if you have a child who was left with the need for permanent care because of a doctor's negligence, do you really think you should have to bear the costs that the doctor's insurance policy should cover? as i've also said, repeatedly, in many, if not most, states, malpractice actions have to go through a merit panel... a mini trial... where plaintiff has to prove the claim raised isn't frivolous, so there are already mechanisms in place in that regard. finally ... it costs approximately $50,000 to litigate a malpractice claim. lawyers simply don't spend that kind of money unless there's a real case in there somewhere or they believe there is.
if the problem were costs associated with insurance, why do you think people who are uninsured are charged at higher rates by hospitals than insurance companies are charged?
so as to your point one... "tort reform" is a bubbemeitzer as we say.
i agree medicare/medicaid should pay for preventive care.... i think that's what you're saying. and it would save us huge money over the costs of people using emergency rooms as their care.
you can't have insurance companies cross state lines. the same things would happen that happened with corporations... companies incorporated in the places where they had the least restriction. also, where is your provider network if your provider is in utah? or delaware?
what do you mean by your last in terms of 'lower bureaucracy national funding mechanism for poor people? i can't respond because i'm not quite sure what you mean.
as for free market... i don't really believe the free market should govern things that are for the societal benefit.... eg, health insurance; postal services, etc... because the profit incentive outweighs the social good... incentive.
do you think government or private insurance companies has a greater interest in denying coverage for life-saving procedures?
When we have achieved 100% employment, I'll understand your position, but we haven't.
Homeless people don't have access to a land line. Hard to accept a call back for a job...
I made it clear that homel;ess people deserve the safety nets
There are people who already HAD a tv, a microwave, a computer, and other things who are newly unemployed / in dire straits. Should they give up the beds and sleep on the floor too, in order that they LOOK needy enough?
If losing a job for a year WITH unemployment meant that you can no longer feed your family, then you should not have had that TV, miocrowave, etc. My point is, people do not prepare. Just becuase you have 100 dollars in your pocket and only 80 of it is for needs, does not mean to spend the other 20 on wants
Kids without computers are at a distinct disadvantage in a school system that makes researching (and reading!) their work something that is graded more generously on both levels. Additionally, when would be employers ask someone for an e-mail address, they're AS less likely to hire the poor slob without one as frequently as they would be the poor slob without the roof and mailing address, and you must know that most employers discriminate in favor of the already employed applicant, don't you?
First the computers....I used to donate every year my uised company comiuters to our local library. All have access to the library for computer use.
As for employers discriminating against those unemnployed. Heck yeah...it is real. It is sad, but it is not discrimination. It is smart business decisions...unfortunately, but true. One who is unemployed is more likely to take a job for the sake of takling a job....and I support that. But one who takes a jhob for the sake of taking a job is mopre likely toleave that job when a "better one" comes up. But one who LEAVES a job for a job is one who is giving something up and more likely to bne there for a longer period of time. I am not saying it is right or wrong....but you can not deny it is smart business. Sux...but true.
It isn't as simple as people who comfort themselves with images of the unworthy like to think. Its good that you were homeless once upon a time (so was I), not that I wish you ill even in retrospect, but so at least you have an idea what it is like to work out of a hole. Still, I think that reality has changed so much over time that you wouldn't recognize the landscape enough to fully appreciate what it is to negotiate it.
look...being poor sux.....but being poor isnt the end of the world......and I am not only a true believer in the theory that being poor can make you rich if you learn from it...I am an actual success story.
It is why I preach as I do. I experienced it.
You are an anomaly, and likely didn't start out (from birth) poor (neither did I). It was a summer. Before that, as a kid, you likely had regular doctor and dental (teeth are also attractive to would be employers), didn't grow up snuffing exhaust fumes...
look, we probably will never agree, and I appreciate what understanding you have, but I not only studied all this, but I lived it, and I don't attribute my tenuous position on the lowest rungs of the lower middle class on my ability to cope with the ever changing bullshit that is the economy that came to be while I was in my senior year of high school; I attribute my coping skills to the childhood that includes regular doctor and dental care, decent schools in upscale neighborhoods, being white and blonde and blue eyed in a society that rewarded that quirk of fate with preferential treatment from the cops that followed me home on drunken nights out and called my father instead of arresting me to the employers who hired me instead of someone else who might have been more dedicated to whatever business in question, that my father HAD his own business to go back to when the other hired a man to an executive position after I worked three weeks straight double shifts once he fired everyone else for smoking pot in the walk in coolers, that every advantage OF growing up middle class rather than poor led me to seek college education...
the whole "there but for the grace of god,"
rather than the FUCK YOU I GOT MINE
that I see here, on the news, in op ed pieces, from the Heritage Foundation...
it is NOT so simple. It just isn't. And the era from which you pulled yourself up from bootstraps doesn't EXIST anymore.
Employer provided health insurance was ALWAYS a stupid idea. But you couldnt' even put single payer on the table.
And there's the problem. Forcing businesses to be responsible for health insurance administration and costs is absolutely -- and I don't use this term often -- stupid. Everyone should have their own plan, and yes, by that I mean everyone should have at least base coverage for prevention and diagnostic services. Imagine how much that would save us in the long run, getting to illnesses before they became expensive. And imagine the size of the monkey that would come off the backs of business.
What would your suggestion be other than to allow people to be left without health insurance and to continue to have unanticipated medical expenses be the cause of 50% of our bankruptcies?
Here's my opinion, currently priced at $0.02: A four-step approach (I'll spare you the details, you'd thank me!):
Significant cost savings, a healthier populace, free market plans, low-income people are helped.
- Comprehensive cost containment including value-based insurance design, tort reform focused on the massive costs of defensive medicine, electronic records, etc.
- Medicare-for-all, portable, individual basic chassis for preventive and diagnostic services, saving us huge money in the long run, not to mention the massive cost savings of no longer needing Medicare and Medicaid funding structures
- Free market supplementary coverage with regulated minimum coverage where each insurer could package and price plans
- Lower-bureaucracy national funding mechanism for low-income citizens
My little pipe dream. Neither party would want this.
.
thanks for your comments.
but again, i've said it many times on this board and elsewhere... the concept of tort reform is simply a mechanism by which insurance companies hope not to be responsible for the damage caused by their insured. questionable claims comes to about 2% of the costs associated with health care. and if you have a child who was left with the need for permanent care because of a doctor's negligence, do you really think you should have to bear the costs that the doctor's insurance policy should cover? as i've also said, repeatedly, in many, if not most, states, malpractice actions have to go through a merit panel... a mini trial... where plaintiff has to prove the claim raised isn't frivolous, so there are already mechanisms in place in that regard. finally ... it costs approximately $50,000 to litigate a malpractice claim. lawyers simply don't spend that kind of money unless there's a real case in there somewhere or they believe there is.
if the problem were costs associated with insurance, why do you think people who are uninsured are charged at higher rates by hospitals than insurance companies are charged?
so as to your point one... "tort reform" is a bubbemeitzer as we say.
i agree medicare/medicaid should pay for preventive care.... i think that's what you're saying. and it would save us huge money over the costs of people using emergency rooms as their care.
you can't have insurance companies cross state lines. the same things would happen that happened with corporations... companies incorporated in the places where they had the least restriction. also, where is your provider network if your provider is in utah? or delaware?
what do you mean by your last in terms of 'lower bureaucracy national funding mechanism for poor people? i can't respond because i'm not quite sure what you mean.
as for free market... i don't really believe the free market should govern things that are for the societal benefit.... eg, health insurance; postal services, etc... because the profit incentive outweighs the social good... incentive.
do you think government or private insurance companies has a greater interest in denying coverage for life-saving procedures?
look...being poor sux.....but being poor isnt the end of the world......and I am not only a true believer in the theory that being poor can make you rich if you learn from it...I am an actual success story.
It is why I preach as I do. I experienced it.
You are an anomaly, and likely didn't start out (from birth) poor (neither did I). It was a summer. Before that, as a kid, you likely had regular doctor and dental (teeth are also attractive to would be employers), didn't grow up snuffing exhaust fumes...
look, we probably will never agree, and I appreciate what understanding you have, but I not only studied all this, but I lived it, and I don't attribute my tenuous position on the lowest rungs of the lower middle class on my ability to cope with the ever changing bullshit that is the economy that came to be while I was in my senior year of high school; I attribute my coping skills to the childhood that includes regular doctor and dental care, decent schools in upscale neighborhoods, being white and blonde and blue eyed in a society that rewarded that quirk of fate with preferential treatment from the cops that followed me home on drunken nights out and called my father instead of arresting me to the employers who hired me instead of someone else who might have been more dedicated to whatever business in question, that my father HAD his own business to go back to when the other hired a man to an executive position after I worked three weeks straight double shifts once he fired everyone else for smoking pot in the walk in coolers, that every advantage OF growing up middle class rather than poor led me to seek college education...
the whole "there but for the grace of god,"
rather than the FUCK YOU I GOT MINE
that I see here, on the news, in op ed pieces, from the Heritage Foundation...
it is NOT so simple. It just isn't. And the era from which you pulled yourself up from bootstraps doesn't EXIST anymore.
Barb, I just can't understand why liberals always interpret self-reliance as FUCK YOU I GOT MINE. Like jarhead said about being homeless, he learned that he had to rely on himself and no one else. Yes, most of us have families and friends and in many cases churches we can depend on. But really, truthfully, honestly when push comes to shove in the worst possible scenarios, you are the only one who can ultimately look out for you. Survival is our most basic instinct. My 19 year old son has lived a pretty nice life free of need because we could provide it to him. But he heard plenty of no's along the way as well. When he was in jr high and wanted $125 Nikes, the answer was a flat no, end of discussion. When he turned 16, he was treated the same as my wife and I. You want a vehicle, get a job and pay for it. He did. He was actice in Boy Scouts and earned his Eagle. He knows how to build a shelter from sticks and leaves and how to build a fire without a lighter. He knows how to camp in 0 degree weather comfortably. He is self-reliant. Now, along with all of that, he has learned charity and giving to those in need. There is absolutely nothing wrong with helping our fellow man and you won't find a conservative who thinks otherwise. Everyone needs a hand once in a while whether it be the short lady at the grocery store who can't reach an item on the top shelf or someone who has no money to buy food. But if there is no one there to help them.........who do they have to rely on? Themselves. Today, we have multi-generations enslaved to government entitlement programs like cows in a feedlot. They have accepted dependency as a way of life and there are far too many politicians out there willing to keep them dependent in order to stay in power. Teaching people that they are going to have to take care of themselves is far better in the long run than just giving to them. Someone else demanding me to give what is mine to make themselves feel better about helping people is bullshit. It isn't fuck you, I have mine. It's have some dignity and learn to stand on your own two feet.....because ultimately you only have yo to depend on. While liberals like to clothe conservatives in rhetoric of hate and uncaring, it really turns out to be that liberals want to feed a man a fish a day where conservatives want to teach them to fish and feed themselves for a life time. The latter is more compassionate and caring than the former.
No the story is reality. Read the fucking news LL. My business isn't the only place where the exact same thing is happening. Fucking tool.
Romney??? Just curious. That seems a little strange. Romney lost!!!
Romney lost because his principles weren't in the plan like obama, the street organ grinder, passing off free zhit with means of NEVER paying for it and blaming bush.
Sal alinsky ...attack and ridicule your opponent and never answer direct questions.
Oh you mean the budget he never proposed? I guess if you don't put one up there it can't be passed or rejected.no he didnt.
but aside from that, are you going to try and say that he got everything he wanted passed?
didnt think so.
No, the one he actually did propose that had such deep $pending cuts that not even a single democrat would vote for it.
Oh you mean the budget he never proposed? I guess if you don't put one up there it can't be passed or rejected.
No, the one he actually did propose that had such deep $pending cuts that not even a single democrat would vote for it.
No surprise here. How does that explain why even Republicans wouldn't vote for these "DEEP" spending cuts?
Well heck.No, the one he actually did propose that had such deep $pending cuts that not even a single democrat would vote for it.
No surprise here. How does that explain why even Republicans wouldn't vote for these "DEEP" spending cuts?
Cuz there were tax raises, dipshit.
Well heck.No surprise here. How does that explain why even Republicans wouldn't vote for these "DEEP" spending cuts?
Cuz there were tax raises, dipshit.
The Democraps should have loved it then.
Well heck.Cuz there were tax raises, dipshit.
The Democraps should have loved it then.
^obtuse. Is you attention span really that short?
Democrats love deep spending cuts?
Well then, this compromise must be easy.
Umm, I didnt give anyone a pass.Well heck.
The Democraps should have loved it then.
^obtuse. Is you attention span really that short?
Democrats love deep spending cuts?
Well then, this compromise must be easy.
You don't even know. *shakes head*
The jokes' on you.
I know you believe in double-standards but come on.
You want to blame the GOP for not voting for it but then the Dems get a pass.
Obama sends these idiotic budget proposals to congress for a reason.
They aren't meant to be passed.
Thus endith the lesson.
objects? Wow, they are so far from being objects its not even funny. I could go into why they are not objects but that would most likely offend you because you would consider it porn or some stupid notion.
Oh wait they are objects when it comes to abortion though
not really sure what reading a book has to do with this, but ok.
I realize that you don't understand what reading a book has to do with eliminating ignorance. That's why I am encouraging you to do so.
And I think you've demonstrated that you can't deal with what I actually say. You have to make up some nonsense about non-existant double standards. See neither women, nor babies, are objects that you can use and dispose of as you please. Which, of course, is why some of us support policies protecting life and encourage others to respect others instead of discuss them as if they are empty cells or an object to be used and thrown away.
Then i guess I shouldn't be surprise by your projection.
And yet, you can't beat me in a debate. You have to resort to the insults every time. Kind of pathetic that you can't make an serious point against a "fool" like me.
sure i have...you offer nothing but rightwing meme's given to you by beck or god. Boring.
You are not terribly complex AV.
No. I try not to be complex. A waste of too much unnecessary energy. It's much better to simply be honest, seek the truth, and work to bless others.
And yet, you still can't debate me on the issues. You have to resort to posts like this completely irrelevant to what I've said, petty statements you think are somehow insulting, and dodge any real conversation. In fact, I've never even seen you try to have a substantive discussion in the time you've been here.
I am still not surprised by the projection.
Any reading you've done has been counter-productive.
You are one of the more willfully ignornant people on this site.
So you say. But thankfully, your saying so doesn't make it true. Any more than insulting me somehow changes the fact that the ACA is going to have a negative effect on small businesses and the economy.
