View Full Version : California Budget
gloomyDAY
2nd July 2009, 03:20
Can you balance the budget?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-statebudget-fl-2,0,6957202.htmlstory
Give it a try.
If you pay taxes in California, you are getting screwed. Period!
California is now $26 billion+ in debt. Ridiculous.
Whoever can't commit to today's session is getting voted out.
I know some people receiving benefits from the State are actually using the funds lawfully and responsibly, but the majority simply are not. Fraud plagues our system and apparently has been dragging down our budget. Those funds can go to education or highways, but it is just being pissed away.
nqTq13c9ZFo
I definitely stand firm with Arnold. He has changed his policies and now I fully agree with his take on the California budget. We just need to iron this out before California begins to issue I.O.U.'s!
Hondo
2nd July 2009, 04:28
How about taxing churches the same as businesses? How about a 90% tax on political campaign funds?
You could take one from a Roman and make the government representative's wives work a couple of days a week in a state owned brothel with the proceeds going to the state.
There's a lot of stuff you could have NOT done over the years that would have helped to keep you from where you are now.
The whole problem with that "tax the rich, tax business" is sooner or later you run out of both.
California is going to have to make massive welfare cuts.
tstran17_88
2nd July 2009, 15:16
If you pay taxes in California, you are getting screwed. Period!
California is now $26 billion+ in debt. Ridiculous. Cally-fon-ya as your Gov. would pronounce it has nothing on Wisconsin! (Our Gov. talks like Squidward from the Sponge Bob show.)
California: $26 billion debt divided by 38 million people = $685 more per person.
Wisconsin: $6.6 billion debt divided by 5.5 million people = $1200 more per person. Gov. Squidward just signed a 62 billion dollar budget, only taking 10 million (chump change) worth of the pork out!
Trade ya!
Dr. Krogshöj
2nd July 2009, 16:36
This is all small change compared to your federal debt. I would worry about that rather.
Hondo
2nd July 2009, 18:42
This is all small change compared to your federal debt. I would worry about that rather.
The fact that we aren't worried about that should be setting off alarm bells in the heads of those that continue to loan us money. In other words, Obama and company are up to something.
Tazio
2nd July 2009, 18:49
-q4foLKDlcE
Hondo
2nd July 2009, 18:54
Who will be the first in California to stand up and submit a motion to deny all welfare services to illegal immigrants and begin deporting them immediately?
Tazio
2nd July 2009, 19:26
Who will be the first in California to stand up and submit a motion to deny all welfare services to illegal immigrants and begin deporting them immediately?
Don't Know Bro.
But I can list a few that won't
Illegal Imigration is exactly that,
Illegal. I in no way condone it.
I have lived in California long enough (49 years) to have
seen the whole shooting match up close and personal.
Most the companies below stand to lose if every single
Illegal alien was deprted, and the border somehow secured.
But they would get over it.
Bella Vista, CA3 Brand Cattle Co
Bakersfield, CA3-S Ranch, Inc
San Luis Obispo, CAAb Ranches Inc
Stockton, CAAgostini & Strohn
Salinas, CAA Lassotovitch
Reedley, CAAl Kuhn Farm
Elk Grove, CAAllan Rosasco
Oakhurst, CAAlvernaz Ranch
Williams, CAAndrade Calf Ranch
Visalia, CAAngus U2 Ranch
Cotati, CAAnsiel Feed Yard
Holtville, CAAnthony Costa (Costa Land And Cattle)
Los Banos, CAAri Farms Inc
Simi Valley, CAArrow Head Cattle Company Inc
Visalia, CAAvenales Cattle Co
Shandon, CABacitalupi Ranch
Petaluma, CABarbara Helen Walter Ranch (Walter Ranch)
Cambria, CABarry Morrell
Willows, CABar Yo Ranch
Lake City, CA
Page:
1 2 3 4PREVIOUS NEXT
http://www.manta.com/mb_44_C00D3_05/beef_cattle_feedlots/california
Companies 1-20 of 788
10k Ranch (No Mnl)
Caliente, CA2t Livestock
Herald, CA4d Supply Specialists (4d Acres)
Oakdale, CA4 F Ranches Inc
Fresno, CA7 K Ranch
Bakersfield, CA7m Cattle Co
Livermore, CAAdam Ranch-Will Adam
Santa Maria, CAA D Bar Cattle Co
Petaluma, CAAgnes Walker
Wilton, CAAhmann Ranch
Napa, CAAlan Piersall (Piersall Ranch Shop)
Etna, CAAlice Springs Ranch
New Cuyama, CAAll B S Kennel
Perris, CAAllen Marcucci Ranch
Petaluma, CAAnchor's Ranch
Zenia, CAAngus Tehama Ranch Inc
Gerber, CAAngus Vintage
Modesto, CAAngus Yosemite
Waterford, CAAntelope Cattle Co Inc
Pasadena, CAAntonio Silveira Dairy
Hilmar, CA
Page:
Or any of the companies in these agraculture catagories
Broiler, Fryers, and Roaster Chickens (21) Cash Grains, NEC (152) Chicken Eggs (70) Citrus Fruits (556) Corn (156) Cotton (339) Cotton Ginning (68) Crop Harvesting, Primarily by Machine (333) Crop Planting, Cultivating, and Protecting (406) Crop Preparation Services For Market, except Cotton Ginning (610) Dairy Farms (1,258) Deciduous Tree Fruits (1,093) Farm Supplies (1,264) Farm-Product Raw Materials, NEC (524) Field Crops, Except Cash Grains, NEC (517) Food Crops Grown Under Cover (104) Fruits and Tree Nuts, NEC (279) Fur-Bearing Animals and Rabbits (32) General Farms, Primarily Crop (4,445) General Farms, Primarily Livestock and Animal Specialties (2,040) General Livestock, Except Dairy and Poultry (52) Grain and Field Beans (168) Grapes (2,190) Hogs (42) Horses and Other Equines (491) Irish Potatoes (25) Landscape Counseling and Planning (7,352) Lawn and Garden Services (8,157) Livestock (401) Livestock Services, Except Veterinary (240) Ornamental Floriculture and Nursery Products (1,056) Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services (1,936) Poultry Hatcheries (34) Poultry and Eggs, NEC (34) Prepared Feed and Feed Ingredients for Animals and Fowls, Except Dogs and Cats (149) Rice (308) Sheep and Goats (112) Soil Preparation Services (176) Soybeans (12) Sugarcane and Sugar Beets (16) Tobacco (32) Tree Nuts (1,446) Turkey and Turkey Eggs (42) Vegetables and Melons (682) Veterinary Services For Livestock (146) Veterinary Services for Animal Specialties (3,689) Wheat (175)
Current Location: United States » California
There are 1,115 cities in California with companies in the Agriculture category. We have listed the top 10 cities (based on number of companies). To view a list of all cities, click on the "View All Cities" link below:
Fresno (1,119)
San Diego (950)
Bakersfield (909)
San Jose (797) Los Angeles (753)
Sacramento (660)
Modesto (620)
Visalia (462) Stockton (441)
San Francisco (406)
Hondo
2nd July 2009, 21:02
I know what you're saying Taz, but it's got to go, everywhere. There are legal citizens and legal immigrants that will work those jobs. There are chicken plants, farms and ranches all around here that have legal employees. As other jobs become scarce, those jobs will look more attractive.
You could take one from a Roman and make the government representative's wives work a couple of days a week in a state owned brothel with the proceeds going to the state.
Maybe they should make their girlfriends work a couple of days a week in a state owned brothel? Could make more money. Or maybe Arnold should make a movie about his wife working a couple of days a week in a state owned brothel.
Tazio
2nd July 2009, 21:47
There are chicken plants, farms and ranches all around here that have legal employees. As other jobs become scarce, those jobs will look more attractive. That has never been truer than it is now!
I've heard many young people say,” I don't mind working like a ******
I just want to be paid like an American”!
And Ag. is only one facet!
They are entrenched in others. Not the least of which being the building trades
Hondo
3rd July 2009, 03:12
Taz, I've got a sis up in Morgan Hill whose "finding-his-way" boy kind of travels around doing a "Then came Bronson" kind of thing, except with an S-10 Blazer. He only receives financial support from the parents when he is a full time student at something. When he is in town and staying at their home, he is expected to pay a token room and board, which he does. It's not about the money, it's about the principle. He prefers cooking, like IHOP, Denny's, or small resturants but one tough year, all he could get in Morgan Hill was ag labor. All things considered, he enjoyed the work and still takes it on occassion. He told me at the end of the workday, he feels like he's done something useful.
Tazio
3rd July 2009, 03:31
Taz, I've got a sis up in Morgan Hill whose "finding-his-way" boy kind of travels around doing a "Then came Bronson" kind of thing, except with an S-10 Blazer. He only receives financial support from the parents when he is a full time student at something. When he is in town and staying at their home, he is expected to pay a token room and board, which he does. It's not about the money, it's about the principle. He prefers cooking, like IHOP, Denny's, or small resturants but one tough year, all he could get in Morgan Hill was ag labor. All things considered, he enjoyed the work and still takes it on occassion. He told me at the end of the workday, he feels like he's done something useful.At least he's he doesn't have an aversion to hard work! :up:
There is a misconception that got started some time back,
that Trade Work, even Skilled Trade Work was no longer a noble pursuit.
It most definitely is.
Not only that, IMO any Job (done to the best of your ability) is a noble pursuit period!
Hondo
3rd July 2009, 05:52
I've been in skilled trades most of my life and right now I'm in better shape than Madoff and quite a few of his clients.
AAReagles
3rd July 2009, 06:06
This is all small change compared to your federal debt. I would worry about that rather.
Well, as said on another thread posted already, the familiar expression used; "as California goes, so does the rest of the nation."... that was in regards to better times when Calif., was prosperous.
When you think about it really, Calif., is sort of the canary in the goldmine for things to come, perhaps not only in America. With consideration of increasing populations coinciding with vanishing resources. Hence that immigration, subsequently is always going to be a bit controversial, whether in the states or EU.
Taz, I've got a sis up in Morgan Hill
I once visited a company named Alien Technology in Morgan Hill:
http://www.alientechnology.com/
Hondo
3rd July 2009, 11:00
You also have the "usual suspects" list that is used to frighten taxpayers every time something like this comes up. Recently, the California Govenor said illegal immigration costs the state $5 billion a year. But what do the politicians say they must cut? Schools, road maint, police, firefighters, etc. Never a word about cutting welfare to illegal immigrants.
It doesn't look that difficult to me, you just need to increase those taxes a bit as proposed in that article, and you are left with only 5 billions debt.
Many countries would love to be able to do just that, take France for example, they've got a thousand billion public debt for only 60 million people! That's 16667 / person!
Hondo
3rd July 2009, 11:25
It doesn't look that difficult to me, you just need to increase those taxes a bit as proposed in that article, and you are left with only 5 billions debt.
Many countries would love to be able to do just that, take France for example, they've got a thousand billion public debt for only 60 million people! That's 16667 / person!
It looks easy, but people are fed up. They already shoulder a hefty tax burden and the cost of living isn't cheap in California.
They have federal income tax, federal social security tax, state income tax, property tax, state sales tax, local sales tax, various excise taxes like the ones on tires, federal and state fuel taxes, special taxes on things like tobacco and liquors, beers, and wines, telephone services, utilities...and thats not all of them. There are also taxes that are called fees, but are taxes just the same. Fees for vehicle registration, vehicle inspection, mandatory vehicle insurance, tolls for some roads and bridges, user fees for parks, fishing permits, hunting permits, special environmental fees on tires, batteries, and things of that nature. I'm sure there are even more of both at the county and city levels.
In addition, because of all their regulations, the cost of doing business and providing some services is higher out there, like waste disposal.
Example-One of you guys from CA chime in. Back in May I reregistered my pickup for 5 years (license plate sticker) for a cost of $26.00. When I lived in Texas, one years registration cost $43.50 and that was ten years ago.
What does registration cost in California now?
Hondo
3rd July 2009, 11:31
I once visited a company named Alien Technology in Morgan Hill:
http://www.alientechnology.com/
You want to put tracking chips on everything Eki?
Tazio
3rd July 2009, 12:12
I just got a renewal notice for my Bike, '08 Aprilia 750.
One year $156 American
Ouch! :eek:
markabilly
3rd July 2009, 13:23
Who will be the first in California to stand up and submit a motion to deny all welfare services to illegal immigrants and begin deporting them immediately?
but who will cut your grass
You want to put tracking chips on everything Eki?
Hopefully not on everything.
Hondo
3rd July 2009, 15:33
I just got a renewal notice for my Bike, '08 Aprilia 750.
One year $156 American
Ouch! :eek:
My Harley is the same as the truck, $26.00 for 5 years. Yearly inspection is $15.00.
For $160.00 in Louisiana, you can register any trailer for life. Doesn't matter if it's a small utility trailer for hauling your riding mower around or a 40 ft super duper camping trailer.
anthonyvop
3rd July 2009, 18:01
but who will cut your grass
The same people. Do you really think they would all head back over the border if you cut off their welfare?
Tazio
3rd July 2009, 18:41
My Harley is the same as the truck, $26.00 for 5 years. Yearly inspection is $15.00.
For $160.00 in Louisiana, you can register any trailer for life. Doesn't matter if it's a small utility trailer for hauling your riding mower around or a 40 ft super duper camping trailer.Yes, you get nicked pretty badly here for new vehicles. I don’t remember what I paid for my '05 Tundra,
the "License Fee" (not to be confused with the cost of new plates) drops pretty dramatically after a couple years.
I think it was about $85 American last time I registered it. I could drive an '84 Buick.
That would probably cost around 25 a year. But that's not how I roll.
It's still considerably more than you pay in Texas or "Sportsman’s Paradise" However this is my home.
I like the weather. Perhaps I'll feel differently in about twenty years.
Let's ride Bro. :up:
Mark in Oshawa
3rd July 2009, 19:55
California going broke means the Guvnenator is just the first one to admit they are broke. They were broke when Gray Davis was running the shop and THAT is why he got booted out because he wouldn't admit it.
What is happening in Cal will happen in Washington. People on the government side of the house will eventually get too many uncomfortable phone calls to their congressional and senatorial offices from ticked off taxpayers and some sanity just may ensue.
Maybe....
It always comes back to government not knowing what its role is in the economic system. They are there to regulate, educate,enforce the law, protect the most needy, but that's it. It isn't their job to give help to 3 million illegals, ignore the illegals, give them free health care or give money to every wacky cause that comes begging. Now that the money is getting tougher and tougher to get, it is becoming clear that it CANT work. Which was obvious to anyone who has run their household finances with any success. You cant spend what you don't have. Funny.....why should the rules be different for government?
I just got a renewal notice for my Bike, '08 Aprilia 750.
One year $156 American
Ouch! :eek:
And you think that's much?!
Come and see the prices in Europe, and don't forget 1 Euro = 1.4 USD
It always comes back to government not knowing what its role is in the economic system. They are there to regulate, educate,enforce the law, protect the most needy, but that's it. It isn't their job to give help to 3 million illegals, ignore the illegals, give them free health care or give money to every wacky cause that comes begging. Now that the money is getting tougher and tougher to get, it is becoming clear that it CANT work. Which was obvious to anyone who has run their household finances with any success. You cant spend what you don't have. Funny.....why should the rules be different for government?
You better give them a couple hundreds per month for free otherwise they'll take your wallet and often you risk your life too.
It looks easy, but people are fed up. They already shoulder a hefty tax burden and the cost of living isn't cheap in California.
FGS people, you live in a tax haven compared to Europe, stop crying so much.
If paying 1% more will make your and others life easier than just eat less donuts, it will make up for the difference and you'll be healthier too.
Mark in Oshawa
6th July 2009, 16:14
FGS people, you live in a tax haven compared to Europe, stop crying so much.
If paying 1% more will make your and others life easier than just eat less donuts, it will make up for the difference and you'll be healthier too.
Ioan..that is why they don't live in an overtaxed socialist hell like parts of Europe. Americans refuse to pay through the nose for crap government services. They don't like paying any tax. It is how their country was founded. The American Revolution in the beginning was basically a tax revolt.
It is why what is happening in California and Washington is so sad. The country that gave the world such thinkers such as Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin; all who were for less government and the princpiles of self reliance is now turning into an overtaxed socialist state, much like the states many came to America to escape.
When the Canadian government looks like paragons of thrift compared to the American governments on tax and spending, you know there is something seriously wrong in the US of A.
Americans refuse to pay through the nose for crap government services.
So do us Europeans, we pay for good government services instead.
chuck34
6th July 2009, 19:04
FGS people, you live in a tax haven compared to Europe, stop crying so much.
If paying 1% more will make your and others life easier than just eat less donuts, it will make up for the difference and you'll be healthier too.
Look up the Laffer curve. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
The Bush tax cuts in '02ish proved that we were on the right side of the curve. That means that more tax CUTS would probably result in more tax revenue to the government, unless those cuts put us right at the peak of the curve. Basically it boils down to, if you tax people more they will either hide their money or produce less.
Mark in Oshawa
6th July 2009, 19:47
So do us Europeans, we pay for good government services instead.
You pay for them alright. France pays for them, and they have a chronic unemployment problem. Sweden pays, and yet has some of the higher rates of suicide and depression in the world. The UK pays, and has waiting lists and the government dictating healthcare and rationing it.
You can pay for "good government" but it isn't always as good as it seems. Not saying there isn't room for some social network, but in the US of A, they are paying for a lot of nonsense when the government is telling everyone they must pay more, while government never cuts and makes allowances for the poor economy.
It is one thing to pay taxes for services. IT is another when the government takes more of your money than you do.....
You pay for them alright. France pays for them, and they have a chronic unemployment problem.
It could be even worse without government subsidiaries and infrastructure building jobs, etc. Many third world countries have much higher employment rate even when they don't have high taxes (or much of an infrastructure for businesses and highly educated workforce that the tax money provides for that matter).
Sweden pays, and yet has some of the higher rates of suicide and depression in the world.
I've heard that lack of sunlight in the winter can cause depression and suicides in the northern latitudes, but never that taxes could. What I've heard is that most of the Swedes, just like most of the Finns are quite happy with their taxes and how their tax money are spent.
The UK pays, and has waiting lists and the government dictating healthcare and rationing it.
I don't know about the UK, but here we have an alternative for public healthcare, if you can afford it. It's called private healthcare.
The principle here is that the society and the government provide the minimum and you yourself provide the extra on top of that.
It's quite funny that some people can trust their money to some stock broker but not to their government.
Easy Drifter
7th July 2009, 03:23
I have no idea how efficient the Govt. of Finland is.
But I do know how many total screw ups there are in Canada.
A 1 million dollar gun registry that has cost over 1 Billion and is rife with errors. I can also assure you there are thousands of long guns unregistered.
Nuclear Power projects with cost overruns of triple estimates. The latest is something like 5 years overdue and billions over budget and the bloody thing won't even work. Now cancelled.
An admitted Human Resourses Project that cost the tax payer over one hundred million of unaccountable expenditures.
Payments to a golf course in the Prime Minister's riding of millions from a "slush fund" that the head of the fund opposed. He was fired and the Govt. (of the time) got nailed for wrongful dismissal.
Recently in Ont. several untendered contracts to people closely connected to the party in power exceeding the limits. Consultants getting huge payments ($30,000) for 13 hours work and then charging for chocalate bars! Untendered contract. This was under a special consultant process to computerize our health care records. They seem to have accomplished zich in 13 months they have been working on it. The head was let go with a payment in excess of $300,000. The process under the Dept. has actually been in the works for over 10 years with very little accomplished!
Admitted uninvestigated fraud in the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Commission Lotteries. Retailers of Lottery Tickets winning far too often. Nothing done until it got out!
Govt. inefficiancy is rife in Canada in most if not all Provinces as well as federally. And it doesn't matter which party is in power.
I suspect (note suspect) it is there in Finland to.
Nuclear Power projects with cost overruns of triple estimates. The latest is something like 5 years overdue and billions over budget and the bloody thing won't even work. Now cancelled.
Our nuclear power plant project is late at least three years, but it's not a government project, it's built by a private energy company. But to be honest, most of the delay is due to subcontractors failing to meet the strict safety requirements required by the government.
Govt. inefficiancy is rife in Canada in most if not all Provinces as well as federally. And it doesn't matter which party is in power.
I suspect (note suspect) it is there in Finland to.
There's never just one party in power in Finland. There are always at least four parties in the government. And they watch each others like a hawk, so there are probably less opportunities for misconduct than in a one party government.
Mark in Oshawa
7th July 2009, 06:50
It could be even worse without government subsidiaries and infrastructure building jobs, etc. Many third world countries have much higher employment rate even when they don't have high taxes (or much of an infrastructure for businesses and highly educated workforce that the tax money provides for that matter).
Third world nations don't have the resources to build the infrastructure. It is why I always laugh when people say labour costs are the determining factor on where industry builds. If that was so, India would have been an industrial superpower a long time ago before now, and most of Africa with it.
Government subsidies and incentives are good ONLY if they are carefully applied and given to companies with strict guarntees....my god we almost see eye to eye on that one.
I've heard that lack of sunlight in the winter can cause depression and suicides in the northern latitudes, but never that taxes could. What I've heard is that most of the Swedes, just like most of the Finns are quite happy with their taxes and how their tax money are spent..
Canada has the same lack of light and we don't get up there in our suicide rate with your Swedish friends across the Gulf of Bothia. The Swedes are said to be the most highly taxed nation in Europe, although I have to think the French are right there. ARe they happy? Maybe....
I do know Canadians and Americans have a different culture ethos and are from a frontier society that was much more individually driven. People here came with nothing and built this country because they wanted a fresh start and no boundries. Now in the modern era, people want that freedom while craving a safety net. The trick is to never make that net so cushy people never want to leave it.
I don't know about the UK, but here we have an alternative for public healthcare, if you can afford it. It's called private healthcare.
The principle here is that the society and the government provide the minimum and you yourself provide the extra on top of that.
It's quite funny that some people can trust their money to some stock broker but not to their government.
I trust the stock broker, he gets a cut if he does well for me. The government has no incentive ( my vote isn't enough and hasn't been historically). As for the healthcare, in Canada believe or not we are not ALLOWED That choice unless we take our cash and go to the US. The running joke in the US is if they take up a public healthcare system like Canada's, us Canadians will fly overseas to get that better care.
On Healthcare, I think you Finn's got it closer to the mark. The real reality though is the US is much the same, despite all the rhetoric. It just is there the medical system would rather you go broke before you got a nickel from the government. There is healthwelfare in many states tho. It is why I think most Americans don't want Obama to go that final step.
Eki...the thing is most government run healthcare systems, whether it be here, the UK or Cuba, ration out healthcare when the costs go up. There is a waiting list for some procedures here that are done right away in the US. Where the Yanks have an issue is the malpractice insurances and the scare doctors have. They tend to do far more tests and unecessary work to cover themselves against malpractice.....and THAT is where the high cost is coming from.
Easy Drifter
7th July 2009, 06:55
Eki: We have 4 parties fedrally and 3 in most Provinces but the screw ups continue.
Fedrally the Conservatives form a minority govt. Most of the discovered foul ups occurred during a Liberal majority, but not all.
Currently Ont. has a Liberal majority.
I trust the stock broker, he gets a cut if he does well for me.
Or he gets it all, if his name is Madoff.
Eki: We have 4 parties fedrally and 3 in most Provinces but the screw ups continue.
Fedrally the Conservatives form a minority govt. Most of the discovered foul ups occurred during a Liberal majority, but not all.
Currently Ont. has a Liberal majority.
We've got more than ten parties, but they are never in the government the same time. The government is formed of parties who can agree to work together and together represent a majority of the members of parliament. Usually we have a center-right or a center-left government, but there has even been a left-right government.
Hondo
7th July 2009, 09:56
We've got more than ten parties, but they are never in the government the same time. The government is formed of parties who can agree to work together and together represent a majority of the members of parliament. Usually we have a center-right or a center-left government, but there has even been a left-right government.
You also have a population smaller than Manhatten Island. That tends to make things easier.
chuck34
7th July 2009, 12:38
I don't know about the UK, but here we have an alternative for public healthcare, if you can afford it. It's called private healthcare.
The principle here is that the society and the government provide the minimum and you yourself provide the extra on top of that.
That is actually the way it works here in the States. We have medicare/medicaid that take care of those that don't have their own healthcare. I don't know too many people that think those programs work very well. In fact they are going broke. So why don't we fix the programs we have currently before going around and screwing everyone else?
So do us Europeans, we pay for good government services instead.
Exactly.
I wouldn't want to be one of the tens of millions of Americans who can't afford to go see a doctor just because they think it's not worth paying the taxes required to have a better health coverage.
Eki: We have 4 parties fedrally and 3 in most Provinces but the screw ups continue.
Fedrally the Conservatives form a minority govt. Most of the discovered foul ups occurred during a Liberal majority, but not all.
Currently Ont. has a Liberal majority.
How the heck can you have a minority government?
Roamy
7th July 2009, 14:29
pretty simple
you need gov programs and you can have private programs. But the kicker is that the public program can have no or very limited malpractic.
Another thing most don't realize is that when you combine all the taxes we pay it is pretty f----- high.
chuck34
7th July 2009, 14:35
Exactly.
I wouldn't want to be one of the tens of millions of Americans who can't afford to go see a doctor just because they think it's not worth paying the taxes required to have a better health coverage.
The number most people are spouting on about (45-47-50 million) is just bull.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124579852347944191.html
13%, or 6 million, are illegeal aliens. I don't want to cover anyone who is actively breaking our laws. And anything that has been proposed so far won't cover them either.
"About 43% of uninsured nonelderly adults have incomes greater than 2.5 times the poverty level," So there is a large chunk of people out there who just plain choose not to buy insurance, for what ever reason. Shouldn't people have the freedom and liberty to choose that for themselves?
Sure that still leaves millions without healthcare, but as I've said many times before we HAVE a system that takes care of them. That system may be broken, and in need of fixing. But why does that mean breaking the system for the 75-80% of Americans with adaquate healthcare?
Fix the system we already have to take care of the minority before you go screwing with the majority of Americans. Doesn't that sound like a prudent course of action?
You also have a population smaller than Manhatten Island. That tends to make things easier.
A majority is a majority no matter how big the population is.
For all the population you've got in the US you only have 2 parties, both of them with right (conservative) views, which is giving you little choice.
The number most people are spouting on about (45-47-50 million) is just bull.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124579852347944191.html
13%, or 6 million, are illegeal aliens. I don't want to cover anyone who is actively breaking our laws. And anything that has been proposed so far won't cover them either.
"About 43% of uninsured nonelderly adults have incomes greater than 2.5 times the poverty level," So there is a large chunk of people out there who just plain choose not to buy insurance, for what ever reason. Shouldn't people have the freedom and liberty to choose that for themselves?
Sure that still leaves millions without healthcare, but as I've said many times before we HAVE a system that takes care of them. That system may be broken, and in need of fixing. But why does that mean breaking the system for the 75-80% of Americans with adaquate healthcare?
Fix the system we already have to take care of the minority before you go screwing with the majority of Americans. Doesn't that sound like a prudent course of action?
I'm not sure who to trust, you or those who claim there are big problems, but I know that there are big problems from people whom I talked to in person this summer.
What I find appalling is how people who do have more money than they need, and can afford to pay for private health care, can say that there is no need for a change while there are millions who can't even afford to go see a doctor.
Another thing most don't realize is that when you combine all the taxes we pay it is pretty f----- high.
How f----- high?!
Anywhere near 60-70%?!
That is actually the way it works here in the States. We have medicare/medicaid that take care of those that don't have their own healthcare. I don't know too many people that think those programs work very well. In fact they are going broke.
Ofcourse they are going broke. Because there isn't enough money to run them in a proper way.
chuck34
7th July 2009, 14:49
I'm not sure who to trust, you or those who claim there are big problems, but I know that there are big problems from people whom I talked to in person this summer.
What I find appalling is how people who do have more money than they need, and can afford to pay for private health care, can say that there is no need for a change while there are millions who can't even afford to go see a doctor.
That's just it Ioan. We have systems in place that make sure people CAN see a doctor when they NEED to. That system is government run, and B-R-O-K-E. So tell me again why we would impose the same BROKEN system on the majority of Americans?
This is the problem with the healthcare debate in this country. If you oppose nationalization, you are made out to be some heartless b@stard that doesn't care about people's health. It's just the opposite. I see how the system we have in place for about 15% of our population works, or doesn't in this case. And I DO NOT want to impose that same system on the other 85% of Americans.
I'm not saying that something shouldn't be done, I'm just saying that what has been proposed won't work. The system that should be adopted is something like what McCain proposed. Give everyone a $5000 tax break to buy their own healthcare. Get the choices out of our employeers hands, and give that power to the people. I know that my healthcare through my employeer is not what is right for me. But I can not afford to not use it because of the tax breaks I get for buying into that system. If more INDIVIDUALS have the power to make their healthcare decisions then competition will drive costs down, and care up.
chuck34
7th July 2009, 14:51
How f----- high?!
Anywhere near 60-70%?!
Actually yes. When you add income tax, social security tax, property tax, state tax, city tax, school tax, sales tax, and anything else I'm forgetting it does get up to about 70% in some cases.
chuck34
7th July 2009, 14:52
Ofcourse they are going broke. Because there isn't enough money to run them in a proper way.
We are ALL already paying into those systems. How will adding people into that system work? Especially if Obama is going to keep his promise of no new taxes on those making less than $250,000?
schmenke
7th July 2009, 15:04
....
Nuclear Power projects with cost overruns of triple estimates. The latest is something like 5 years overdue and billions over budget and the bloody thing won't even work. Now cancelled.....
Which plant is that?
schmenke
7th July 2009, 15:22
How ... can you have a minority government?
In Canada a "minority" government is elected when the party wins less than half of the 308 electoral seats in the house of commons.
The Conservative (Tory) party currently maintains a minority government because in the last federal election they won only 143 seats.
Easy Drifter
7th July 2009, 17:18
Schemnke. Thanks I was going to explain to ioan but you beat me to it. Chalk River the 'new' "Beaver" reactors to produce medical isotopes replacing the 50 year old reactor that is now out of service.
The Govt. recently cancelled it after the boffins decided it would never work.
Hondo
7th July 2009, 18:18
A majority is a majority no matter how big the population is.
For all the population you've got in the US you only have 2 parties, both of them with right (conservative) views, which is giving you little choice.
It goes beyond population. Land mass also plays a huge factor when you have a tremendous diversity of terrain.
In Canada a "minority" government is elected when the party wins less than half of the 308 electoral seats in the house of commons.
The Conservative (Tory) party currently maintains a minority government because in the last federal election they won only 143 seats.
That's pretty stupid.
And how are they supposed to pass laws in the parliament?
In Europe, AFAIK after the elections are done and if none of the parties managed more than 50%, which is very rare, they have to form an alliance, and the government, with the help and contribution of other parties in such way that they have the support of the majority of the parliament.
Even in Romania the prime minister (and his/her ministers), proposed by the president, has to be accepted by the majority of the parliament. If they fail this 2 times than the president has to declare the parliamentary elections void and new elections will be scheduled until a party or a group of parties will manage to have a majority support in the parliament.
If during their tenure the government isn't supported anymore by the majority of the parliament, because their coalition broke up they will try under the mediation of the president to form a new majority government, if that fails and the parliament votes out the prime minister than there will be new parliamentary elections in order to have a majority parliamentary support for the future government.
Theoretically a minority government shouldn't be able to resist without at least the tacit support of 50% of the parliament.
It goes beyond population. Land mass also plays a huge factor when you have a tremendous diversity of terrain.
In politics?!
Tazio
7th July 2009, 19:45
That is actually the way it works here in the States. We have medicare/medicaid that take care of those that don't have their own healthcare. I don't know too many people that think those programs work very well. In fact they are going broke. So why don't we fix the programs we have currently before going around and screwing everyone else?
Chuck here is an excerpt from Medicare eligibility!
You must also be 65 years or older to receive Medicare unless you have been diagnosed with permanent disability or permanent kidney failure that requires dialysis or a kidney transplant.
http://www.money-zine.com/Financial-Planning/Buying-Insurance/Medicare-Eligibility/
Here is an excerpt from Medicaid elligibilty
Are You Eligible?
Many groups of people are covered by Medicaid. Even within these groups, though, certain requirements must be met. These may include your age, whether you are pregnant, disabled, blind, or aged; your income and resources (like bank accounts, real property, or other items that can be sold for cash); and whether you are a U.S. citizen or a lawfully admitted immigrant. The rules for counting your income and resources vary from state to state and from group to group. There are special rules for those who live in nursing homes and for disabled children living at home.
Your child may be eligible for coverage if he or she is a U.S. citizen or a lawfully admitted immigrant, even if you are not (however, there is a 5-year limit that applies to lawful permanent residents). Eligibility for children is based on the child's status, not the parent's. Also, if someone else's child lives with you, the child may be eligible even if you are not because your income and resources will not count for the child.
In general, you should apply for Medicaid if you have limited income and resources. You must match one of the descriptions below. (Even if you are not sure whether you qualify, if you or someone in your family needs health care, you should apply for Medicaid and have a qualified caseworker in your state evaluate your situation.)
Pregnant Women
Apply for Medicaid if you think you are pregnant. You may be eligible if you are married or single. If you are on Medicaid when your child is born, both you and your child will be covered.
Children and Teenagers
Apply for Medicaid if you are the parent or guardian of a child who is 18 years old or younger and your family's income is limited, or if your child is sick enough to need nursing home care, but could stay home with good quality care at home. If you are a teenager living on your own, the state may allow you to apply for Medicaid on your own behalf or any adult may apply for you. Many states also cover children up to age 21.
Person who is Aged, Blind, and/or Disabled
Apply if you are aged (65 years old or older), blind, or disabled and have limited income and resources. Apply if you are terminally ill and want to get hospice services. Apply if you are aged, blind, or disabled; live in a nursing home; and have limited income and resources. Apply if you are aged, blind, or disabled and need nursing home care, but can stay at home with special community care services. Apply if you are eligible for Medicare and have limited income and resources.
Other Situations
Apply if you are leaving welfare and need health coverage. Apply if you are a family with children under age 18 and have limited income and resources. (You do not need to be receiving a welfare check.) Apply if you have very high medical bills, which you cannot pay (and you are pregnant, under age 18 or over age 65, blind, or disabled).
Neither one of these programs do a thing for a working American that works for a company that doesn't provide Health Care.
These Programs are not like European Health Insurance, that provide basic healthcare for all it's citizens.
Get a grip :down:
Another thing most don't realize is that when you combine all the taxes we pay it is pretty f----- high.
Yes, especially if you add the medical fees, university/college fees and other fees that here are included in our taxes.
anthonyvop
7th July 2009, 19:51
It can't be that bad in Cali.
After all they are spending over a Million Dollars to honor a Drug addicted pedophile!
chuck34
7th July 2009, 19:56
That's pretty stupid.
And how are they supposed to pass laws in the parliament?
Easy. Here in the States and I believe Canada too, you do not have to vote with your party. Coalitions are made up of like minded individuals who then vote on legislation. The US Constitution does not mention a word about political parties, and George Washington warned against them in his farewell address.
I see how the system we have in place for about 15% of our population works, or doesn't in this case. And I DO NOT want to impose that same system on the other 85% of Americans.
Who tells you to choose a system that doesn't work. You could build a system that works adequately for 100% of Americans. Those who aren't happy with that could pay extra if they want extra services and preferential treatment. Public and private don't necessarily rule out each other.
chuck34
7th July 2009, 20:02
Chuck here is an excerpt from Medicare eligibility!
http://www.money-zine.com/Financial-Planning/Buying-Insurance/Medicare-Eligibility/
Here is an excerpt from Medicaid elligibilty
Neither one of these programs do a thing for a working American that works for a company that doesn't provide Health Care.
These Programs are not like European Health Insurance, that provide basic healthcare for all it's citizens.
Get a grip :down:
Ok what's your point? I'm missing it. If you have a job and your employer doesn't provide healthcare, then you go buy it. Sure it's expensive, and that's why I support giving people tax breaks to help afford it. All those conditions outlined in the Medicaid deal sound like they pretty much cover anyone who wants to sign up. And please remember that it is ILLEGEAL for hospitals to turn people away.
If you need medical attention you can get it.
If you have a job and your employer doesn't provide healthcare, then you go buy it.
What happens if you don't have a job?
Firstgear
7th July 2009, 20:06
Easy. Here in the States and I believe Canada too, you do not have to vote with your party. Coalitions are made up of like minded individuals who then vote on legislation. The US Constitution does not mention a word about political parties, and George Washington warned against them in his farewell address.
Yes, it's similar here in Canada. Members have a free vote, but are sometimes instructed to vote with their party. There can be consequences (public spankings, Max?) for going against your party.
Certain votes are "confidence" votes (such as passing the budget) and if this doesn't get voted through, the government falls, and an election is called.
chuck34
7th July 2009, 20:07
Who tells you to choose a system that doesn't work. You could build a system that works adequately for 100% of Americans. Those who aren't happy with that could pay extra if they want extra services and preferential treatment. Public and private don't necessarily rule out each other.
Let's start by making the system for 15% work properly then. I have no problem with that. In fact I support Medicare/Medicaid reforms. Same goes for the VA.
You are correct Public and Private don't necessarily rule out each other. However, in the Obama plan they do. By giving the Public option, many employers will drop their healthcare coverage. My employer has already told us that we will be dropped. And without any tax breaks, and being relatively healthy right now, it doesn't make any sence for me to buy healthcare. That is the same decision millions will also make (most likely). And that will drive many insurance providers out of business. And that doesn't even go into all the doctor issues, and quality of care issues.
chuck34
7th July 2009, 20:09
What happens if you don't have a job?
You're on Medicaid.
chuck34
7th July 2009, 20:14
Yes, it's similar here in Canada. Members have a free vote, but are sometimes instructed to vote with their party. There can be consequences (public spankings, Max?) for going against your party.
Certain votes are "confidence" votes (such as passing the budget) and if this doesn't get voted through, the government falls, and an election is called.
The US does not have confidence votes as such. The "government" doesn't fall. The President is in office for 4 years no matter if he gets everything he wants or nothing. Same deal for Senators and Congressmen (6 and 2 years respectively). For votes such as the budget, they must get something passed, or all "non-essential" functions shut down. That happened in like '95 or so. That can be seen as either a good thing or a bad thing depending on which side of the issue you are on. And that affects your chances at being re-elected. It's a really complicated system.
schmenke
7th July 2009, 20:58
....
And how are they supposed to pass laws in the parliament?
...
A minority government cannot pass legislation without the agreement from the other parties who hold seats in the house of commons. A minority government is constantly struggling to maintain confidence in the house of commons. In extreme cases, a "non-confidence" motion can be put forth, and if passed, requires the inervention of Governer General to resolve, usually by dissolving parliament and calling another election.
schmenke
7th July 2009, 20:59
Oops, sorry, didn't see 1stgear's post above...
Tazio
7th July 2009, 21:36
What happens if you don't have a job?
You're on Medicaid.
Please quit spouting this bull$hit
That is actually the way it works here in the States. We have medicare/medicaid that take care of those that don't have their own healthcare
and also this B.S.
And please remember that it is ILLEGEAL for hospitals to turn people away.
You also receive an exuberant bill the emergency room services!!!
I guess you didn't read this part of the eligibility requirements,
or you don't want to face the truth. Let me sum this up for you
Many groups of people are covered by Medicaid. Even within these groups, though, certain requirements must be met. These may include your age, whether you are pregnant, disabled, blind, or aged] your income and resources (like bank accounts, real property, or other items that can be sold for cash)[/b]
You have to sell real property and be nearly broke in order to qualify
Regardless whether you think this is an equitable deal or not,
it is not the same as Euro basic health insurance, which is what you stated earlier
Tazio
7th July 2009, 22:18
You also receive an exuberant bill the emergency room services!!!
Although ironically it may make someone fell exuberant, :p :
what I meant to say is exorbitant. :mark: :p :
airshifter
8th July 2009, 01:46
You have to sell real property and be nearly broke in order to qualify
Regardless whether you think this is an equitable deal or not,
it is not the same as Euro basic health insurance, which is what you stated earlier
Why should the government tax everyone at a higher rate to pay for health care when some if not most people have the means to foot the bill themselves?
I don't mind helping pay for people with real problems, but I see no reason why I should foot the medical bill for someone who is not willing to sacrifice some of their own income or standards of living first.
Tazio
8th July 2009, 02:14
Why should the government tax everyone at a higher rate to pay for health care when some if not most people have the means to foot the bill themselves?
I never said we should Shifty.
I was just pointing out the factual difference between Medicaid, and someones fantasy of it :p :
Why should the government tax everyone at a higher rate to pay for health care when some if not most people have the means to foot the bill themselves?
I don't mind helping pay for people with real problems, but I see no reason why I should foot the medical bill for someone who is not willing to sacrifice some of their own income or standards of living first.
They have sacrificed some of their own income in advance and after the medical bill by paying high income tax.
I don't mind helping pay for people with real problems, but I see no reason why I should foot the medical bill for someone who is not willing to sacrifice some of their own income or standards of living first.
What kind of logic is this?!
If everyone has to pay than everyone sacrifices some of their income, not only you! :rolleyes:
BTW maybe you should be in their shoes and than we'll see what line you will tow around here, if you will still afford an internet connection, not to mention having a computer.
chuck34
8th July 2009, 12:57
Please quit spouting this bull$hit
and also this B.S.
You also receive an exuberant bill the emergency room services!!!
I guess you didn't read this part of the eligibility requirements,
or you don't want to face the truth. Let me sum this up for you
You have to sell real property and be nearly broke in order to qualify
Regardless whether you think this is an equitable deal or not,
it is not the same as Euro basic health insurance, which is what you stated earlier
Aparently you didn't see the part about applying for Medicaid if you have high medical bill which you can not pay. I have no problem with people having to seel real property and be nearly broke in order to qualify. If you have enough money for real property then you have enough money to plan ahead and get insurance (it is not that expensive, even full private, and with tax breaks it would be even more affordable). And if you're nearly broke ... well that's the whole point of the program.
What BS am I spouting? I have two points. Number 1 is that 85% of Americans have healthcare, why screw their system up? The second point is that there is a system in place that takes care of the other 15%. That system is a mess, let's fix it before we screw around with the healthcare of the MAJORITY of Americans.
chuck34
8th July 2009, 13:03
What kind of logic is this?!
1) If everyone has to pay than everyone sacrifices some of their income, not only you! :rolleyes:
2) BTW maybe you should be in their shoes and than we'll see what line you will tow around here, if you will still afford an internet connection, not to mention having a computer.
1) That is the issue here. 100% of people paying taxes (about 50% of the population) already pay into a broken healthcare system, Medicare/Medicaid, that takes care of about 15% of the population. So now you are talking about adding the other 85% of the population into that system. How on earth does 50% of the population pay for 100% of the population to have healthcare? And do it without sacrificing all the other stuff we are already paying for? And doing all this without raising taxes on anyone making less that $250,000 a year? Go crunch those numbers and get back to me with a workable plan.
2) So now I'm to be punished for being successfull and planning ahead? You don't lift anyone up by tearing people down.
Tazio
8th July 2009, 19:34
What BS am I spouting?
Must I post it again?
I stated it precisely in post number 75
If you continue to imply Medicaid = health insurance in the manner you had before you lost your job
I will continue to call Bull$hit.
Considering you have since-wise qualified it. I think we have both made our points :)
chuck34
8th July 2009, 20:47
Must I post it again?
I stated it precisely in post number 75
If you continue to imply Medicaid = health insurance in the manner you had before you lost your job
I will continue to call Bull$hit.
Considering you have since-wise qualified it. I think we have both made our points :)
I never once intended to say that Medicaid was equal to health insurance that you may have had before you lost your job. If I implied that, I'm sorry for the confusion.
I've been trying to say that there is a "safety net" of sorts. It is a very flawed system that NEEDS to be fixed. But there is no one in the US that can not recieve needed medical treatment. That is all I've been trying to say.
Tazio
8th July 2009, 22:17
I never once intended to say that Medicaid was equal to health insurance that you may have had before you lost your job. If I implied that, I'm sorry for the confusion.
I've been trying to say that there is a "safety net" of sorts. It is a very flawed system that NEEDS to be fixed. But there is no one in the US that can not recieve needed medical treatment. That is all I've been trying to say.
You'll never get an arguement from me about our health care system needing to be fixed! :up:
chuck34
8th July 2009, 22:19
You'll never get an arguement from me about our health care system needing to be fixed! :up:
I don't think ANYONE would argue that something needs to be done. It's just the methods proposed that are debatable.
airshifter
9th July 2009, 02:05
What kind of logic is this?!
If everyone has to pay than everyone sacrifices some of their income, not only you! :rolleyes:
BTW maybe you should be in their shoes and than we'll see what line you will tow around here, if you will still afford an internet connection, not to mention having a computer.
If everyone has to pay. But in reality, tax brackets (percentage of taxes paid) is based on income level. So at some point, many people pay no income taxes at all, to the state or federal government. As your income level increases and/or deductions and credits decrease, you pay a higher percentage.
But this form of taxation fails in several areas. You could be a wealthy person, owning property in the way of homes, vehicles, etc, but also show (for taxable purposes) a low income and thus be subject to very little in taxes.
As an example, I own my home, all our vehicles, and everything in them outright. Due to the fact that we have nothing but basic living expenses, at the time my income is not very high. Why should people still working harder or more hours to get ahead pay for my insurance (or a larger portion than I would pay) if I'm not first willing to either get a higher paying job or take a loan against my home or property to pay my bills or insurance myself?
Nor should I pay more in taxes to pay for insurance for someone who has chosen to not work when they are capable.
Why should people still working harder or more hours to get ahead pay for my insurance (or a larger portion than I would pay) if I'm not first willing to either get a higher paying job or take a loan against my home or property to pay my bills or insurance myself?
Not everyone can get a higher paying job, even if they wanted to. Why should you depart from the property you have already earned while at the same paid high taxes just because you happen to have a bad patch in your life at the moment?
Nor should I pay more in taxes to pay for insurance for someone who has chosen to not work when they are capable.
In June 2009, about 500,000 people more we unemployed in the US and the unemployment rate was 9.5%:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Do you think that all those half a million people just chose to quit their jobs? I know the unemployment rate in the US has been below 5% sometimes. Have the Americans become more lazy?
Insurances are like taxes in the way that every insurance holder pays, but some pay more than they receive. However, private insurance companies are supposed to make profit for the owners, so it's actually more expensive for you than non-profit taxes.
janvanvurpa
9th July 2009, 06:23
Not everyone can get a higher paying job, even if they wanted to. Why should you depart from the property you have already earned while at the same paid high taxes just because you happen to have a bad patch in your life at the moment?
In June 2009, about 500,000 people more we unemployed in the US and the unemployment rate was 9.5%:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Do you think that all those half a million people just chose to quit their jobs? I know the unemployment rate in the US has been below 5% sometimes. Have the Americans become more lazy?
Eki try to reason, exchanging comments back and forth with somebody who write empty-headed nonsense such as above is silly.
For so many on these forums from the USA, everything is a) very simple and b) always the individual's fault.
So when say GM's executives decide to build unsalable junk, and thousands are laid off in a locality, naturally if they cared, they could "get a higher paying job".
When Finacial speculators and bandits plunder companies, risk hundrds of billions of other people's money on risky ventures---and make salaries of tens of millions per year and drive the Investment banking system to the edge of collaspe and credit freezes, causing millions to lose their jobs, well those out of work, according to the economic geniuses here, should just "get a loan" (at some extortionate rate of interest).
Simple! See?
If they don't "get a higher paying job" or get a loan, then it's their fault.
Impeccable thinking.
Can't you see?
What would happen if everybody contributed some money to a collective Insurance pool for Unemployment, or retraining?
chuck34
9th July 2009, 13:07
What would happen if everybody contributed some money to a collective Insurance pool for Unemployment, or retraining?
We do. If you are employed and have insurance, you pay for something called COBRA. That program extends some bennifits for people in "transtion" between jobs. As tax payers we also contribute to Medicare/Medicaid which a lot of unemployed people can qualify for. And there are numerous private and government run retraining programs out there. How much more must I pay to give you a warm and fuzzy feeling that "we're all doing our part"?
I really don't think that anyone would argue against some sort of safety net programs. At least I wouldn't. What I do have a problem with is paying for the 6-10 million people that have a job, can afford health insurance, and choose not to. We do still have some freedoms in this country, and one of those freedoms is the freedom to fail. And I'm sorry, maybe I'm heartless or whatever, but if you fail there needs to be consequences. If there are no consequences for failure then there is no motivation to try something better or different.
janvanvurpa
9th July 2009, 16:31
We do. If you are employed and have insurance, you pay for something called COBRA. That program extends some bennifits for people in "transtion" between jobs. As tax payers we also contribute to Medicare/Medicaid which a lot of unemployed people can qualify for. And there are numerous private and government run retraining programs out there. How much more must I pay to give you a warm and fuzzy feeling that "we're all doing our part"?
I really don't think that anyone would argue against some sort of safety net programs. At least I wouldn't. What I do have a problem with is paying for the 6-10 million people that have a job, can afford health insurance, and choose not to. We do still have some freedoms in this country, and one of those freedoms is the freedom to fail. And I'm sorry, maybe I'm heartless or whatever, but if you fail there needs to be consequences. If there are no consequences for failure then there is no motivation to try something better or different.
Yeah yeah let me put a point of agreement: if YOU, or as the rest of the English speaking says to make it clear, if ONE fails---from their own sloth, or willful stupidity, sure.
But what to do when the failures of supposed "superiors" business owners, managers, bureaucrats in Education Departments who bend to political pressures and dumb down school curricula to the point that little Johnny is set up for failure cause he's uneducated AND SURLY means one is a serial failure.
(It's called systemic or 'structural' reasons)
F**k 'em cause the company they work for went broke cause the current owners are spoiled prats listening to advice from Ivy League frat boys?
Seems pretty harsh.
If there are no consequences for failure then there is no motivation to try something better or different.
There are. If I for example lose my job, I'll lose about 40% of my income. Of course I would try to get that 40% back somewhere else. However, since I won't lose 100%, I can keep my home, my car, my Interenet connection and my cell phone. It's much easier to try and find a new job when you have a phone, computer, internet, car and a postal address than if you lived under a bridge or in a trash can.
chuck34
9th July 2009, 17:40
Yeah yeah let me put a point of agreement: if YOU, or as the rest of the English speaking says to make it clear, if ONE fails---from their own sloth, or willful stupidity, sure.
But what to do when the failures of supposed "superiors" business owners, managers, bureaucrats in Education Departments who bend to political pressures and dumb down school curricula to the point that little Johnny is set up for failure cause he's uneducated AND SURLY means one is a serial failure.
(It's called systemic or 'structural' reasons)
F**k 'em cause the company they work for went broke cause the current owners are spoiled prats listening to advice from Ivy League frat boys?
Seems pretty harsh.
Did I ever say F**k 'em? No I said their are safety nets out there. I don't advocate for getting rid of them. But I also don't advocate for increasing the cushion on the net. If you feel like you've been screwed over by a spoild prat or Ivy League frat boy, there is nothing stoping you from going out there and beating them at their own game. Sure it's hard, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. In fact that is the way that many, many successful businesses get started.
chuck34
9th July 2009, 17:42
There are. If I for example lose my job, I'll lose about 40% of my income. Of course I would try to get that 40% back somewhere else. However, since I won't lose 100%, I can keep my home, my car, my Interenet connection and my cell phone. It's much easier to try and find a new job when you have a phone, computer, internet, car and a postal address than if you lived under a bridge or in a trash can.
That's all great and wonderful for you. But I would much rather do things on my own. I have too much pride to take other people's money. I scrimp and save every penny that I can. I do this to prepare for the unfortunate day if/when I ever loose my job.
But that's just me, and I am in the minority on that one.
I have too much pride to take other people's money.
It's not that bad, if you remember that other people take your money when you're lucky and they are unlucky. It's a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" kind of deal.
chuck34
9th July 2009, 17:51
It's not that bad, if you remember that other people take your money when you're lucky and they are unlucky. It's a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" kind of deal.
I would rather no one took anyone else's money. I'll watch my own back, if you watch yours.
Now if something REALLY bad happens, I will help you out. Notice I said "I" will help you out. Not go to the government and see what they'll "help" you with.
steve_spackman
9th July 2009, 18:44
Alot of people in the US are told that socialised healthcare is bad. Told by the people who work in the Pharmaceutical and insurance sectors.
If the US ever gets a socialised healthcare system, its those sectors that will be the biggest loosers. At the end of the day, the current healthcare system in the US its not about taking care of people, its how much profit it can make.
steve_spackman
9th July 2009, 18:58
Here is what the issue with the new Healthcare plan is. All the people who are against the plan are the ones who will loose out. The big greedy pharmaceutical and insurance companies.
They base socialised healthcare on the Canadian system, which we all know is not the best example.
Then they pay the greedy lobbyists in Washington to spread the fear and lies onto the tv and radio stations, which seeps through into the brains of many gullible Americans. If you dont want to pay higher taxes for this healthcare plan, tell your government to stop wasting billions of your dollars on invading other countries and starting pointless wars.
Now if something REALLY bad happens, I will help you out. Notice I said "I" will help you out. Not go to the government and see what they'll "help" you with.
Thanks, but I still believe that even after my friends and relatives are gone, my government and my trade union will still be here, and they have a legal obligation to help me, unlike my friends and my family.
chuck34
10th July 2009, 03:45
Thanks, but I still believe that even after my friends and relatives are gone, my government and my trade union will still be here, and they have a legal obligation to help me, unlike my friends and my family.
Please don't take this as an insult or a slam, as it isn't meant to be, but could maybe be seen that way.
This is the difference between the US and Europe, at least to some extent it still is, things are changing quite quickly though. The US has always been a nation of individuals. We are rugged and self relient. We want just enough government that things run fairly, and we all have an equal oportunity. That doesn't mean we all have equal results. We just want a fair shake. In basic quick terms that is the how and why this country was founded. We don't want government telling us what to do and how to do it. We want them the heck out of our way so that we can get on with doing what we want. We rely on our friends, families, and neighbors to help us get through the bad patches. This is because we know that those people will not try to exert contol on us (government can not give something without first taking it). They will help out because they care. They know our individual situations much better than any government entity ever will or ever could know. Therefore, we will recieve better "care" from our families than the government ever could provide. A legal obligation to do something does not inspire confidence with me that I will recieve what I need. I've delt with enough legal obligation run-around to know that doesn't mean anything is done quickly, correctly, or even at all. However, I have seen the flip side of that. People with compassion for another human being will, more often than not, lend a hand quickly, effectivly, and with very positive results.
I could go on and on, but I'll stop now. I've got to give you all a chance to bash me for "romanticizing the American Experience" or some other nonsence.
chuck34
10th July 2009, 03:46
Thanks, but I still believe that even after my friends and relatives are gone, my government and my trade union will still be here, and they have a legal obligation to help me, unlike my friends and my family.
Also I see that you placed your trade union in there. Are they not in many sences of the word your family?
Tazio
10th July 2009, 04:15
:rolleyes: Well if Trade Unions are family, I wonder if a family member could tell us where Jimmy Hoffa's remains are! :laugh:
You know give the bloke a decent burial in sacred ground mate! ;)
We rely on our friends, families, and neighbors to help us get through the bad patches. This is because we know that those people will not try to exert contol on us (government can not give something without first taking it). They will help out because they care. They know our individual situations much better than any government entity ever will or ever could know. Therefore, we will recieve better "care" from our families than the government ever could provide.
Depends on your family and your government. Not everyone have wealthy relatives or friends. They can be even worse-off than you are. Therefore I find the government more fair and equal. Everyone gets help according to their needs and the rules are the same for everyone. Of course you could still get extra help from your family and friends, but the government fulfills your basic financial needs.
Also I see that you placed your trade union in there. Are they not in many sences of the word your family?
No, I see them more as a government or an insurance company. First I have to pay a yearly membership fee (tax deductible) before I can get anything from them. I don't have to pay a membership fee to my family.
:rolleyes: Well if Trade Unions are family, I wonder if a family member could tell us where Jimmy Hoffa's remains are! :laugh:
You know give the bloke a decent burial in sacred ground mate! ;)
Yes, what Italian-Americans consider family is probably a bit different than here. Here a family usually means your parents, your siblings and your kids.
Tazio
10th July 2009, 06:16
what Italian-Americans consider family is probably a bit different than here. Here a family usually means your parents, your siblings and your kids.
Wrong Eki :arrows:
It means the same thing here. Sibling, parents, offspring. and maybe an occasional cousin!
I believe Italian Americans have the same family values as other decent people.
What I posted is what's commonly referred to as a "joke"!
Not an indictment of labor unions, or anything else of a serious nature!
You may be laboring under a cultural misconception.
Which is totally understandable. :)
What I posted is what's commonly referred to as a "joke"!
I know, and I continued from that. Aren't the Mafia supposed to have been involved in the dissappearing of Hoffa? The Mafia has "families" like the Corleone family in the Godfather movies. See?
Tazio
10th July 2009, 07:27
Aren't the Mafia supposed to have been involved in the dissappearing of Hoffa? The Mafia has "families" like the Corleone family in the Godfather movies. See?
Than you should have stated Mafia Families!
That's like saying all Muslims are members of Al Qaeda, or The Taliban
Uncool Bro!
chuck34
10th July 2009, 12:28
Depends on your family and your government. Not everyone have wealthy relatives or friends. They can be even worse-off than you are. Therefore I find the government more fair and equal. Everyone gets help according to their needs and the rules are the same for everyone. Of course you could still get extra help from your family and friends, but the government fulfills your basic financial needs.
Your family doesn't have to be wealthy to help out.
Perhaps your government is better than ours. I honestly don't deal with the Finnish government so I can't pass judgement. However, I do deal with the US government personally, and I hear stories from others. And the US government does not operate smoothly or effectively in many cases. I do not want them taking care of me in my time of need.
chuck34
10th July 2009, 12:29
No, I see them more as a government or an insurance company. First I have to pay a yearly membership fee (tax deductible) before I can get anything from them. I don't have to pay a membership fee to my family.
But of course you can choose to be in or out of the trade union, or the insurance company for that matter. We have no choice once the government takes over something.
chuck34
10th July 2009, 12:35
Back to the US government taking over healthcare.
Lets look at in simple terms. The government already has three programs that deal with healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. Those programs are not run very well (at least by most accounts I've read), and they are going broke.
So in simple terms you have 100 people paying for 20 people to get care (not the right numbers I know, but it's for illustrative purposes only). Having those 100 people pay is not enough because the quality of care is poor and it is not on strong financial footing. Now we're told the solution to all the problems of healthcare are to add the 100 people into the system? That somehow adding MORE people to a program that already doesn't have enough money will somehow make it more financially sound? How does that make sence to anyone?
But of course you can choose to be in or out of the trade union, or the insurance company for that matter. We have no choice once the government takes over something.
In that sense, I think government is more like a family. You can not choose your family either. In a family you have a moral obligation to help your family members in need and as a tax-paying citizen you have a legal obligation to help your fellow citizens in need. You could see the US as a family with 300 million members. All for one and one for all.
chuck34
10th July 2009, 14:57
In that sense, I think government is more like a family. You can not choose your family either. In a family you have a moral obligation to help your family members in need and as a tax-paying citizen you have a legal obligation to help your fellow citizens in need. You could see the US as a family with 300 million members. All for one and one for all.
Your family (in my definition anyway) extends beyond those with whom you share some blood. It includes friends, neighbors, and even charitable strangers. In some cases I would totally exclude blood relatives. Don't get too hung up on my use of the word "family".
Like I keep saying a legal obligation to do something does NOT mean that that "something" will be any good.
steve_spackman
10th July 2009, 15:57
Back to the US government taking over healthcare.
Lets look at in simple terms. The government already has three programs that deal with healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. Those programs are not run very well (at least by most accounts I've read), and they are going broke.
VA going broke?? Well stop invading other countries and starting wars with countries that dont cater to your every whim then maybe the amount of injured soldiers would not be so high.
Medicare and Medicaid have never been funded well either. In the US its refered to as the 'poor mans healthcare', because poor people are often given inadequate treatment or no treatment at all because treating the poor is not profitable.
http://www.essortment.com/all/nationalizedhea_rtqq.htm
steve_spackman
10th July 2009, 16:04
Your family (in my definition anyway) extends beyond those with whom you share some blood. It includes friends, neighbors, and even charitable strangers. In some cases I would totally exclude blood relatives. Don't get too hung up on my use of the word "family".
Like I keep saying a legal obligation to do something does NOT mean that that "something" will be any good.
We on these here forum are one big family...
:love:
chuck34
10th July 2009, 16:05
1) VA going broke?? Well stop invading other countries and starting wars with countries that dont cater to your every whim then maybe the amount of injured soldiers would not be so high.
2) Medicare and Medicaid have never been funded well either. In the US its refered to as the 'poor mans healthcare', because poor people are often given inadequate treatment or no treatment at all because treating the poor is not profitable.
http://www.essortment.com/all/nationalizedhea_rtqq.htm
1) Seperate issue that really doesn't have anything to do with the current discussion. Look out here comes Eki to tell us how bad Bush is.
2) That is my whole freaking point! We have a system that is not funded. Why not fix THAT first before we go adding a bunch more people to the system? I really don't understand how this is so hard for people to grasp.
chuck34
10th July 2009, 16:06
We on these here forum are one big family...
:love:
A disfunctional family I suppose. But as much as I may disagree with some people, if they really needed some help, I'd probably do what I could. As I'm sure many others would.
steve_spackman
10th July 2009, 19:08
1) That is my whole freaking point! We have a system that is not funded. Why not fix THAT first before we go adding a bunch more people to the system? I really don't understand how this is so hard for people to grasp.
I do agree with you on that one!
Yes get a government funded health plan in the USA, but the current issues with Medicare and Medicaid need to be sorted out.
This i fear could be the reason why SO many people are against a government funded health plan??
Mark in Oshawa
10th July 2009, 20:21
We are still arguing over Healthcare? Eki thinks the government is the solution to everything that ails everyone, Anthony is everyman for himself and most of the rest are in the middle.
It is pretty simple. Ideally you would no cost healthcare AT all. But in the world all us have to live in, healthcare is damned expensive, and in the US moreso because of idiocy in the courts over malpractice. As a result docs run tests and procedures often to cover their @sses running up the cost of health care.
I have said it before, government running healthcare is a blessing and a curse.....
Camelopard
10th July 2009, 20:52
We are still arguing over Healthcare? Eki thinks the government is the solution to everything that ails everyone, Anthony is everyman for himself and most of the rest are in the middle.
It is pretty simple. Ideally you would no cost healthcare AT all. But in the world all us have to live in, healthcare is damned expensive, and in the US moreso because of idiocy in the courts over malpractice. As a result docs run tests and procedures often to cover their @sses running up the cost of health care.
I have said it before, government running healthcare is a blessing and a curse.....
How about doing away with malpractice suits and accepting that some times errors get made, mistakes happen and 'get over it'.
Whilst they are at it get rid of this ridiculous notion that people in the States have regarding trying to sue the ar$e of everyone and never taking responsibilty for their own actions, because someone else 'is to blame' or is at fault.
Admittedly sometimes a witch hunt is needed but not if you scald yourself because you are too stupid to realise that a cup of coffee you are holding may in fact be hot. :)
Tazio
10th July 2009, 20:56
We are still arguing over Healthcare? Eki thinks the government is the solution to everything that ails everyone, Anthony is everyman for himself and most of the rest are in the middle.
It is pretty simple. Ideally you would no cost healthcare AT all. But in the world all us have to live in, healthcare is damned expensive, and in the US moreso because of idiocy in the courts over malpractice. As a result docs run tests and procedures often to cover their @sses running up the cost of health care.
I have said it before, government running healthcare is a blessing and a curse.....We also need to get a handle on the price of Pharmaceuticals.
Mark why is it that many medications developed by large Pharmaceutical Co’s
can be purchased by Americans in Canada at quite a lower price,
and are the purchases by Americans legal in Canada?
Tazio
10th July 2009, 21:03
How about doing away with malpractice suits and accepting that some times errors get made, mistakes happen and 'get over it'.
Whilst they are at it get rid of this ridiculous notion that people in the States have regarding trying to sue the ar$e of everyone and never taking responsibilty for their own actions, because someone else 'is to blame' or is at fault.
Admittedly sometimes a witch hunt is needed but not if you scald yourself because you are too stupid to realise that a cup of coffee you are holding may in fact be hot. :) The corporations being sued acquiesce too easily (on the advice of their attorney’s) and will settle anything they don't want to spend the money and time to fight. Or are afraid it will bring bad publicity in "small settlement" The aggregate of these is enormous! :eek:
All:
God save your majesty!
Cade:
I thank you, good people—there shall be no money; all shall eat
and drink on my score, and I will apparel them all in one livery,
that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.
Dick:
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
Cade:
Nay, that I mean to do.
Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78
chuck34
10th July 2009, 21:05
We are still arguing over Healthcare? Eki thinks the government is the solution to everything that ails everyone, Anthony is everyman for himself and most of the rest are in the middle.
It is pretty simple. Ideally you would no cost healthcare AT all. But in the world all us have to live in, healthcare is damned expensive, and in the US moreso because of idiocy in the courts over malpractice. As a result docs run tests and procedures often to cover their @sses running up the cost of health care.
I have said it before, government running healthcare is a blessing and a curse.....
That's another whole big @ss can of worms. I didn't want to bring it up as I was focusing on costs alone. You are right of course.
Mark in Oshawa
11th July 2009, 17:52
That's another whole big @ss can of worms. I didn't want to bring it up as I was focusing on costs alone. You are right of course.
Chuck, the lawsuits and the stupid rewards juries were giving on malpractice is the REASON healthcare has gotten away from a lot of people in the US and your health insurance is so much more than it should be.
It is the greatest flaw in the US system and yet, the right to sue is a plus if you are on the wrong side of a legitimate case of malpractice. This is a case where laws regulating jury awards and defining malpractice are too loose in many states.
California, Mass, and NY are all going broke however not due to anything but giving illegals free healthcare and having a quasi state run healthcare system. You cant have state run healthcare in the US unless you get all the costs under control and THAT would be an affront to current US law, constitutional rights and common sense.
IN Canada...we have it the other way, the government runs it all, we have no choice and they ration it to us. IT is a bloody miracle we don't go broke or have more issues than we do....
steve_spackman
11th July 2009, 19:14
I find it very amusing that Americans base socialised healthcare on how it is run in Canada and seem to overlook the healthcare systems that are in place in countries like France and the UK
steve_spackman
11th July 2009, 19:33
The U.S health care system is a profiteering enterprise concerned with making money and not with treating patients. Corporations are making medical decisions behind closed doors, as well as decisions on physicians' fees and working conditions with only one thing in mind: increase profits. The HMO system of health care which is the American example of "competition" and "freedom of choice" therefore only restricts quality and access to health care.
According to the Wall Street Journal, having multiple hospitals at one location actually drives up costs. Competition in health care does not follow an idealistic economic model, it forms a "health care arms race" making health care even less accessible.
http://www.essortment.com/all/nationalizedhea_rtqq.htm
IN Canada...we have it the other way, the government runs it all, we have no choice and they ration it to us. IT is a bloody miracle we don't go broke or have more issues than we do....
Rationing usually means not going broke. Reckless unlimited spending usually means going broke.
janvanvurpa
12th July 2009, 07:10
I find it very amusing that Americans base socialised healthcare on how it is run in Canada and seem to overlook the healthcare systems that are in place in countries like France and the UK
Of course that is because only a tiny minority have ever ventured off the standard tourist routes/places if they ever have left the State they live in, and an even tinier minority have ever SPOKEN to anybody in any foriegn country who has utilised the Heath care system in other places (although as we see on a daily basis, never having experienced something or spoken to somebody who has experienced anything never prevents a certain sort of very vocal American and their wannabe cousins from expounding at great lenght), and an unbelieveably miniscule percentage have ever received Health Care elsewhere and so have virtually no basis for forming opinions.
The only reason many opponents bring up the Canadian experience is not because they know a thing about Canada---seriously, like that it is a foriegn country, that is is somewhere to the North of USA---seriously---but rather that their news sources has brought up horror stories to demonstrate the "superiority" of the American system.
"We have the BEST healthcare in the World!!!!!!" is constantly repeated by people incapable of thought, and their own inability of making a comparison is overlooked and they are thoroughly convinced they are right because it is constantly repeated on their radio and TV programs.
"We have the BEST healthcare in the World!!!!!!" is constantly repeated by people incapable of thought, and their own inability of making a comparison is overlooked and they are thoroughly convinced they are right because it is constantly repeated on their radio and TV programs.
Funnily, also North Koreans are thoroughly convinced that THEY have the best system in the World, because it's constantly repeated on their radio and TV.
chuck34
13th July 2009, 12:28
Chuck, the lawsuits and the stupid rewards juries were giving on malpractice is the REASON healthcare has gotten away from a lot of people in the US and your health insurance is so much more than it should be.
It is the greatest flaw in the US system and yet, the right to sue is a plus if you are on the wrong side of a legitimate case of malpractice. This is a case where laws regulating jury awards and defining malpractice are too loose in many states.
California, Mass, and NY are all going broke however not due to anything but giving illegals free healthcare and having a quasi state run healthcare system. You cant have state run healthcare in the US unless you get all the costs under control and THAT would be an affront to current US law, constitutional rights and common sense.
IN Canada...we have it the other way, the government runs it all, we have no choice and they ration it to us. IT is a bloody miracle we don't go broke or have more issues than we do....
I totally agree Mark. I just was using that as a "trump" card. Once I make my other points then I come in with the "whys" of high costs. Just a tactic I was using. Maybe not the best.
chuck34
13th July 2009, 12:35
Of course that is because only a tiny minority have ever ventured off the standard tourist routes/places if they ever have left the State they live in, and an even tinier minority have ever SPOKEN to anybody in any foriegn country who has utilised the Heath care system in other places (although as we see on a daily basis, never having experienced something or spoken to somebody who has experienced anything never prevents a certain sort of very vocal American and their wannabe cousins from expounding at great lenght), and an unbelieveably miniscule percentage have ever received Health Care elsewhere and so have virtually no basis for forming opinions.
The only reason many opponents bring up the Canadian experience is not because they know a thing about Canada---seriously, like that it is a foriegn country, that is is somewhere to the North of USA---seriously---but rather that their news sources has brought up horror stories to demonstrate the "superiority" of the American system.
"We have the BEST healthcare in the World!!!!!!" is constantly repeated by people incapable of thought, and their own inability of making a comparison is overlooked and they are thoroughly convinced they are right because it is constantly repeated on their radio and TV programs.
It's nice that you assume things about those of us that have a different point of view than you do. In fact I do have experience with other helthcare systems. Granted I'm sure it's not as deep and vast as your great and wonderful experiences, oh great expounder of all things. It is quite quaint that you think that since we may not have lived anywhere other than the US that our opinions are invalid. That somehow we can not read, think, or reason for ourselves. Perhaps we know people living in other systems. Perhaps we can see through the media BS on both sides and see that there are good ways to run things then there's the way the US does most government programs.
And thank you for adding so much to the debate at hand. Basically calling anyone that disagrees with your point of view some sort of hill-jack that doesn't read or think on their own is just SOOOO helpful.
Do you have anything to say about waiting times in other systems compared to the US? Do you have anything to add about quality of care in other systems compared to the US? Do you have anything what-so-ever to say about costs? Anything other than calling me an inbred idiot would be nice.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.