Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Fed Offices in DC Closed 25% of the Time

Mike T2 Wrote: Feb 19, 2014 3:18 PM
Heather, Is it really such a bad thing that they have worked so little? I would have to say that quite honestly the fewer days these people show up to work, the better off I am. But perhaps we should adjust their compensation packages to better reflect the hours worked...they can keep their hourly wage, just reduce their salaries to reflect actual hours worked. How's that?
Alive, I would agree that with some less violent offenders, this is probably a good suggestion. Though I would think some will simply cry "chain gang!" and say it's unacceptable. Unfortunately there are some who are so bad, the only thing that should happen is tht they should be given a hammer and a pile of large rocks. At that point they should be told "make that pile of large rocks into a pile of small rocks."
Rick, I'm certainly no expert but I think that one answer to your question of why it's so expensive is actually relatively simple. Bureacracy. Whether insurance comes from a private company or the government, it does NOT improve the quality of healthcare nor does it increase the number of doctors/hospitals available to see you. It DOES, however, create a massive amount of paperwork for doctors/hospitals. Just think about the last time you were at the doctor. Mine is an office with 2 doctors and I believe 1 PA....there's also a nurse and then there is a receptionist plus 2 more people to deal with paperwork. If you want to exclude the receptionist, there are 4 qualified "healthcare workers" and 2 paper pushers. Both of whom require salaries and benefits. Add in malpractice insurance and lawyers and you're on your way to realizing why it's so expensive.
I was never much of a deer hunter (never saw a thing the years I went) but spent quite a few summer evenings woodchuck hunting so maybe I'm a bit off here. I have always thought that sonar rigs really took the sport out of fishing. Is the use of drones for hunting big game really any different than that? Doesn't it take the sport out of it?
Here's a question: where are the shareholders in all of this? Given the ratings that this show has generated it must be providing a fairly substantial portion of A&E's revenue. With the announcement that the family won't do the show without Phil, shouldn't the shareholders be speaking out against the suspension? Isn't there a fiduciary responsibilty to the shareholders for the network executives to consider? Or does the gay agenda matter more, even to the shareholders?
In response to:

An Old 'New' Program

Mike T2 Wrote: Nov 05, 2013 4:19 PM
I believe that this was the plot-line for an episode of The Simpsons. The local MENSA group (of which Lisa had just become a member) decided to take over the town and run it. With disastrous results. The older episodes of that show certainly did contain some very intelligent humor....
Quite frankly I think that Mr. Goldberg is missing the most important piece here. Heads Obama wins, tails we lose. If they fix the problems, Obamacare stays and he is known forevermore as the man who got it passed. If it makes the insurance industry insolvent, he (and the rest of the Democrat party) walk to the nearest microphone and begin to demand single-payer government health insurance. Which means he gets what he truly wants even sooner. The only way for this to end well is full, complete, and total repeal. And then a move to make health insurance like auto/homeowner/life insurance. I call up my State Farm guy and buy what I need when I need it. Why is that so difficult?
Old Enough, This is exactly what I was thinking reading this column. It seems to me that the complete failure of Obamacare will cause the collapse (perhaps not literal but in all practical terms) of the insurance industry...at which point the Dems will claim that they will "save" us with single payer government healthcare. I think this is why repeal was so important...this system is so bad that NO good can come from it.
I have to admit I'm not sure why the fact that "millenials" are in favor of private retirement accounts. I'm 36 years old (technically I was born in the last couple of years of Gen X) and can tell you that I've never spoken to anyone currently under the age of 45 who believes that they'll ever see a meaningful amount of money from Social Security. We all know it's insolvent and we know that a check will come, even if it's only enough for a cup of coffee. The fact that this is news to Mr. Mitchell, whom I respect very much, means he's out of touch with the "younger" crowd. And, yes, the crowd that knows we aren't going to receive anything from SS isn't young.
the Chopping Block, I finished reading Atlast Shrugged last year and...well...isn't that basically the plot of that book? The socialist/progressives/liberals take over everywhere (there are multiple references to "The People's Republic of...") including in the US. She doesn't spend a lot of time discussing it but there are numerous mentions of how miserable life becomes for ordinary people while the connected wealthy elites continue to become more wealthy. The book ends with economic collapse. The problem is the book has been vilified by the media to the point where many people won't read it. I also found that it wasn't the best written book and think she could have made exactly the same point/argument in half the length if she had cut out some of the unnecessary verbiage. Just my opinion though...I did enjoy and agree with the book though.
Previous 11 - 20 Next