Previous 21 - 30 Next
Here's the way a forward looking society would handle the problem of chronic unemployment. We would pay the normal unemployment benefits for a reasonable period, say the 6 months we now do. For those who still haven't found employment, we would double the amount with the stipulation that the additional payment would go toward retraining, further education and/or employment counseling/mentoring to ensure that those who lack the necessary skills could work their way back into the role of productive member of society.
In response to:

Conservatives and Poverty

Neil99 Wrote: Apr 04, 2014 4:16 PM
Rick Santorum would be well to reflect upon the example of the leader of his Catholic faith, Pope Francis. The Pope seeks to refocus the teachings of the faith on the treatment of the poor of the world rather than the sex lives of others. The focus of the New Testament is clearly on loving your neighbor as yourself. Rick's oft stated perceptions don't match that standard-but then again, he's in good company in the Republican party.
In my state (which shall remain nameless), our Sec of State has spent over $5 million to find 16 suspicious cases. 6 were dismissed as not enough evidence to be charged, 5 people have been charged and plead guilty with the remaining 5 still under investigation. According to the article in our leading daily newspaper, the state attorney doesn't think there is enough evidence to bring charges against those 5 and expects to eventually dismiss the charges. The interesting point is that of the 5 who pleaded guilty, 4 of them were determined to be honest mistakes that resulted in little or no fines and the one remaining case turned out to be a felon who took his deceased brother's identity to avoid his own checkered past when looking for a job, credit etc. He did admit to voting in his brother's name when he was ineligible to vote. It all boils down to a state spending $5 million to find one case of voter fraud out of some 3.5 million residents. You can draw your own conclusions.
Now there are unlimited amounts whereas in the past, there was at least a semblance of reasonable limits. Pair this with Citizens United and the government will serve the highest bidders w/o any concern for the ordinary citizens.
Our democracy is now for sale to the highest bidder...
The display of one of the most powerful symbols of one religion to the exclusion of other religions most definitely most definitely violates the establishment clause. You suggest adding symbols of other religions, how would that be viewed by atheist soldiers and/or their families? The first sentence of the first amendment of the Bill of Rights forbids the government to advocate one religion over another or none. Remember, all soldiers take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
So how do you think having a Bible on the missing man table felt to Jewish soldiers?
See my suggestion for those who want nothing to do with the health care system. It's the last couple sentences in my original post.
So GW, you're trying to tell me that the 15% of people who are uninsured account for only 1% of the annual healthcare spending? Poppycock, I don't have any statistics to back that up, but the entire idea is absurd. Now if you aren't counting any further medical care past the ER, you might be correct. Unfortunately, those ER visits are often followed by followup medical care for diabetes, heart disease etc. that also are not paid for and must be absorbed by the entire system. In that case, my explanation is correct. You can't checkmate when you're playing checkers...
According to the last census, roughly 15% of our populace had no health insurance. Depending on how you round it, that is 1 in 6-7 people that will be billed for all charges for their own healthcare. I'm assuming that the vast majority of those people don't have insurance because they can't afford to buy it on the open market, so it's most likely safe to assume they can't pay this bill. It is the law that no person coming to the ER of most hospitals can be denied emergency care no matter their ability to pay. For this reason, many non-insured people wait until they have an emergency to access the healthcare system through the ER, which just happens to be the most expensive of all the options to society but the cheapest (and perhaps only) option for the non-insured. Since it's impossible to get blood out of a turnip, these patients are unable to pay their bills and these bills are then passed on to the remainder of the rest of society in the form of inflated costs. These costs are then passed on to insuranced people in the form of higher premiums. Remember that there is no such thing as a free lunch, so health insurance premiums are factored into the overall costs of all the goods and services that all of the citizens of the US pay for through our aggregate consumption. What this all boils down to is that everyone in our society helps in some small way to pay for the healthcare bills for everyone else. This treatise leads me to approval for the overall concept for the ACA. Since everyone benefits, everyone should pay to whatever extent they can, again-see my earlier comment about blood and turnips. For those of you who scream about being required to buy something you don't want, I have a simple solution. You should petition your Congressperson to work for one more healthcare option. That is an opt-out of the system entirely. If you have a heart attack or are in an auto accident for example, you will be screened at the scene or at the ER door. Unless you have insurance or have posted a bond of some sort to cover whatever medical bills you might incur, you are to be wheeled out to the parking lot to die. It could be easily done with a medical alert bracelet, perhaps a tattoo in a discreet place that could be checked by a security guard or some other sign.
Would you rather they go w/o any type of coverage? If they can't afford a larger deductible, they probably can't afford the higher premiums that go along with lower deductibles.
Previous 21 - 30 Next