NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, John Edwards has come out with the typical Democratic Party solution to almost everything, Riase Taxes. He wants a universal health care program that will cost between $90 to $120 billion and he wants to raise our taxes to pay for it. :(

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070204/pl_nm/usa_politics_edwards_dc_2

There has to be a better way.

Well, John Edwards has come out with the typical Democratic Party solution to almost everything, Riase Taxes. He wants a universal health care program that will cost between $90 to $120 billion and he wants to raise our taxes to pay for it. :(

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070204/pl_nm/usa_politics_edwards_dc_2

There has to be a better way.

The Democrats want everyone to love them because they will give people everything they want, but no one ever stops to ask where the money will come from to pay for it all.

There has to be a better way.


When poor people get sick, we could just harvest their organs and distill their bodies into crude oil.

When poor people get sick, we could just harvest their organs and distill their bodies into crude oil.

...that would be awesome if they could find a way to do that...

Er, I mean... uh... look, a distraction! *tries to run away but gets distracted*

Well, John Edwards has come out with the typical Democratic Party solution to almost everything, Riase Taxes. He wants a universal health care program that will cost between $90 to $120 billion and he wants to raise our taxes to pay for it. :(

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070204/pl_nm/usa_politics_edwards_dc_2

There has to be a better way.

Is it any worse than pouring more money into weapons development?

I don't need an answer, it's just a rhetorical statement. I think at this point we just need to stop spending, and start PAYING...the deficit...

When poor people get sick, we could just harvest their organs and distill their bodies into crude oil.

Oh, you remember this movie? :p
http://ia.ec.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/03/51/43m.jpg

The Democrats want everyone to love them because they will give people everything they want, but no one ever stops to ask where the money will come from to pay for it all.

The article gives the impression that the tax increases will mainly be targeting individuals who earn more than $200,000 a year. Anyone have any data on how many Americans fall into that category?

If you assume that they make up about 5% of the population (and that seems high to me), there would be a little less than 15 million of them. $90 billion a year among 15 million people works out to about $6,200 a person. Even for the super rich, that's a pretty big tax hike. High enough to justify looking for ways to avoid having to pay tax.

Can you say "flight capital"?

The Democrats want everyone to love them because they will give people everything they want, but no one ever stops to ask where the money will come from to pay for it all.As opposed to a current Republican administration that started a war without giving a realistic price it would cost, and then wondering why no one loves them.

To be honest, if I really had the choice between paying taxes for universal healthcare or Iraq, I know which one I would have picked.

When poor people get sick, we could just harvest their organs and distill their bodies into crude oil.

You know you want to take it a step further: You want to distill their bodies into liquor!

As opposed to a current Republican administration that started a war without giving a realistic price it would cost, and then wondering why no one loves them.

To be honest, if I really had the choice between paying taxes for universal healthcare or Iraq, I know which one I would have picked.

Their universal health care will never fly even if they taxed us and implemented it, imagine what the copay would be especially after rate hikes.

The article gives the impression that the tax increases will mainly be targeting individuals who earn more than $200,000 a year. Anyone have any data on how many Americans fall into that category?

If you assume that they make up about 5% of the population (and that seems high to me), there would be a little less than 15 million of them. $90 billion a year among 15 million people works out to about $6,200 a person. Even for the super rich, that's a pretty big tax hike. High enough to justify looking for ways to avoid having to pay tax.

Can you say "flight capital"?

They always make it look like it is on the rich but the rest of us end up footing the bill. So their plan is a load of crap. Besides if he wants to get elected make it happen before he gets there or it is nothing but hot air. I am tired of promises from both parties that never happen and that is all his "plan" is a false promise to garner votes.

You know you want to take it a step further: You want to distill their bodies into liquor!

If George Bush had used the trillion dollars wasted in Iraq to distill poor people into free liquor for the rich, he would be our greatest president EVAR!

good...most people waste their money anyway

Well, John Edwards has come out with the typical Democratic Party solution to almost everything, Riase Taxes. He wants a universal health care program that will cost between $90 to $120 billion and he wants to raise our taxes to pay for it. :(

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070204/pl_nm/usa_politics_edwards_dc_2

There has to be a better way.

Sure there's a better way. Ignore the suffering of Americans by maintaining the status quo - and then spend 3 TRILLION dollars opening up new and innovative markets for human suffering abroad. Win-win for the American sociopath.

As always.

Well, John Edwards has come out with the typical Democratic Party solution to almost everything, Riase Taxes. He wants a universal health care program that will cost between $90 to $120 billion and he wants to raise our taxes to pay for it. :(

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070204/pl_nm/usa_politics_edwards_dc_2

There has to be a better way.

Yeah, stop funding dictators and starting pointless wars.

Well, John Edwards has come out with the typical Democratic Party solution to almost everything, Riase Taxes. He wants a universal health care program that will cost between $90 to $120 billion and he wants to raise our taxes to pay for it. :(

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070204/pl_nm/usa_politics_edwards_dc_2

There has to be a better way.
Sure. Reallocate the money needed from the defense ministry.

I mean, it's absurd how much money the U.S. has spend on their stupid global War on Terror - but honestly, what good does that do when the population that is supposedly being defended is too sick to enjoy their freedom?

Sure. Reallocate the money needed from the defense ministry.

I mean, it's absurd how much money the U.S. has spend on their stupid global War on Terror - but honestly, what good does that do when the population that is supposedly being defended is too sick to enjoy their freedom?

How about we cut back the overbloated paychecks of the legislators and the wonderful taxpayer paid healthcare they have.They seem to get bigger and better pay raises and have much better benefits packages then their constituents.....all at their constituents benefits. I never see the bleeding heart we care for the people dems like, Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, or Pelosi complain over their pay raises or try to keep them from happeneing. Or maybe even better now that the Dems are in control they can reverse all those wasted tax dollar pay raises they have received. But I am sure they have a good reason for not doing it.

There has to be a better way.

Such as? Capturing a leprechaun and getting his pot of gold?

How about we cut back the overbloated paychecks of the legislators and the wonderful taxpayer paid healthcare they have.They seem to get bigger and better pay raises and have much better benefits packages then their constituents.....all at their constituents benefits. I never see the bleeding heart we care for the people dems like, Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, or Pelosi complain over their pay raises or try to keep them from happeneing. Or maybe even better now that the Dems are in control they can reverse all those wasted tax dollar pay raises they have received. But I am sure they have a good reason for not doing it.

So you missed the part where the Dems refused (Twice, no less) to vote for a pay raise for legislators until the minimum wage bill was passed? You do seem to be selectively seeing the Dems through partisan glasses, don't you?

There has to be a better way.

Magic, for all of it's attractive attributes, is not real.

How about we cut back the overbloated paychecks of the legislators and the wonderful taxpayer paid healthcare they have.They seem to get bigger and better pay raises and have much better benefits packages then their constituents.....all at their constituents benefits. I never see the bleeding heart we care for the people dems like, Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, or Pelosi complain over their pay raises or try to keep them from happeneing. Or maybe even better now that the Dems are in control they can reverse all those wasted tax dollar pay raises they have received. But I am sure they have a good reason for not doing it.

Voluntary pay cuts are not in human nature. Except sometimes somebody will come along and get it. I really don't think that either the Democrats or the Republicans have any sort of bearing on that type of person.

Well, John Edwards has come out with the typical Democratic Party solution to almost everything, Riase Taxes. He wants a universal health care program that will cost between $90 to $120 billion and he wants to raise our taxes to pay for it. :(

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070204/pl_nm/usa_politics_edwards_dc_2

There has to be a better way.

Would you rather him feed you the bullshit line that we can cut taxes and raise revenues? No wonder you were a Republican for so long.

Yeah, stop funding dictators and starting pointless wars.

A-fucking-men.

So you missed the part where the Dems refused (Twice, no less) to vote for a pay raise for legislators until the minimum wage bill was passed? You do seem to be selectively seeing the Dems through partisan glasses, don't you?

The minimum wage law is all smoke and mirrors and is a pretty useless thing all together, it has no real benefit for the majority of america and if they really cared they would have fought not to get the pay raise for legislators period.

Voluntary pay cuts are not in human nature. Except sometimes somebody will come along and get it. I really don't think that either the Democrats or the Republicans have any sort of bearing on that type of person.

Oh your absolutely correct, I just wish the dems would quit lying to the people and admit they want to/ or are rich too and really do not give a crap for the poor working slobs of america. Then maybe we can start finding some politicians who do care. Because I already know the republicans think that way ( as do the dems) but too many in america actually beleive their dog and pony show.

Well, John Edwards has come out with the typical Democratic Party solution to almost everything, Riase Taxes. He wants a universal health care program that will cost between $90 to $120 billion and he wants to raise our taxes to pay for it. :(

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070204/pl_nm/usa_politics_edwards_dc_2

There has to be a better way.

universal health care is stupid. There are plenty of chartiable free clinics and hospitals for people who dont have coverage. State healthcare should be left to the Europeans and Canadians, I for one will keep the system of the best healthcare in the world and pay for it.

A visual guide to where the taxes go (apparently) http://thebudgetgraph.com/poster/

A visual guide to where the taxes go (apparently) http://thebudgetgraph.com/poster/

Is there a version in plain english?:headbang:

Well, John Edwards has come out with the typical Democratic Party solution to almost everything, Riase Taxes. He wants a universal health care program that will cost between $90 to $120 billion and he wants to raise our taxes to pay for it. :(

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070204/pl_nm/usa_politics_edwards_dc_2

There has to be a better way.

I promised myself I would never vote for a Republican or Democratic candidate. But this man has made me break my promise. A democrat who is essentially a socialist. God I love Edwards. I mean, he quoted Marx with "The haves and the haves not", he's raising taxes so that we can all have something good. If I was 18, I'd vote for him.

I promised myself I would never vote for a Republican or Democratic candidate. But this man has made me break my promise. A democrat who is essentially a socialist. God I love Edwards. I mean, he quoted Marx with "The haves and the haves not", he's raising taxes so that we can all have something good. If I was 18, I'd vote for him.

A lot of people use the phrase "the haves and have nots". It doesnt make someone a commie.

universal health care is stupid. There are plenty of chartiable free clinics and hospitals for people who dont have coverage. State healthcare should be left to the Europeans and Canadians, I for one will keep the system of the best healthcare in the world and pay for it.

If you can afford it, yippee for you. Until two years ago, I couldn't most of the time, so I was one of those people who waited until a problem got so bad that Robitussin and Ace bandages wouldn't fix it and then went to the ER and never paid the bill because I didn't have the money, which helped make everyone else's rates go up.

Oh, and if you really think the US has the best system of healthcare in the world, you're either ignorant or a fool.

A lot of people use the phrase "the haves and have nots". It doesnt make someone a commie.

Ok, name one other person besides Edwards who has used that in such a desperate situation as ours and was NOT any form of Socialist or Communist.

Oh your absolutely correct, I just wish the dems would quit lying to the people and admit they want to/ or are rich too and really do not give a crap for the poor working slobs of america. Then maybe we can start finding some politicians who do care. Because I already know the republicans think that way ( as do the dems) but too many in america actually beleive their dog and pony show.

I agree. I just think that the Democrats at least pay it lip service so they still get the check mark if I had to put a check in either the Republican or Democrat box. I'd rather leave that line blank until something is really done about it, though.

I agree. I just think that the Democrats at least pay it lip service so they still get the check mark if I had to put a check in either the Republican or Democrat box. I'd rather leave that line blank until something is really done about it, though.

So it is better to be lied to as long as the lie is a good one?

So it is better to be lied to as long as the lie is a good one?

Lip service implies that they're at least acknowledging the issue, and perhaps doing small things (like the minimum wage increase) that may be more symbolic than effective (though I'm not conceding that at the moment), but at least do something. My father-in-law likes to use the following analogy. The Republican politicians are the masters in the big house on the hill who beat you every day, including Sunday. The Democratic politicians give you every third Sunday off--just enough for the people at the bottom of the hill to say "well, at least we get every third Sunday off."

Would you rather him feed you the bullshit line that we can cut taxes and raise revenues? No wonder you were a Republican for so long.

But "trickle down" economics does work. It has been proven twice. :rolleyes:

Lip service implies that they're at least acknowledging the issue, and perhaps doing small things (like the minimum wage increase) that may be more symbolic than effective (though I'm not conceding that at the moment), but at least do something. My father-in-law likes to use the following analogy. The Republican politicians are the masters in the big house on the hill who beat you every day, including Sunday. The Democratic politicians give you every third Sunday off--just enough for the people at the bottom of the hill to say "well, at least we get every third Sunday off."

Yea but if the people ever decided to get off their collective butts maybe they could have what they deserve instead of just what is handed out to them. Maybe it is time to change the status quo.

If you can afford it, yippee for you. Until two years ago, I couldn't most of the time, so I was one of those people who waited until a problem got so bad that Robitussin and Ace bandages wouldn't fix it and then went to the ER and never paid the bill because I didn't have the money, which helped make everyone else's rates go up.

there are free clinics all over the place for people who can't pay.

Oh, and if you really think the US has the best system of healthcare in the world, you're either ignorant or a fool.
O rly? name one better

Well, John Edwards has come out with the typical Democratic Party solution to almost everything, Riase Taxes. He wants a universal health care program that will cost between $90 to $120 billion and he wants to raise our taxes to pay for it. :(

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070204/pl_nm/usa_politics_edwards_dc_2

There has to be a better way.

the money people will save on blood-sucking health insurence policies will more than pay for a national health service, because a national health service doesn't chase after profit over curing sick people.

The minimum wage law is all smoke and mirrors and is a pretty useless thing all together, it has no real benefit for the majority of america and if they really cared they would have fought not to get the pay raise for legislators period.

Ah. So you're a conservative who does not care about the benefits of the minimum wage on the economy and who would prefer to slander Democrats than to actually talk on subject.

Kay.

the money people will save on blood-sucking health insurence policies will more than pay for a national health service, because a national health service doesn't chase after profit over curing sick people.

The dr's who charge that service do though.

But "trickle down" economics does work. It has been proven twice. :rolleyes:

It works for the very rich. It does fuck all for everyone else, and in inflation adjusted dollars, it does not raise revenues. Right-wingers love to point to Reagan's economy as proof of trickle-down's effectiveness, but in order to do so, they have to lie. Reagan's original tax cuts jump-started the economy all right, in conjunction with vastly lower oil prices. But by 1986, he'd given all of those tax cuts back and we were right back where we started. His tax cuts that year gave his successor a recession that cost him his job. Clinton came in, made some targeted tax increases, some targeted tax cuts (to people who would actually spend the money), got the deficit under control and helped fuel a tech boom to the best economy in history.

Ah. So you're a conservative who does not care about the benefits of the minimum wage on the economy and who would prefer to slander Democrats than to actually talk on subject.

Kay.

It will not have a positive effect on the economy. And I slander all the fools Dems and Reps. Besides it is not slander when it is true.

I forgot to add please do not label me if you do not know me. I beleive all our leaders should be held accountable for their actions, not just the ones from the party I do not support because I beleive the hogwash being fed to me by my own people.

there are free clinics all over the place for people who can't pay. Bullshit. There are cheap ones, but in the world of health care, nothing is free.

O rly? name one better
France. Germany. Spain. Britain. Per capita, they get better health care on average than people in the US do, and they do it cheaper.

It will not have a positive effect on the economy. And I slander all the fools Dems and Reps. Besides it is not slander when it is true.

Why do you say that? It's never been a drag on the economy before--no reason it should be this time. And it puts more money into the pockets of those people who don't make enough to save it--that money goes directly into the economy and spurs growth.

The dr's who charge that service do though.

no, doctors in the NHS get paid a salary, they are not expected to be businessmen. at least they did until new 'Labour' intoduced the semi-private mess we have over here now.

Ok, name one other person besides Edwards who has used that in such a desperate situation as ours and was NOT any form of Socialist or Communist.

Hillary? She is a Centrist. :rolleyes:

no, doctors in the NHS get paid a salary, they are not expected to be businessmen. at least they did until new 'Labour' intoduced the semi-private mess we have over here now.

So there are still private Dr's?

Yea but if the people ever decided to get off their collective butts maybe they could have what they deserve instead of just what is handed out to them. Maybe it is time to change the status quo.

AMEN

So there are still private Dr's?

of course, same way there are private teachers. what does that have to do with it?

It works for the very rich. It does fuck all for everyone else, and in inflation adjusted dollars, it does not raise revenues. Right-wingers love to point to Reagan's economy as proof of trickle-down's effectiveness, but in order to do so, they have to lie. Reagan's original tax cuts jump-started the economy all right, in conjunction with vastly lower oil prices. But by 1986, he'd given all of those tax cuts back and we were right back where we started. His tax cuts that year gave his successor a recession that cost him his job. Clinton came in, made some targeted tax increases, some targeted tax cuts (to people who would actually spend the money), got the deficit under control and helped fuel a tech boom to the best economy in history.

Wow! We have very divergent views of the above. So, I think we should agree to disagree on that. :fluffle:

of course, same way there are private teachers. what does that have to do with it?

So that means that all the Better dr's will be in private practice and only those who need more experience or do not care/can not make the big bucks will be working for the gov't so the rich who still have their own health care will get the best practioners, and that includes our leaders. And the people will be stuck with what ever.

So do not take my tax dollars to make yourself look better when I already have health care that does it's job.

The great lie of Reaganomics is that tax-cuts will regrow the economy enough to counter-act the lost revenue. It's never even come close and the result has been a legacy of insane and massive national debt. The other lasting legacy has been the complete abandonment of fiscal responsibility by the Republican party.

You're welcome to your own opinion, Celtlund--just not your own facts.

The other lasting legacy has been the complete abandonment of fiscal responsibility by the Republican party.

Sad but true, and don't expect the Dems to curb spending or reduce the debt. :(

So that means that all the Better dr's will be in private practice and only those who need more experience or do not care/can not make the big bucks will be working for the gov't so the rich who still have their own health care will get the best practioners, and that includes our leaders. And the people will be stuck with what ever.

So do not take my tax dollars to make yourself look better when I already have health care that does it's job.

Not always. Right now in the US, doctors spend more time chasing down payments from insurance companies than anything else. Even great doctors have to do that. It shouldn't be any surprise, as insurance companies are out to make money first, and one good way to do that is deny every possible claim they can. So a number of doctors--even in the US--have said that they'd gladly trade the potentially higher per treatment charge in the private sector for a guaranteed, albeit lower per treatment charge through a single payer system.

You're welcome to your own opinion, Celtlund--just not your own facts.

One of my history professors many years ago said, "History is a personal interpertation of the facts." Given the facts of trickle down economics, two rational people can reach different conclusions. Given the facts that the deficit was reduced during the second Clinton administration when there was a Republican Congress, two rational people can reach different conclusions on who was responsible.

Not always. Right now in the US, doctors spend more time chasing down payments from insurance companies than anything else. Even great doctors have to do that. It shouldn't be any surprise, as insurance companies are out to make money first, and one good way to do that is deny every possible claim they can. So a number of doctors--even in the US--have said that they'd gladly trade the potentially higher per treatment charge in the private sector for a guaranteed, albeit lower per treatment charge through a single payer system.

There is the nut of the kernel, the insurance companies maybe we need to hold them to a higher standard? Either that or if you are going to go with a NHS then abolish all other health care systems completely so as to provide the best service for all.

It will not have a positive effect on the economy. And I slander all the fools Dems and Reps. Besides it is not slander when it is true.

By brining up the amount of money that the lowest class has available to it, we increase their spending and give their children a better chance of being able and equiped to gain a better education. Both of those strengthen the economy. Just because the rich do not make money up front does not mean that they will not later.

I forgot to add please do not label me if you do not know me. I beleive all our leaders should be held accountable for their actions, not just the ones from the party I do not support because I beleive the hogwash being fed to me by my own people.

I will label you as you present yourself. If and when you choose to debate facts, rather than ad hominem, I will revise my opinions. Until such a time, you present yourself (as you have in the past) as merely a party-line Republican.

Well, John Edwards has come out with the typical Democratic Party solution to almost everything, Riase Taxes. He wants a universal health care program that will cost between $90 to $120 billion and he wants to raise our taxes to pay for it.

There has to be a better way.
Like what, rob a bank? Where else will the money come from?

Universal health care programmes take a burden off employers anyway, so it's generally a good thing.

The Democrats want everyone to love them because they will give people everything they want, but no one ever stops to ask where the money will come from to pay for it all.
I don't live in America, but do the parties there not state where the money will come from? Usually it's income taxes, sometimes it's other kinds of tax. Just look at their party literature.

Oh your absolutely correct, I just wish the dems would quit lying to the people and admit they want to/ or are rich too and really do not give a crap for the poor working slobs of america.
Then why did they raise the minimum wage?

Working men and women are not slobs; they are the unsung backbone of any country.

Clinton came in, made some targeted tax increases, some targeted tax cuts (to people who would actually spend the money), got the deficit under control and helped fuel a tech boom to the best economy in history.
And you call yourself a socialist? Clinton was somewhere to the right of George Bush 1.

AMEN
Are you people advocating some sort of communist revolution?

Like what, rob a bank? Where else will the money come from?

Universal health care programmes take a burden off employers anyway, so it's generally a good thing.

It would be more efficient to keep the system private and have the government negotiate with health care providers in order to lower the cost for people who qualify for government-provided health insurance. You could also expand tax deductions for businesses that offer company insurance plans.

I mean, the private sector is far better in terms of quality than the public, so if you could eliminate the negative effects it would improve health care overall.

Then why did they raise the minimum wage?

Because it's a good way to make it look like you care without actually having to do anything. Its effects are nominal at best and usually end up worsening the situation by enabling employers to discriminate more easily.

Expanding the earned income tax credit would do far more to help the poor than some meaningless and likely harmful raise in the minimum wage.

By brining up the amount of money that the lowest class has available to it, we increase their spending and give their children a better chance of being able and equiped to gain a better education. Both of those strengthen the economy. Just because the rich do not make money up front does not mean that they will not later.



I will label you as you present yourself. If and when you choose to debate facts, rather than ad hominem, I will revise my opinions. Until such a time, you present yourself (as you have in the past) as merely a party-line Republican.

your right they have more money to spend which helps because prices will go up so they can cover the money that is now being paid to those people. So hey looks like their dollars are still going the same distance.

And the sad thing is the only Dem I did not vote for in my state is the fool of a governor but hey you do as your close mind tells you to do since I do not subscribe to the brainwashing methods of your party and spew them back out as if they were religious mantra then I guess I can not be anything but the enemy.

So what happens to all the people who were already making more then minimum wage when it goes up? now they have lost all the hard work they have put into their job because people coming in may now make the same thing they worked a year or two to earn.
And as for those poor people who want their kids to have a better chance at education those chances are out there if your willing to look for them and try to acheive them. But hey guess I would be better of just waiting for somebody to give me what I want rather then going out and working hard for all I have gotten so far. color me silly for thinking I had to work for what I earn.:eek: :rolleyes:

your right they have more money to spend which helps because prices will go up so they can cover the money that is now being paid to those people. So hey looks like their dollars are still going the same distance.

Acutally, that has never been the case in the past. As long as the Congress does it's job and attatches the Min. Wage to inflation, that does not occur. It has not occured as quickly as you pretend in the past, and every time we have raised the Min. Wage in the past, the quality of living for workers has increased.

So what happens to all the people who were already making more then minimum wage when it goes up? now they have lost all the hard work they have put into their job because people coming in may now make the same thing they worked a year or two to earn.

Their wages tend to rise too. I've seen it around here in the last month, since the Min. Wage rose. Employers want to keep valueble employees, and so they raise their wages along with the Minimum Wage, even if they earned more than it.

And as for those poor people who want their kids to have a better chance at education those chances are out there if your willing to look for them and try to acheive them. But hey guess I would be better of just waiting for somebody to give me what I want rather then going out and working hard for all I have gotten so far. color me silly for thinking I had to work for what I earn.:eek: :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Thanks. Let's blame the kids for their parent's sins. Such a fucking compassionate person you are. Let's kill class stratification. If you're born poor, you should stay where you fucking belong, eh? Wouldn't want those dirty poor people to have an equal chance to succede as the rich people. Otherwise we might have a fair meritocratic society. :rolleyes:

If you honestly believe the President has the power to affect the economy in the way you are insinuating, then you are either naïve or know absolutely nothing about how an economy operates.

Bill Clinton’s “targeted” tax cuts and raises did nothing to spur on an economic boom. In the most general course on the economy, you would have learned that government responses to recession, depression, etc have no good impact on how the economy is operating because they are untimely. For the most part, when the government intrudes on how a free market is operating (either in a boom or recession), it does no good.

That goes for Reagan and Bush as well, neither one of them had a successful policy towards the economy. And for that matter, neither did FDR, the New Deal was a failure in every single one of its purposes, except for instilling faith in the government and economy.

Voodoo economics certainly does not work, neither does Keynesian economics. Ask any prominent economist, especially those whom stay away from marco-policy, and they would agree, hands down.

As for John Edwards, his position, while noble, would never fly. Americans will see in the next 20 years the downfall of all European Healthcare and Social Security systems. If you want to disagree with me because you think free healthcare is great, fine, I would agree, but it does not and will not work for many reasons:

1. The amount of money entering the system will dwindle due to the decrease in the working generation and increase in retiring citizens.
2. The majority of European countries, while seeing this decrease in working populations have implemented so many constraints on their economy for the good of the general population that they will backfire.
3. An example would be by comparing the GDP of the fastest growing advanced economy in the world (Hong Kong, which has no constraint) and the slowest growing advanced economy ( France, which by estimates will face one of the largest recessions on record following the legislation passed this year.)
4. Universal Health Care does not take the burden off of the employer. That is certainly the expectations, however when the government gives these programs to its population, it usually results in the exploitation of that system. Additionally, the increase in taxation results in the employer to take a substantial hit in terms of profits, so then the company is not expanded. If the company is not expanded, then we have stagnation, which will ultimately lead to either inflation, or recession, or worse case stagflation.

As for the Minimum Wage, yes it does so much to the economy, doesn’t it? Do you know how many people are actually affected by the minimum wage? The answer is less than two percent of the employed population. Raising it just gets politicians elected again, they have no real incentive or push to raise the minimum wage other than “pork-barreling.” Also, quite frankly, a person living off of the minimum wage has little to no ability to pay for a better education only on that income.

Honestly, it is nice to say these things will help the people, as well as the economy. But quite honestly, when the government gets involved with how an economy is run, then everyone suffers. That’s why prior and during the Great Depression, the greatest groups to help the economy were the various charitable (religious and non) organizations. When the government takes the place of charity, we fail as moral beings. Why? Because when the government is there to give immense amounts of money to the poor, the underprivileged, and the sick, then in general we as humans do not feel it necessary to help those people in the same capacity as we would if the government was not there to offer its own support.

And finally a cheap shot at Edwards, just because I have little respect for the man, I’m sure he really cares a lot about the sick and hurt. Seeing as he just built the largest mansion in the country from the money he made “helping” those who were either hurt, sick, etc.

Like what, rob a bank? Where else will the money come from?

Universal health care programmes take a burden off employers anyway, so it's generally a good thing.


I don't live in America, but do the parties there not state where the money will come from? Usually it's income taxes, sometimes it's other kinds of tax. Just look at their party literature.


Then why did they raise the minimum wage?

Working men and women are not slobs; they are the unsung backbone of any country.


Actually I am one of those working class people, and the minimum wage in crease is not going to help anyone here except for maybe the kids still in high school or those who dropped out because they did not want to finish. Minimum wage is for unskilled labor people who do not know how to do anything besides maybe flipping burgers at Mickey D's. But his wage in crease will allow bussiness to raise thier prices to cover the increase and since if you are already making the same as the wage increase now your money will n ot go as far. Boy that helped out the working man.


Do you think if they want to get elected they tell you , this is going to get your taxes raised? or will they tell you this will cause a tax in crease but it will not affect you only the rich people? well the tax increases usually affect everyone including the working class. Because even the Dems are rich and they do not want to lose anymore of their money then they already do. Besides where in office now and they can not stop us from making it affetc everyone equally now.

Voodoo economics certainly does not work, neither does Keynesian economics. Ask any prominent economist, especially those whom stay away from marco-policy, and they would agree, hands down.

Au Contraire. Keynesian economics work very well. They were what caused the boom of the 90's, and they are what is causing the problems the economy currently faced.

As for John Edwards, his position, while noble, would never fly. Americans will see in the next 20 years the downfall of all European Healthcare and Social Security systems. If you want to disagree with me because you think free healthcare is great, fine, I would agree, but it does not and will not work for many reasons:


And finally a cheap shot at Edwards, just because I have little respect for the man, I’m sure he really cares a lot about the sick and hurt. Seeing as he just built the largest mansion in the country from the money he made “helping” those who were either hurt, sick, etc.

:rolleyes:

So one cannot make money and still be for improving the wellbeing of others? Bullshit. That's utter and complete tripe.

:rolleyes:

Thanks. Let's blame the kids for their parent's sins. Such a fucking compassionate person you are. Let's kill class stratification. If you're born poor, you should stay where you fucking belong, eh? Wouldn't want those dirty poor people to have an equal chance to succede as the rich people. Otherwise we might have a fair meritocratic society. :rolleyes:


Yea it is compasionate. Hate to break this to you but I have been working in one type of job or another since I was 14, and it is not because I was bored and had nothing better to do.
But you know what I do fairly well now because I apply myself and work hard I am a single parent I work 2 jobs, and now that I have the time to do it again I will also be returning to school. But you know what I am earning everything I am getting and not waiting for someone to say "oh your poor fellow let me make life easy for you". And as a matter of fact I am a single parent who is a father, and bad news for you there are less groups out there to help single fathers then there is to help say single moms.
And as for merits you have to earn merits not have them given to you. :headbang:

Yea it is compasionate. Hate to break this to you but I have been working in one type of job or another since I was 14, and it is not because I was bored and had nothing better to do.
But you know what I do fairly well now because I apply myself and work hard I am a single parent I work 2 jobs, and now that I have the time to do it again I will also be returning to school. But you know what I am earning everything I am getting and not waiting for someone to say "oh your poor fellow let me make life easy for you". And as a matter of fact I am a single parent who is a father, and bad news for you there are less groups out there to help single fathers then there is to help say single moms.
And as for merits you have to earn merits not have them given to you. :headbang:

It is not giving someone a fucking merit to offer them a fair chance. As things stand, it takes 5 (count them 5) generations to move into the middle class for a family. It is not merit to insure that the children of the poor have an equal chance to succede as the children of the rich. We do not do so currently. The biggest influence on a child's success in school is their parent's involvement in their success, and the resources available to them in education. Both are positively affected by a rise in the Minimum wage for poor families. Those resources are already available for the children of the rich.

Why should the family you are born into affect your chance to succede? That flies into the face of the concept of meritocracy.

It is not giving someone a fucking merit to offer them a fair chance. As things stand, it takes 5 (count them 5) generations to move into the middle class for a family. It is not merit to insure that the children of the poor have an equal chance to succede as the children of the rich. We do not do so currently. The biggest influence on a child's success in school is their parent's involvement in their success, and the resources available to them in education. Both are positively affected by a rise in the Minimum wage for poor families. Those resources are already available for the children of the rich.

Why should the family you are born into affect your chance to succede? That flies into the face of the concept of meritocracy.

OK so where does hard work come into your equation?

OK so where does hard work come into your equation?

Equally. See, the way we have it set up, this is how it goes:

For a rich family's child to succede, it requires 1 unit of hard work to attain success.

For a poor family's child to succede, it requires 5 units of hard work to attain that same success.

I invision a world in which how much you work is really proportional to your success, and you do not depend on the success of your parents to move up in the world. That is not what we have.

There is the nut of the kernel, the insurance companies maybe we need to hold them to a higher standard? Either that or if you are going to go with a NHS then abolish all other health care systems completely so as to provide the best service for all.

Other countries have a two-tier system and I see no reason for the US to do any differently. The key is that there needs to be a basic level of coverage for everyone that includes catastrophic care--cancer, long term hospice if necessary, MRIs and all the other stuff. And then, if you want to go outside the system and you have the money for it, you can insure privately. No doubt some doctors will decide to go the purely private route, and I wouldn't suggest we stop them. Just as long as the poor and working class and even middle class can get to a doctor for preventative care without it breaking them, I'll be satisfied.

Equally. See, the way we have it set up, this is how it goes:

For a rich family's child to succede, it requires 1 unit of hard work to attain success.

For a poor family's child to succede, it requires 5 units of hard work to attain that same success.

I invision a world in which how much you work is really proportional to your success, and you do not depend on the success of your parents to move up in the world. That is not what we have.


Rich people are rich because they worked hard to get it, maybe not the current possesors. But who should not reap the benefits when you die if not your children?

ANd I do not get my success on based on my parents all my successes have come through my own labours. SO does that mean just because it worked for me it will not work for anyone else?

Or is this more of "we need to blame society for our shortcomings"?

Your plan is very idealic, but not very reasonable.

The question is not should the playing field be forced to be equal, but will you go out and do what it takes to make something of yourself? That is what america was founded on, everyone being perfectly equal never worked in the USSR it will not work here either.

But you know what I do fairly well now because I apply myself and work hard I am a single parent I work 2 jobs, and now that I have the time to do it again I will also be returning to school. But you know what I am earning everything I am getting and not waiting for someone to say "oh your poor fellow let me make life easy for you". And as a matter of fact I am a single parent who is a father, and bad news for you there are less groups out there to help single fathers then there is to help say single moms.
You must be a sucker for punishment if you don't want the government to make your life easier. Fortunately masochists are not a significant voting block.

Rich people are rich because they worked hard to get it, maybe not the current possesors. But who should not reap the benefits when you die if not your children?

Why should a rich man's son have more success than a poor man's son for doing less work? Why should the inferior have orders of magnitude more money than the superior, just because of their parents.

ANd I do not get my success on based on my parents all my successes have come through my own labours. SO does that mean just because it worked for me it will not work for anyone else?

That is incorrect. The behaviour and resources of your parents affected you strongly. If they had pushed you differently in school, and had the resources necessary to do so, you would have a different life. You do owe your parents both for your successes and failures.

Or is this more of "we need to blame society for our shortcomings"?

We need to be fucking reasonable. Meritocracy means equality of opportunity. We do not have that. If we wish to trumpet the greatness of meritocracy, we must offer a level playing field.

Your plan is very idealic, but not very reasonable.

I would offer to you that the idealist of us is you. I live in the real world where being poor stays with you.

The question is not should the playing field be forced to be equal, but will you go out and do what it takes to make something of yourself? That is what america was founded on, everyone being perfectly equal never worked in the USSR it will not work here either.


You mistake equality of opportunity, which is to say, giving everyone the same CHANCE to succede for equality of outcome, which is to say, income leveling. America was founded upon the ideal of equality of opportunity. That is what the progressive movement of the 1900s was all about. That is what the populist movements of the 1890's was all about. That is what the revolution was all about. That is what Due Process is all about. Any basic government class will tell you this.

Do not assume that progressivism, which seeks a meritocratic system, where those who work hardest, succede proportionately for communism, in which hard work is stolen so that those who do not work can live as well as those who do.

Do you think if they want to get elected they tell you , this is going to get your taxes raised? or will they tell you this will cause a tax in crease but it will not affect you only the rich people?
Yes. A party should say where the money is coming from. But to act as if it's some mystery as you have done is a lie. But as a conservative that comes naturally to you.

Actually I am one of those working class people, and the minimum wage in crease is not going to help anyone here except for maybe the kids still in high school or those who dropped out because they did not want to finish. Minimum wage is for unskilled labor people who do not know how to do anything besides maybe flipping burgers at Mickey D's. But his wage in crease will allow bussiness to raise thier prices to cover the increase and since if you are already making the same as the wage increase now your money will n ot go as far. Boy that helped out the working man.

That's one of the big red herrings--that any increase in the minimum wage will be offset by higher prices. That only happens if the minimum wage stays stagnant over a long period of time, like it has this time. There is generally a small inflationary bump, but not enough to eat up the gains made by the minimum wage worker.

That's one of the big red herrings--that any increase in the minimum wage will be offset by higher prices. That only happens if the minimum wage stays stagnant over a long period of time, like it has this time. There is generally a small inflationary bump, but not enough to eat up the gains made by the minimum wage worker.

No, but you will see a change in the composition of the minimum-wage workforce due to discrimination by employers.

This is why raising the EITC reduces poverty, unlike raising the minimum wage which has almost no effect. And, unlike the minimum wage hike, those that benefit tend to be the people that need it the most due to the fact that employers can't discriminate like they could.

Well, good to know someone's saying it.

Even if it is John "Long Live US Imperialism!" Edwards.

No, but you will see a change in the composition of the minimum-wage workforce due to discrimination by employers.

This is why raising the EITC reduces poverty, unlike raising the minimum wage which has almost no effect. And, unlike the minimum wage hike, those that benefit tend to be the people that need it the most due to the fact that employers can't discriminate like they could.

The EITC certainly has a larger effect, but a hike in the minimum wage also does some good things, even if they're more symbolic. It's a sign to an under-appreciated segment of society that they're not completely ignored, and that's important. Humans read a lot into symbolic gestures--it's part of the reason we're still so religious as a species. It's an integral part of our conversation, our art, our literature, our daily lives.

No, but you will see a change in the composition of the minimum-wage workforce due to discrimination by employers.

This is why raising the EITC reduces poverty, unlike raising the minimum wage which has almost no effect. And, unlike the minimum wage hike, those that benefit tend to be the people that need it the most due to the fact that employers can't discriminate like they could.

But raising the EITC is less likely to go over well with Bush Co., since it would require a raise in taxes on higher earners if the budget is to remain intact.

And you call yourself a socialist? Clinton was somewhere to the right of George Bush 1.

No, he wasn't; he increased the minimum wage, raised taxes on the rich, and made a serious attempt at health care reform.

He was a disgusting right-wing capitalist politician, sure, but welcome to the US. We take what we can get around here.

Are you people advocating some sort of communist revolution?

No... by fighting against the "status quo" they mean some vaguely-defined notion of "reform" that will shuffle the figureheads at the top of the edifice of statist-capitalist oppression and exploitation without actually changing much of anything.

But at least they recognize that the present state of things sucks, which is a start.

It would be more efficient to keep the system private and have the government negotiate with health care providers in order to lower the cost for people who qualify for government-provided health insurance. You could also expand tax deductions for businesses that offer company insurance plans.

I mean, the private sector is far better in terms of quality than the public, so if you could eliminate the negative effects it would improve health care overall.

The problem is that private health care has different incentives than public healthcare.

Public health care is accountable to the people - it thus wants them healthy.

Private health care is accountable to the maximization of profit - it thus wants them perpetually sick.

Because it's a good way to make it look like you care without actually having to do anything.

This is called reformist center-left politics.

Well, John Edwards has come out with the typical Democratic Party solution to almost everything, Riase Taxes. He wants a universal health care program that will cost between $90 to $120 billion and he wants to raise our taxes to pay for it. :(

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070204/pl_nm/usa_politics_edwards_dc_2

There has to be a better way.
There is a better way. Putting an end to corporate subsidies could free up a lot of money. Money that could...oh I don't know, maybe pay down the debt or be used to provide BASIC healthcare to those with none or something else.

Cut spending before raising taxes but try to leave the defense budget unscathed because without a military we'd likely get beat by a puny prick.

Well, good to know someone's saying it.

Even if it is John "Long Live US Imperialism!" Edwards.

Eh?

Eh?

He wants to keep "all options on the table" with regard to Iran. Said so explicitly, even emphasized it.

So much for his "apology" about being fooled over Iraq, and his fake anti-war posturing against Clinton.

He wants to keep "all options on the table" with regard to Iran. Said so explicitly, even emphasized it.

So much for his "apology" about being fooled over Iraq, and his fake anti-war posturing against Clinton.

Goody, another war hawk. :(

I am tired of promises from both parties that never happen and that is all his "plan" is a false promise to garner votes.

What if a person stepped up and promised...to do nothing?

What if a person stepped up and promised...to do nothing?

I'd commend his honesty and show my appreciation by buying him a beer.

There is a better way. Putting an end to corporate subsidies could free up a lot of money. Money that could...oh I don't know, maybe pay down the debt or be used to provide BASIC healthcare to those with none or something else.

Cut spending before raising taxes but try to leave the defense budget unscathed because without a military we'd likely get beat by a puny prick.

But then you would see the price of consumer products rising. And people would be able to afford less.

That being said, I'm inclined to believe that many subsidies are unnecessary and exist only to benefit the lobbyists, not the people. Many, but not all.

That is not true at all. Keynesian economics, while they work for a brief period of time (usually a year or two) do not have the ability to maintain an economic boom, especially the one we saw in the 1990s. The whole premise of Keynesian economics is to limit the size of the boom or the recession; obviously that was not the case of the American/world economy at that time. Not to mention, Clinton policy, in no way whatsoever represents a successfully Keynesian system.

The last time the U.S. government adopted the Keynesian method was under Carter. And as seen by his tenure in office the economy tanked. Not in the first year, nor in the second, which indicates that the government change in how money was spent, taxed, etc caused the recession and with the Suez Crisis going on at the same time, the Government helped intensify the worst recession in American history.

As for Edwards, what he did in order to make his money shows absolutely no merit whatsoever. Ambulance chasing, as it were, is the most unethical way a lawyer could go about making his fortune. In no other country is there a precedent that allows for any person to sue just on a whim. (By no means am I defending big tobacco and other such suits) Take for example in Great Britain where the losing party has to pay for all legal fees associated with the suit, if that was the case in America we would not have nearly the same amount of overhead being forced upon the consumer. The fact of the matter is his job has created more problems for the economy and hurting many more people (by loss of job, or increases in prices) than those he helped while he was an attorney.

As for Edwards, what he did in order to make his money shows absolutely no merit whatsoever. Ambulance chasing, as it were, is the most unethical way a lawyer could go about making his fortune. In no other country is there a precedent that allows for any person to sue just on a whim. (By no means am I defending big tobacco and other such suits) Take for example in Great Britain where the losing party has to pay for all legal fees associated with the suit, if that was the case in America we would not have nearly the same amount of overhead being forced upon the consumer. The fact of the matter is his job has created more problems for the economy and hurting many more people (by loss of job, or increases in prices) than those he helped while he was an attorney.

TBH, I think that you suffer from the common misconception that malpractice law is a bad thing. Malpractice law is critical in keeping doctors and companies honest. Many falsely blame malpractice lawyers for driving up insurance rates, but malpractice insurance increases in such a way that is disproportionate to the increase in monetary rewards. If you must blame someone, blame the insurance companies.

The Democrats want everyone to love them because they will give people everything they want, but no one ever stops to ask where the money will come from to pay for it all.
No one asks the Republicans, why ask the Democrats?
Oh yeah, nevermind, because it's assumed the Republicans will just cut social programs.

The Democrats want everyone to love them because they will give people everything they want, but no one ever stops to ask where the money will come from to pay for it all.They will get it by using a secret labor project manned by thousands of orphans.

They will get it by using a secret labor project manned by thousands of orphans.

o.O

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but why don't they just get it from all the money Americans spend on poorer quality healthcare than most of the developed world?

Well, John Edwards has come out with the typical Democratic Party solution to almost everything, Riase Taxes. He wants a universal health care program that will cost between $90 to $120 billion and he wants to raise our taxes to pay for it. :(

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070204/pl_nm/usa_politics_edwards_dc_2

There has to be a better way.

I believe Universal Healthcare to the the proper purvue of any just government. But you're right there's a better way than raising taxes, though you're not going to like me much for saying it.... cut the military budget. Outspending the rest of the world combined is the dictionary definition of overkill.

Well, John Edwards has come out with the typical Democratic Party solution to almost everything, Riase Taxes. He wants a universal health care program that will cost between $90 to $120 billion and he wants to raise our taxes to pay for it. :(

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070204/pl_nm/usa_politics_edwards_dc_2

There has to be a better way.
Hmmmmm. Bush wants $100 Billion more to perpetuate the carnage in Iraq and Edwards wants $100 Billion more to save more American lives and give every American proper healthcare. If I was an American, I know where I would want to spend the extra $100 Billion...........

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but why don't they just get it from all the money Americans spend on poorer quality healthcare than most of the developed world?
That is the REAL key!!

It would be more efficient to keep the system private and have the government negotiate with health care providers in order to lower the cost for people who qualify for government-provided health insurance. You could also expand tax deductions for businesses that offer company insurance plans.

I mean, the private sector is far better in terms of quality than the public, so if you could eliminate the negative effects it would improve health care overall.
I gather by your response that you are a First Class US citizen with access to the private healthcare system?

Your proposal might help increase the life span of Second Class US citizens?

My two cents.......healthcare should be a non profit industry.......period.

I believe Universal Healthcare to the the proper purvue of any just government.

You don't want the government running your heathcare. Think how long the government takes now to make decisions. Think how everything is tied to budget.

Got a sinus infection? Ok...in two months you'll get your medicine. In the hospital by then? Oh well...at least it's free!

Got cancer? Oh my...well the budget for this year is already way past it's limit...perhaps next year we'll work your treatments into it...

Well, John Edwards has come out with the typical Democratic Party solution to almost everything, Riase Taxes. He wants a universal health care program that will cost between $90 to $120 billion and he wants to raise our taxes to pay for it. :(

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070204/pl_nm/usa_politics_edwards_dc_2

There has to be a better way.

There isn't a better way. If you want universal health care you have to raise taxes. But people are generally to stupid to get that. They think that every problem will solve itself. People who usually complain about tax raises often have more than enough to manage. How big are the taxes anyway in USA?

The Democrats want everyone to love them because they will give people everything they want, but no one ever stops to ask where the money will come from to pay for it all.

It comes from the billions of dollars we don't pay for things like.....um.... the Iraq war. Compare the cost of that war vs. the cost of his proposal. Also take into account that if there's universal healthcare your employer won't have to pay for it and this leaves more money in your pocket from your paycheck as you're not paying into a health plan. I'm all for lower taxes, but not at the expense of the people. Hell, do you know the deficit we're in now? Do you realize that we have the largest deficit spending ever in the past 6 years. What party is the President from again.... the Democratic party? Bush has destroyed my party and turned it into the party of debt.

Hmmmmm. Bush wants $100 Billion more to perpetuate the carnage in Iraq and Edwards wants $100 Billion more to save more American lives and give every American proper healthcare. If I was an American, I know where I would want to spend the extra $100 Billion...........
You're wrong there - Bush wants $300 Billion over the next 2 1/2 years for Iraq, not $100.

Well, John Edwards has come out with the typical Democratic Party solution to almost everything, Riase Taxes. He wants a universal health care program that will cost between $90 to $120 billion and he wants to raise our taxes to pay for it. :(

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070204/pl_nm/usa_politics_edwards_dc_2

There has to be a better way.

i thought it sounded like a great step in the right direction when i saw him being interviewed here http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/02/edwards_on_heal.html

i'm not american but i think i'd vote for him

The minimum wage law is all smoke and mirrors and is a pretty useless thing all together, it has no real benefit for the majority of america and if they really cared they would have fought not to get the pay raise for legislators period.

No, it has the benefit for the poor working class people it was intended to help. You know the people who work at Mickey D's, etc.? How does it not have an effect on them? Is making 7 plus an hour better than 5 plus an hour? Who it doesn't help are corporations who've been getting fat off of cheap labor for so long. Exxon Mobile makes record profits while the guy who stand out in the 7 degree weather still gets paid peanuts to pump gas. There have been tons of subsidies for the wealthy, how about some for the little guy this time. Thank God that you and I do not have to work for these wages.

No, it has the benefit for the poor working class people it was intended to help. You know the people who work at Mickey D's, etc.? How does it not have an effect on them? Is making 7 plus an hour better than 5 plus an hour? Who it doesn't help are corporations who've been getting fat off of cheap labor for so long. Exxon Mobile makes record profits while the guy who stand out in the 7 degree weather still gets paid peanuts to pump gas. There have been tons of subsidies for the wealthy, how about some for the little guy this time. Thank God that you and I do not have to work for these wages.
no no no no.
You don't understand:
Everyone who works for min wage does so for fun. They're all preppy upper-class high school students who just want a bit of extra pocket money to fill up the car daddy bought them for their 16th birthday.

And of course raising the min wage by $1 /hr will destroy the US economy because every business out there is so close to bankruptcy under the booming economy Bush has created, that an extra $40 /week in wage costs will destroy them, leading to rampant inflation, stock crash, homosexuality and men marrying goats.

No, in general theory you are right. Malpractice suits do not raise insurance rates. However, when a person sues a company for multi-million dollar compensation then that spills over into the overhead of the company. You are defending the posistion that it is okay for a person to participate in something that they either know, or should have atleast the faintest idea could harm them, and when they do get hurt, sick, etc they not only have the right, but according to popular culture must sue. Which is a load of crap.

Take for example the case a few years ago. A woman goes to McDonalds, orders a coffee, and when she spills it on herself, she sues McDonalds. Quite frankly, if you were to make your own coffee, and you spilt it on yourself, you would not sue, lets say the Folger's corporation, just because they made the coffee. In the most laymen terms, these types of lawsuits only allow for a few people to profit, while others suffer.

I won't defend Phillip Morris, however, following the multiple lawsuits (in just about every state) prices of all their goods rose substantially, and they had to lay off a large percentage of their workers. While, yes, I agree that smoking is a horrible habit, and the various additives, while not illegal, are certainly unethical, PM owns many other companies than just Marlboro. Just a few would be Kraft, Nabisco, Maxwell-House and other resturants. The overhead from, I believe were approx 25 lawsuits, came onto the producer.

Furthermore, malpractice suits have become something of commonplace. The majority of the lawsuits do have some weight. I agree that if a doctor is incompetant, he certainly deserves to be sued and have his license revoked. However, there are still a great number of malpractice lawsuits that have no real bearing other than people feel if something bad happens to them they should sue. If you, or I or anyone else was to go under the knife, and are given an anestetic, there is a decent chance that something can go wrong. One should know and understand this risk before they undergo, especially cosmetic, procedures. If you or anyone else does not see how asinine our culture has become with regards to lawsuits, the easy way out, and being "fair," then we have certainly become demented.

Hence the reason for all of those protections against frivolous lawsuits that doctors get nowadays.

Speaking about that lady and McDonalds, do you remember the person that tried to sue Wendy's because he/she found a finger in her chili? If you don't, it turned out that the person got the finger from some local cemetery and tried to insert it into his/her chili and make some money.

Take for example the case a few years ago. A woman goes to McDonalds, orders a coffee, and when she spills it on herself, she sues McDonalds. Quite frankly, if you were to make your own coffee, and you spilt it on yourself, you would not sue, lets say the Folger's corporation, just because they made the coffee. In the most laymen terms, these types of lawsuits only allow for a few people to profit, while others suffer.

You know absolutly nothing about that case.

No, it has the benefit for the poor working class people it was intended to help. You know the people who work at Mickey D's, etc.? How does it not have an effect on them? Is making 7 plus an hour better than 5 plus an hour? Who it doesn't help are corporations who've been getting fat off of cheap labor for so long. Exxon Mobile makes record profits while the guy who stand out in the 7 degree weather still gets paid peanuts to pump gas. There have been tons of subsidies for the wealthy, how about some for the little guy this time. Thank God that you and I do not have to work for these wages.

How about subsidies for no one? Let the money stay where it belongs: Our own pockets.

You know absolutly nothing about that case.
Just in case he/she wants to actually read something on it, here's a brief rundown (http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm) on the case. McDonald's was negligent, plain and simple.

Hence the reason for all of those protections against frivolous lawsuits that doctors get nowadays.

Speaking about that lady and McDonalds, do you remember the person that tried to sue Wendy's because he/she found a finger in her chili? If you don't, it turned out that the person got the finger from some local cemetery and tried to insert it into his/her chili and make some money.

Actually, the woman and her boyfriend got the finger from a guy who owed the boyfriend some money--and not a very large sum, as I remember. I was living in San Francisco at the time, and the case was in San Jose, so it was in all the news.

Which means the square root of dick in this overall discussion. What you're describing is not a frivolous lawsuit, but a scam. The McDonald's lawsuit was not a frivolous one either, which you would know if you read anything at all about the actual case instead of believing so-called tort-reform spin on it.

The McDonald's lawsuit was not a frivolous one either, which you would know if you read anything at all about the actual case instead of believing so-called tort-reform spin on it.

...Even twenty degrees lower, wouldn't she still have gotten serious burns? How long was she exposed to the coffee anyhow?

...Even twenty degrees lower, wouldn't she still have gotten serious burns? How long was she exposed to the coffee anyhow?

I don't believe you'll get third degree burns if it's twenty degrees colder--second degree perhaps, first degree certainly, but that's the sort of risk you take drinking coffee in the car in the first place. I don't think even the most ardent consumer protection type would suggest that we should ban the sale of hot liquids to passengers in a moving vehicle.

You don't want the government running your heathcare. Think how long the government takes now to make decisions. Think how everything is tied to budget.

Got a sinus infection? Ok...in two months you'll get your medicine. In the hospital by then? Oh well...at least it's free!

Got cancer? Oh my...well the budget for this year is already way past it's limit...perhaps next year we'll work your treatments into it...

I think it's very clear that you don't live in a country with univeral healthcare.

If I need to see a doctor then I can phone up the local health centre and get an appointment within a few days (I've never had to wait longer). If it's urgent then I can get an appointment on the same day, or have a doctor come out to my home; an emergency doctor is on call 24/7. Once I've got a prescription I can wander down to the chemist (about 200 metres away) and collect the medecine immediately (unless it's really obscure). As a full-time student I qualify for free prescriptions, those not eligible pay a flat charge of about £7 for the medecine.

I suggest you educate yourself before you malign that which you don't understand.

no no no no.
You don't understand:
Everyone who works for min wage does so for fun. They're all preppy upper-class high school students who just want a bit of extra pocket money to fill up the car daddy bought them for their 16th birthday.

And of course raising the min wage by $1 /hr will destroy the US economy because every business out there is so close to bankruptcy under the booming economy Bush has created, that an extra $40 /week in wage costs will destroy them, leading to rampant inflation, stock crash, homosexuality and men marrying goats.
:D

Thank god I don't live in America.

I'm very much in favour of Universal Health Care, mainly for the reasons the pro-u.h.c. posters have already pointed out.

And trust me, if you make sure you get it right, you'll come to love it - after all;

"The NHS is the closest thing the English have to a religion." - Nigel Lawson.

Not even Thatcher dared touch the beloved NHS.

But "trickle down" economics does work. It has been proven twice. :rolleyes: Sorry hate to break it to you...

But Reagan was all smoke and mirrors as well.

Well, John Edwards has come out with the typical Democratic Party solution to almost everything, Riase Taxes. He wants a universal health care program that will cost between $90 to $120 billion and he wants to raise our taxes to pay for it. :(

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070204/pl_nm/usa_politics_edwards_dc_2

There has to be a better way.

He said specifically he was going to pay for it by rolling back Bush's ridiculous tax breaks to the uberwealthy.

It comes from the billions of dollars we don't pay for things like.....um.... the Iraq war. Compare the cost of that war vs. the cost of his proposal. But that oil money will make it all better. At least according to them.

Also take into account that if there's universal healthcare your employer won't have to pay for it and this leaves more money in your pocket from your paycheck as you're not paying into a health plan. And your employer won't have to pay for their own health care either so more money for them as well.

I'm all for lower taxes, but not at the expense of the people. Hell, do you know the deficit we're in now? Do you realize that we have the largest deficit spending ever in the past 6 years. What party is the President from again.... the Democratic party? Bush has destroyed my party and turned it into the party of debt. Yes, I'm sorry for your loss, its horrible to watch the Republican party do this to itself, it's like a massive train wreck.

He said specifically he was going to pay for it by rolling back Bush's ridiculous tax breaks to the uberwealthy.
Shake them down until you get lent for all I care.