Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Dave Frightens Me on 16 Jul 2006 06:07 On 15 Jul 2006 21:55:22 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Jordi wrote: >> Tchiowa wrote: >> > Jordi wrote: >> > >> > Capitalism needs to have fences around it, rules and regulations to >> > prevent abuse. Other than that, yes I'm 100% for it. >> > >> > But you ducked the question. Food is even more important to health than >> > medical care. Why would you not want to Socialize food like you want to >> > Socialize medical care? >> >> See Dave's reply. > >See my reply. Socialism fails in Medical care just as surely as it >fails in food. You are comparing apples with bedpans. They are incomparable. -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- --
From: Mxsmanic on 16 Jul 2006 06:14 mrtravel writes: > No, Stan. While that is true in many cases, do you think everyone is cut > out for higher education? Neglecting higher education isn't the problem. The problem is neglecting _all_ education, even the minimal education required to function in society. Nearly a third of the American population is functionally illiterate. That indicates an education too poor to suffice for daily life. Forget about college; these are people who effectively dropped out before they finished elementary school (or who went to schools so poor that they were never actually taught to read). -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Mxsmanic on 16 Jul 2006 06:15 Tchiowa writes: > The comparison is *not* silly. Why? Because the same answer applies to > Socialized medicine. It works for a little while but it eventually > fails. Just like Socializing food. Socialized medicine can work if it is very carefully policed to avoid fraud and waste. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Mxsmanic on 16 Jul 2006 06:18 Tchiowa writes: > See my reply. Socialism fails in Medical care just as surely as it > fails in food. What examples are there of socialism in food? A blend of private and public health care can work very well, if it is tightly controlled. There are still disparities, but everyone gets a workable level of health care for free (paid by taxes). The percentage of the population that is sick is fairly fixed. If you can hold off fraud and abuse, the percentage of GNP spent on health care can also be fairly fixed. This is why it can work. > The point is that the availability of medical care has deteriorated so > bady under Socialized medicine that people have to go to countries that > still have private care. In the UK, perhaps, but not in many other countries that practice it. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Tchiowa on 16 Jul 2006 06:44
Dave Frightens Me wrote: > On 15 Jul 2006 21:50:26 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >Dave Frightens Me wrote: > >> On 14 Jul 2006 02:26:26 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >But you ducked the question. Food is even more important to health than > >> >medical care. Why would you not want to Socialize food like you want to > >> >Socialize medical care? > >> > >> Because it wouldn't work, and is much better left in private hands, as > >> communism has showed us. > >> > >> The comparison is silly. > > > >The comparison is *not* silly. Why? Because the same answer applies to > >Socialized medicine. It works for a little while but it eventually > >fails. Just like Socializing food. > > Every year in the US thousands more lose out with health care while > costs skyrocket, indicating that it's private medicine that is > failing. The statement is simply not true. Virtually everyone gets medical care in the US when they need it. No one is "losing out". > >Medical care is much better left in private hands. The only things that > >the government should be doing are things that private enterprise > >simply cannot do. > > You're just putting your head in the sand if you think that. That > profit from health funds in the US doesn't just come from thin air you > know. That's right. Profit. It's what makes the system work. As opposed to bureaucracy which is twice as expensive and half as productive. |