Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Go Fig on 13 Jul 2006 20:58 In article <1152783265.123356.230620(a)35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Jordi <jordi.uso(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Tchiowa wrote: > > > > > > Would you leave road building or national security in the hands of > > > private investment? Health care is just like that. > > > > Infrastructure and health care have very little in common. Same with > > national security. > > > > National interest covers everything from having healthy educated > citizens to having good roads and ports. Hummm... and just where do you find the authority for this in the U.S. Constitution ??? I kinda think you may need to review the Constitution, so here is the link http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constituti on.html jay Thu Jul 13, 2006 mailto:gofig(a)mac.com > It's not a matter of having > things in common. > > > > Are Norwegian or Swedish systems also 'guaranteed to fail'? > > > > Sweden just announced in the past few weeks that it has to revamp its > > entire health system because it is verging on collapse. > > > > So? They're just asking for more funding just like the different US > Armies repeatedly asserting threats all over the world to get more > advanced weapon systems funded. > > > > > That's because everyone who needs one will eventually receive one, as > > > opposed to not being able to pay for it. You can opt for faster private > > > insurance any time you want. > > > > Again, that only applies to the wealthy. If you're already having the > > cost of your medical premiums deducted from your paycheck as taxes then > > you're usually not able to afford private insurance unless you're rich. > > > > No. Obviously you don't have a clue on how much a private health plan > costs here (a complete plan inc/ dental care on a reputable company > like Sanitas goes for as less as 50 euro/month for a young male like > me). > > > And you seem to be admitting that private insurance is faster. Any > > doctor will tell you that delayed medical treatment is inferior and > > riskier to prompt medical treatment. > > Urgent cases are dealed with accordingly. That is one of the reasons > for long queues. > > > You need to be wealthy if you're already paying insurance to the state > > and want to pay twice. Obviously you need more money to do that. > > 50 euro? That's a dinner for two. > > > J. >
From: mrtravel on 13 Jul 2006 21:10 Go Fig wrote: > In article <1152783265.123356.230620(a)35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > Jordi <jordi.uso(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>Tchiowa wrote: >> >>>>Would you leave road building or national security in the hands of >>>>private investment? Health care is just like that. >>> >>>Infrastructure and health care have very little in common. Same with >>>national security. >>> >> >>National interest covers everything from having healthy educated >>citizens to having good roads and ports. > > > > Hummm... and just where do you find the authority for this in the U.S. > Constitution ??? Was that the idea behind "promote the general Welfare"? This also seems to be mentioned in Article 1 Section 8, which gives Congress the power to levy taxes "for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". Of course, this is subject to interpretation, but it seems there haven't been any recent major constitutional challenges to things like Social Security and Medicare.
From: Tchiowa on 13 Jul 2006 21:21 mrtravel wrote: > Go Fig wrote: > > > In article <1152783265.123356.230620(a)35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > > Jordi <jordi.uso(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >>Tchiowa wrote: > >> > >>>>Would you leave road building or national security in the hands of > >>>>private investment? Health care is just like that. > >>> > >>>Infrastructure and health care have very little in common. Same with > >>>national security. > >>> > >> > >>National interest covers everything from having healthy educated > >>citizens to having good roads and ports. > > > > > > > > Hummm... and just where do you find the authority for this in the U.S. > > Constitution ??? > > Was that the idea behind "promote the general Welfare"? > This also seems to be mentioned in Article 1 Section 8, which gives > Congress the power to levy taxes "for the common Defence and general > Welfare of the United States". Note the difference in the wording. *promote* the general welfare as opposed to "provide" Defense. Promote implies guide rather than guarantee. And I submit that the General Welfare of the country is better promoted by supporting success rather than punishing it. The Left wants something free *today*. Free medical care *today*. Free retirement pensions *today*. Soak the rich *today*. I want, I want, I want, you pay. The Right wants medical care and retirement pensions *forever*. Including the next generation and the next and the next. Socialism works fairly well for a decade or two. Maybe even a generation or two. But it eventually fails because it doesn't accept the cost of investing for the future nor does it accept the reality that people will work harder and do more if they or their families reap a benefit from it. Social Security is failing in the US now. It's bound for bankruptcy. All of the plans put forward by the Left simply postpone the failure. Same with the NHS in the UK. Same for health care in Sweden. And just look at the history of the Soviet Union. A good and easy to understand example is prescription drugs. The Left demands cheap drugs *now*. The Right understands that if the drug manufacturers can't recoup their investment costs there will be no new drugs *tomorrow*. And if the Left had gotten their way a decade or two ago then the cheap drugs the Left is demanding now would never have been invented. Socialism is a proven failure. Some people won't let go of it. I don't understand why. Bottom line is that the best way to "promote the general welfare" is Free Market Capitalism. As has been proven over and over and over and over and over and over ...........
From: Tchiowa on 13 Jul 2006 21:30 Jordi wrote: > Tchiowa wrote: > > Jordi wrote: > > > > National interest covers everything from having healthy educated > > > citizens to having good roads and ports. It's not a matter of having > > > things in common. > > > > But you don't finance things in the same way. > > Of course, you search for the most efficient way which a lot of > countries have found is this one. The figures are elsewhere in this > topic. And where do you stop? Healthy citizens, wonderful idea. Can't be healthy if you don't eat. Should food be considered the same way? Should the government take over all farms, dairies, ranches, fisheries, etc.? Run the whole food distribution chain? They tried that in Russia. I've seen with my own eyes the lines of babushkas going around the block waiting for bread that probably won't be there. How about housing? Living outdoors 365 days a year ain't particularly healthy. Should the government Socialize housing? Own all the apartments and houses? To each according to his need? Again, they tried that in Russia. Ended up with 4 families living together in a studio flat designed for one person. Housing falling apart. Decade long queues for housing. Clothing? Is that next? Bottom line is that if the government provides all of the necessities of life (like you want them to do medical care) then that means around 90% of the economy. And that means 90% tax rates, or more. Back to the Soviet Union. It's been tried. It doesn't work. > > > So? They're just asking for more funding just like the different US > > > Armies repeatedly asserting threats all over the world to get more > > > advanced weapon systems funded. > > > > It's more than that. They've admitted that their program is > > unsustainable as it is structured. > > > > http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=179 > > Oh, come on... > > "The Frontier Centre for Public Policy is an independent public policy > think tank whose mission is "to broaden the debate on our future > through public policy research and education and to explore positive > changes within our public institutions that support economic growth and > opportunity." Sounds like a good idea to me. > > > Urgent cases are dealed with accordingly. That is one of the reasons > > > for long queues. > > > > The US treats urgent cases accordingly and still doesn't have long > > queues. That's just an excuse. > > You can as well say that the US doesn't have queues because a lot of > people can't afford the treatment they need. Except that simply isn't true. > I rather like our system better, thanks. Quit thinking about just today. Think about the next generations. The selfishness of the Left in promoting Socialism carries a price that the next generations will pay for.
From: mrtravel on 13 Jul 2006 21:33
Tchiowa wrote: > mrtravel wrote: > >>Go Fig wrote: >> >> >>>In article <1152783265.123356.230620(a)35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, >>>Jordi <jordi.uso(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Tchiowa wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>Would you leave road building or national security in the hands of >>>>>>private investment? Health care is just like that. >>>>> >>>>>Infrastructure and health care have very little in common. Same with >>>>>national security. >>>>> >>>> >>>>National interest covers everything from having healthy educated >>>>citizens to having good roads and ports. >>> >>> >>> >>>Hummm... and just where do you find the authority for this in the U.S. >>>Constitution ??? >> >>Was that the idea behind "promote the general Welfare"? >>This also seems to be mentioned in Article 1 Section 8, which gives >>Congress the power to levy taxes "for the common Defence and general >>Welfare of the United States". > > > Note the difference in the wording. *promote* the general welfare as > opposed to "provide" Defense. > What about the Articel I where it gives Congress the power to levy taxes to provide with this general welfare. What was the intent of that part? |