The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 30 of 40 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 600 of 792
  1. #581
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MadeYaLook View Post
    I think you are mistaken about that people can rebuild if they want to- there are some barrier islands (ie Polly's Isl off coast of SC) that people have already been informed that they will not be allowed to rebuild if a natural disaster occurs. But my point is why do my tax dollars continously go to pay for rebuilding areas that are almost routinely in problems? In turn it also affects my insurance rates even though I'm not in the floodplain area.

    I for one do not believe that govt. always has the answers or the know how to fix everything. I think that the states should have a lot more say so then the do in certain areas-ie education, healthcare, and yes emergency situations.

    Oh yeah and now Pres. Obama is proposing yet another govt. bureaucracy in our lives by creating a Business Cabinet with a "Secretary of Business" - oh goody that's just what we need -yeah that will help create jobs- at least the people in the Cabinet will be employed!
    I think the barrier islands are an exception since they are typically vacation homes and I believe the notice for non-renewal went out years ago but they will likely be compensated for something. I agree about locating homes in areas prone to disasters, our City bought out an entire road where the homes were located on a slide prone area. Seems silly, and the insurance costs must be so expensive, and yes we all seem to pay the price.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  2. #582
    Join Date
    Dec. 29, 1999
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA USA
    Posts
    6,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tle View Post
    my XH posted this on his FB wall and it's perfectly written. In response to someone commenting that he should not vote for his first choice (Gary Johnson) if he doesn't have a chance of winning because that takes away a vote from his 2nd choice making it more likely that his least favorite choice will win.
    Written by a man, I assume. If he doesn't think that this time around there's a difference between D and R, he needs to read the Mourdock rape thread.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  3. #583
    Join Date
    Aug. 14, 2000
    Location
    Clarksdale, MS--the golden buckle on the cotton belt
    Posts
    18,788

    Default

    I have to admit sometimes the government does some very peculiar things. I live in a county that borders the Mississippi River. We haven't had a flood since 1898. Our levees held in 1927 and 1937. There is a band of wilderness inside the levees that is mostly used for hunting and fishing, and there are some VERY expensive hunting clubs there.

    So the huge floods of last year devastated all the hunting and fishing camps inside the levee. The people who owned the buildings knew that they would be subject to flooding, but they basically decided to risk it and swallow the costs of rebuilding. They have not asked for federal flood insurance. The feds have, however, established rebuilding requirements; all structures in the flood plain must be on stilts. The Feds have made the requirements a statewide mandate for flood insurance for any Mississippian, as I understand it. I'm not quite sure how this works, but the State of Mississippi asked for waivers of the rebuilding requirements for hunting camps inside the levees if the owners rejected flood insurance--if they can reject flood insurance these days.. If the waiver wasn't granted and the State didn't require stilts, the whole state would lose federal flood insurance which would not be a good thing for people on the Gulf Coast.

    It's not as if people actually live in these hunting and fishing camps. They come, hunt, fish and go home. In a lot of cases, we're talking trailers or shacks.

    The feds rejected the waiver request. Stilts add a huge amount to the cost of a building that is only used very sporadically, and mostly NOT during flood time. If the owners weren't going to ask for federal help or federal flood insurance, why should they have to meet federal flood insurance standards. Those who want flood insurance were perfectly willing to build according to the regulations.

    it seems irrational to punish the whole state with no flood insurance because of hunting and fishing camps inside the levee.

    I know this is the kind of government that the anti-Obama people despise, and I can see why. It's a very heavy hammer, but who is to say that without the hammer, the States (or my state) would act to mitigate the aftermaths of hurricanes. They certainly haven't got a history of strong building codes or other damage avoidance regulations. AND I'm willing to put up with this heavy-handed approach because the alternatives on social issues are so much worse.
    "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
    Thread killer Extraordinaire


    1 members found this post helpful.

  4. #584
    Join Date
    Feb. 2, 2003
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    2,492

    Default

    Viney, I hear what you're saying but I kind of side with the feds on this one.
    Seems similar to the individual mandate thing in healthcare. These shack owners say that they accept the risk and will not ask for insurance or aid. But when disaster strikes, those uninsured structures are likely to be a burden on the rest of us. Because SOMEone is going to have to clean things up, and all of a sudden those owners may become very difficult to find. I can hear you sayng "but these are hunting shacks! They're in a swamp!! There's no big cleanup!" And you're right. But the govt has to operate systematically and fairly. So they'd have to define the exact standard to judge that a waiver for hunting shack A is ok, but not ok for the guest cottage B in another community. Just seems like it would get really really complicated. I think the benefit of granting the waiver would have to be pretty darn important, to justify all the complications it might bring.

    I'm curious about those who think States do things so much better than the federal government? Really, have you regularly experienced that first hand, or mainly does it just sound good to say? Because IME I have the exact same impression anytime I deal with EITHER bureaucracy-- lots of mostly well-meaning people who have very narrow job descriptions, too many layers and divisions, and way too much inefficient paperwork and reporting to do. I work with both state and federal entities and can't say that either one is any more nimble and quick.
    Also for handing FEMA over to the individual states. Its my understanding that FEMA works a little bit like insurance. All the states pay in to the pool, and then when there's a disaster, the affected state(s) pull from that pool (with the "emergency" declaration, of course).
    This seens identical to health insurance premiums-- some years the total premium paid is way more than the healthcare you "used". But if you suddenly need cancer treatment, this will easily cost much more than you paid over a lifetime of premiums.
    There is no way an individual state, even one as rich as NJ, could absorb the cost of the overall Sandy cleanup. Remember states are required by law to balance the budget. So a massive hurricane cleanup would force massive cuts elsewhere. This kind of budget and service chaos would certainly not be attractive to businesses looking to relocate to that state.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  5. #585
    Join Date
    Apr. 18, 2006
    Location
    The back woods of FLA.
    Posts
    168

    Default

    Hear what you are saying and I respect it-don't agree but respect it. However this economy is killing me especially being in the horse business. Most consider horses a luxury item so when times are tough they are the first to go- not everyone I know.
    For that reason alone I have to go with who I feel is going to help me most in the economic situation and not worry so much about the social issues which frankly I feel are being used as a smokescreen by the current administration.

    What is really been the killer here is gas prices which has affected prices on just about everything connected with the boarding business(hay,feed,bedding,mowing). The big problem is once hay and feed go up they never come down-so what do you do? I hate having to raise board when everyone is hurting as well, but I do have to eat and keep a roof over my head. There really is no easy answer. But I do know that when the Repubs are in control of House and Senate things do get better and this is from someone who has a small business that I built one client at a time and has been in this business for almost 20 years.
    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."-Hunter S. Thompson


    3 members found this post helpful.

  6. #586
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    This economy is getting better but I have known 2 families who lost their homes to healthcare costs for their kids. Pre-existing conditions so not covered. It is real and scary, we need the healthcare reforms-I bought my second horse when I canceled my second insurance policy because the lifetime caps went away. The costs of that second policy for me only pays for the monthly paddock costs.

    Banks are starting to loan again, I have 2 meetings regarding new developement projects scheduled for this month. Romney has no economic plan and I don't want to get thown into another 2008 economic trainwreck. We are making progress and I survived the 1990's 24%interest rate mortgages and the Enron creation from deregulation. There is no way trickle down economics is going to do anything for anyone but the 1%. I am not in the 1% but the upper middle class (2 incomes) and Romney 's "plan" won't provide the stablity I need to indulge in horses.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  7. #587
    Join Date
    Apr. 18, 2006
    Location
    The back woods of FLA.
    Posts
    168

    Default

    But if the States kept that money in their coffers then they could best decide what are the highest priorities instead of waiting for the feds to inspect and decide therefore cuttting out the "middle men" so to speak who are drawing saleries for this govt job from somewhere right?

    I don't disagree that State govts are always run any better but "too many cooks spoil the soup" so to speak. And in these type of dire situations most people want as little hassle and quick results to try to get back to normal ASAP. I'm not saying that FEMA needs to go but I do think in some cases that a more "slimeline" process would benefit everyone. For example the mayor in one of the NJ towns is pleading for gas to keep generators going and crews working now why is she having to wait for this-is it because FEMA is holding up the process in deciding for everyone what they think should be high priorities?
    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."-Hunter S. Thompson


    1 members found this post helpful.

  8. #588
    Join Date
    Apr. 18, 2006
    Location
    The back woods of FLA.
    Posts
    168

    Default

    As far as health care is concerned what needs to adressed most is insurance availiblity. I truely believe after researching and talking to people in the healthcare business that if people were allowed to purchase over state lines this would increase competition and bring prices down. I really think that having the federal govt. involved is going to be a big disaster.

    First of all the money has to come from somewhere to support this(taxpayers) and regardless of what our current administration wants to call it we are going into socialized medicine which may work for some individuals but not for all as they would like us to believe. Yes I know that you can still continue on your current insurance but as some are already seeing their premiums are being raised to compensate for what is coming down the line.

    The irony here for me is some posters on here have expressed deep concerns about govt. telling them what they can and can't do with their bodies or their personal lives- but yet they think this healthcare plan is ok-that it isn't going to do the same thing in some matters. Wait until you need what is considered a routine operation(ie gallbladder removal) and you have to wait months or even years before it is deemed ok.
    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."-Hunter S. Thompson


    1 members found this post helpful.

  9. #589
    Join Date
    Aug. 14, 2000
    Location
    Clarksdale, MS--the golden buckle on the cotton belt
    Posts
    18,788

    Default

    If the southern experience is any indication, normal supply mechanisms are seriously disrupted after disasters like this. There may not be gasoline in her area; and EVERYBODY needs it.
    "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
    Thread killer Extraordinaire



  10. #590
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Fema is not holding up the processes but when natural disasters happen access is usually a problem. In my area we have one freeway in and out, we are completely dependent on our one highway so any damage to that route and we will be isolated. States do have funds but not for significant major disasters, the overtime for firefighters fighting major fires is staggering. In California fees are being levied for fire protection for property located out of city jurisdictional areas because fighting fires require other state agencies. States do a lot but sometimes it is so overwhelming that the FEMA people are very much needed. We are the United States and I want our disaster relief to be a united effort. I live far from the east coast but I never resent my taxes going to help those in need. And the Red Cross is such a great agency.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  11. #591
    Join Date
    Apr. 18, 2006
    Location
    The back woods of FLA.
    Posts
    168

    Default

    As I stated I don't resent my taxes going to those in need either. Yes I'm sure that supply mechanisisms are out -no electricity makes it hard to get gas pumped-but this isn't our first time to the rodeo so to speak. We know from experience that this is always a problem(one of many) and yet here we are again. People are willing to do what it takes to help out if provided with essentials to take care of this-and when I say people-I'm talking about the victims that are out there trying to clean out the storm drains with whatever they have handy and using their own chainsaws to clear debris away.

    The definition of insanity is to keep making the same mistakes hoping for a different result. FEMA must know by now that gas is a big priority for a disaster like this so where are the gas tankers lined up to come in and dole out the gas needed for generators and cleanup essentials. This wasn't a surprise- we knew for days ahead of time that this was going to be ugly-it was predicted.

    I too whole heartily support and applaud the Red Cross they do a great service to us all and sometimes a little more efficiently than the feds.
    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."-Hunter S. Thompson



  12. #592
    Join Date
    Sep. 11, 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    4,089

    Default

    I think there are lots of us that would agree with that.
    I (at the moment) think Obama is doing the best he can but for me he's really the lesser of 2 evils. There are things I no longer like about both parties.

    Quote Originally Posted by tle View Post
    my XH posted this on his FB wall and it's perfectly written. In response to someone commenting that he should not vote for his first choice (Gary Johnson) if he doesn't have a chance of winning because that takes away a vote from his 2nd choice making it more likely that his least favorite choice will win.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  13. #593
    Join Date
    Jul. 20, 2007
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MadeYaLook View Post
    As far as health care is concerned what needs to adressed most is insurance availiblity. I truely believe after researching and talking to people in the healthcare business that if people were allowed to purchase over state lines this would increase competition and bring prices down. I really think that having the federal govt. involved is going to be a big disaster.

    First of all the money has to come from somewhere to support this(taxpayers) and regardless of what our current administration wants to call it we are going into socialized medicine which may work for some individuals but not for all as they would like us to believe. Yes I know that you can still continue on your current insurance but as some are already seeing their premiums are being raised to compensate for what is coming down the line.

    The irony here for me is some posters on here have expressed deep concerns about govt. telling them what they can and can't do with their bodies or their personal lives- but yet they think this healthcare plan is ok-that it isn't going to do the same thing in some matters. Wait until you need what is considered a routine operation(ie gallbladder removal) and you have to wait months or even years before it is deemed ok.
    It's a fallacy...no evidence that going across state lines will help. That said, I'm not opposed that that, it just isn't a solution.

    I'm dumbfounded be people that worry about costs when we DO pay for healthcare for everyone, just in a very inefficient way. A way that results in too many bankruptcy filings and yes, even some deaths. People use costly emergency rooms instead of going in to a regular doctor. As an example someone I knew had a stomach flu. Didn't see the doctor when it started getting worse, ended up in an emergency room and ultimately spent 1 week in intensive care. This could likely have been avoided IF he went in when he got sick, but he couldn't because he had no health insurance. Since he doesn't have insurance, he will owe more than he owns for bills and the rest come out of our pockets, through higher health costs in general and public funds. People just don't get it. Somebody pays and that somebody is us! Making the system more efficient helps us all! And if you don't think that someone decides whether or not you can have a surgery with an insurnace company, you are deluding yourself.

    Make it affordable and available to all. Spread the risk to all, share the cost with all, we'll all be better off!


    2 members found this post helpful.

  14. #594
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    41,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunny59 View Post
    It's a fallacy...no evidence that going across state lines will help. That said, I'm not opposed that that, it just isn't a solution.

    I'm dumbfounded be people that worry about costs when we DO pay for healthcare for everyone, just in a very inefficient way. A way that results in too many bankruptcy filings and yes, even some deaths. People use costly emergency rooms instead of going in to a regular doctor. As an example someone I knew had a stomach flu. Didn't see the doctor when it started getting worse, ended up in an emergency room and ultimately spent 1 week in intensive care. This could likely have been avoided IF he went in when he got sick, but he couldn't because he had no health insurance. Since he doesn't have insurance, he will owe more than he owns for bills and the rest come out of our pockets, through higher health costs in general and public funds. People just don't get it. Somebody pays and that somebody is us! Making the system more efficient helps us all! And if you don't think that someone decides whether or not you can have a surgery with an insurnace company, you are deluding yourself.

    Make it affordable and available to all. Spread the risk to all, share the cost with all, we'll all be better off!
    The fly in the ointment there is that we have a first class health care system that serves all today already.
    Inefficient, yes, especially the part the government runs, Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans and other kinds of special situations.

    We have health care that is the equivalent of everyone living in a Mc Mansion and having a Rolls Royce to get around in.
    That is very costly.

    Ask countries with socialized care how their care works?
    They have bare bones health care.
    As here, in an emergency, all is well, for everyday health care, there are shortages and waits, sometimes even for important health needs that should be attended now, but are not.
    As here, they can always go when in a crisis to their ER, but like here, that is also were many end up, because of their bare bones basic care.

    My point, neither is a very good or perfect system.
    Both ways will fail some, some of the time.
    The problems are not so much which system to use, but how to manage the system used best.

    That is why it seems a bit overkill to change our whole health system so we feel better about it, when in reality is not going to make it better, not as managed today and when we have a government that doesn't has the money for it and will have to disrupt our economy even more adding taxes to cover one more pet project.

    You are right, we end up all paying, one way or another.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  15. #595
    Join Date
    Dec. 29, 1999
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA USA
    Posts
    6,260

    Default

    Mitt Romney debates himself:

    Under Romneycare, NO pre-existing conditions are covered. How's that gonna work for ya? (and for your loved ones)? Hear it from his own lips:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=cPgfzknYd20

    Romney debates himself yet again:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=bZfXvFAeHVo


    2 members found this post helpful.

  16. #596
    Join Date
    Sep. 14, 2000
    Location
    Goochland, VA
    Posts
    8,567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    The fly in the ointment there is that we have a first class health care system that serves all today already.
    Inefficient, yes, especially the part the government runs, Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans and other kinds of special situations.

    We have health care that is the equivalent of everyone living in a Mc Mansion and having a Rolls Royce to get around in.
    That is very costly.

    Ask countries with socialized care how their care works?
    They have bare bones health care.
    As here, in an emergency, all is well, for everyday health care, there are shortages and waits, sometimes even for important health needs that should be attended now, but are not.
    As here, they can always go when in a crisis to their ER, but like here, that is also were many end up, because of their bare bones basic care.

    My point, neither is a very good or perfect system.
    Both ways will fail some, some of the time.
    The problems are not so much which system to use, but how to manage the system used best.

    That is why it seems a bit overkill to change our whole health system so we feel better about it, when in reality is not going to make it better, not as managed today and when we have a government that doesn't has the money for it and will have to disrupt our economy even more adding taxes to cover one more pet project.

    You are right, we end up all paying, one way or another.
    First class??? Really??? I think more like 37th in the world. Other countries laugh at our SYSTEM. Not our doctors, THEY are world class, but our SYSTEM.
    Laurie
    Finding, preparing, showing and training young hunters, in hand and performance.
    www.juniorjohnsontrainingandsales.com


    4 members found this post helpful.

  17. #597
    Join Date
    Oct. 4, 2003
    Location
    Hurdle Mills, NC
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    The fly in the ointment there is that we have a first class health care system that serves all today already.
    Inefficient, yes, especially the part the government runs, Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans and other kinds of special situations.

    We have health care that is the equivalent of everyone living in a Mc Mansion and having a Rolls Royce to get around in.
    That is very costly.

    Ask countries with socialized care how their care works?
    They have bare bones health care.
    As here, in an emergency, all is well, for everyday health care, there are shortages and waits, sometimes even for important health needs that should be attended now, but are not.
    As here, they can always go when in a crisis to their ER, but like here, that is also were many end up, because of their bare bones basic care.

    My point, neither is a very good or perfect system.
    Both ways will fail some, some of the time.
    The problems are not so much which system to use, but how to manage the system used best.

    That is why it seems a bit overkill to change our whole health system so we feel better about it, when in reality is not going to make it better, not as managed today and when we have a government that doesn't has the money for it and will have to disrupt our economy even more adding taxes to cover one more pet project.

    You are right, we end up all paying, one way or another.
    1) You need to do a lot more research on healthcare provided by countries with national healthcare because your information is completely out of whack. In such countries, to begin with, no one goes bankrupt as a result of healthcare expenses, which is the leading cause of bankruptcy here. In such countries, people get care with no questions asked in emergency situations, providers actually do housecalls, preventive care is standard, and life expectancies are much longer than they are here (e.g. in Canada, the life expectancy of people with cystic fibrosis is 15 years longer than it is here-- despite a much less favorable climate for fragile lungs.) I could go on, but you get the gist. If you want verification, take a look at what the Canadians on COTH have to say about their system.

    2) After 66 years of coping with our private system, I'm finally on Medicare. What a relief!! Even here, though, only part is run by the government, with other parts, e.g., part D, still run by private insurance companies. The part that the government runs has been heaven compared to part D, which has spent NOTHING on my prescriptions, but floods me with advertising, calendars, robocalls clearly aimed at getting me to maximize their profits. (Thank you George Bush).

    3) To me, one of the greatest drawbacks to our system has been the connection of health insurance to conventional employment. I know so many people whose careers have been dictated by insurance needs to the detriment of their own lives and, IMO, to the economy as a whole: talented people who would love to go out on their own, start their own businesses, but cannot do so because they or their family members have health problems that make it impossible to for them to leave their present jobs because of the astronomical increase to health care insurance costs that would entail. On the other end, I have heard of companies moving to countries like Canada so that they can escape the demand for healthcare benefits which customarily attends employing people here.

    Hence, I've come to the conclusion that healthcare should be part of the infrastructure of modern civilized countries, as necessary to all of us, both individual and corporate, as roads and bridges.
    Last edited by fish; Nov. 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  18. #598
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    18,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MadeYaLook View Post
    As I stated I don't resent my taxes going to those in need either. Yes I'm sure that supply mechanisisms are out -no electricity makes it hard to get gas pumped-but this isn't our first time to the rodeo so to speak. We know from experience that this is always a problem(one of many) and yet here we are again.
    I suspect you have no clue how devastated the area is and how difficult it might be to get gas trucks in there. I understand that yesterday, FEMA flew tankers into the air force bases in NY and NJ...but the airports had to be cleared of debris first.

    There's gas in the tanks at the refineries but no power to pump it out. The same at many gas stations.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    3 members found this post helpful.

  19. #599
    Join Date
    Aug. 14, 2000
    Location
    Clarksdale, MS--the golden buckle on the cotton belt
    Posts
    18,788

    Default

    Anecdotal, of course, but I've got US friends with German relatives who use the German healthcare system whenever they can. Why? Because even with their federal health care insurance from being federal employees (supposed to the most generous there is), their out of pocket payments in the German system even without insurance are less than 1/4 of their co-pay for the same thing here.

    Before you slam "socialized medicine", you ought to investigate how health care works in all the other developed countries in the world. Don't just parrot what you've been told.

    Too many profit making entities between the consumer and the producer drive up costs.

    I damaged my knee, called my doctor, and was sent by him to the emergency room. Spent 6 1/2 hours sitting around before they got to me, was charged separately for each doctor who saw me and for the xrays, and was billed almost $2,000 for the privilege of sitting in their waiting room and for getting in their computer system and using one of their cubicles. Billed prices have no connection with reality.
    "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
    Thread killer Extraordinaire


    4 members found this post helpful.

  20. #600
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2001
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    2,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fish View Post
    1) You need to do a lot more research on healthcare provided by countries with national healthcare because your information is completely out of whack. In such countries, to begin with, no one goes bankrupt as a result of healthcare expenses, which is the leading cause of bankruptcy here. In such countries, people get care with no questions asked in emergency situations, providers actually do housecalls, preventive care is standard, and life expectancies are much longer than they are here (e.g. in Canada, the life expectancy of people with cystic fibrosis is 15 years longer than it is here-- despite a much less favorable climate for fragile lungs.) I could go on, but you get the gist. If you want verification, take a look at what the Canadians on COTH have to say about their system.

    2) After 66 years of coping with our private system, I'm finally on Medicare. What a relief!! Even here, though, only part is run by the government, with other parts, e.g., part D, still run by private insurance companies. The part that the government runs has been heaven compared to part D, which has spent NOTHING on my prescriptions, but floods me with advertising, calendars, robocalls clearly aimed at getting me to maximize their profits. (Thank you George Bush).

    3) To me, one of the greatest drawbacks to our system has been the connection health insurance to conventional employment. I know so many people whose careers have been dictated by insurance needs to the detriment of their own lives and, IMO, to the economy as a whole: talented people who would love to go out on their own, start their own businesses, but cannot do so because they or their family members have health problems that make it impossible to for them to leave their present jobs because of the astronomical increase to health care insurance costs that would entail. On the other end, I have heard of companies moving to countries like Canada so that they can escape the demand for healthcare benefits which customarily attends employing people here.

    Hence, I've come to the conclusion that healthcare should be part of the infrastructure of modern civilized countries, as necessary to all of us, both individual and corporate, as roads and bridges.
    I fully agree with everything you said, but especially the part in bold. I literally SCREAMED this the tv during the town hall debate when Romney blathered on about encouraging entrepreneurship in the U.S. Ya know a good way to do that Romney? Universal health care--I know there are many, MANY people (myself included) who would love to start their own businesses at some point, but hesitate because going without insurance (because let's face it, its all but unaffordable if your employer isn't paying for it) is a pretty scary proposition, to say the least.


    2 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. CAUTION! POLITICAL THREAD!
    By Frank B in forum The Menagerie
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Oct. 25, 2012, 11:40 AM
  2. For the political threads...
    By CosMonster in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Apr. 2, 2011, 02:39 PM
  3. Replies: 151
    Last Post: Feb. 5, 2011, 07:07 PM
  4. First political thread this off topic day...
    By dressurpferd01 in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Jan. 14, 2011, 05:56 PM
  5. The political thread
    By dizzywriter in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: May. 18, 2010, 04:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness