PDA

View Full Version : Feds to design health insurance for the masses



MountainMan
10-07-2011, 09:40 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal government is taking on a crucial new role in the nation's health care, designing a basic benefits package for millions of privately insured Americans. A framework for the Obama administration was released Friday.

The report by independent experts from the Institute of Medicine lays out guidelines for deciding what to include in the new "essential benefits package," and how to keep it affordable for small businesses and taxpayers, as well as scientifically up to date.

And so the transition to socialism begins (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MANDATED_HEALTH_BENEFITS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-06-19-09-42)

The GOP candidates need to speak out against this today while it is again in the news.

fettpett
10-07-2011, 09:47 AM
what now libs? I thought Obamacare was all about making it cheaper but the Government wasn't going be all up in your business and making you take anything specific

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2011, 09:50 AM
hmm, I can see why people would oppose this.

How would you feel about a middle alternative, where the federal government can provide their own insurance policy something like medicare for people who want government health insurance, and let people with private insurance have whatever they are willing to pay for?

After all, I agree with many people here that the government should not require people to purchase private health insurance (the mandate), and I can understand why people want to pick their own plans based on their own needs and budgets.

This way, the government can provide a barebones package for people who don't want to buy private health insurance and people who do want it can purchase whatever they like.

fettpett
10-07-2011, 09:52 AM
hmm, I can see why people would oppose this.

How would you feel about a middle alternative, where the federal government can provide their own insurance policy something like medicare for people who want government health insurance, and let people with private insurance have whatever they are willing to pay for?

After all, I agree with many people here that the government should not require people to purchase private health insurance (the mandate), and I can understand why people want to pick their own plans based on their own needs and budgets.

This way, the government can provide a barebones package for people who don't want to buy private health insurance and people who do want it can purchase whatever they like.

you don't fucking get it. IT"S NOT THE GOVERNMENTS JOB TO PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE

it's unaffordable

Novaheart
10-07-2011, 10:04 AM
And so the transition to socialism begins

The GOP candidates need to speak out against this today while it is again in the news.

I guess that all depends on how you define socialism.

Since medicine crawled out of the cave (let's say since electricty was installed in hospitals) the public has paid taxes which literally hand profitable drugs, facilities, research, and technologies to the medical profession. We also help pay for some doctors to go to college, and completely pay for other doctors to go to college. We act as guinea pigs while doctors are in training. Most of which might be called the roots of socialism in medicine, or the roots of medicine in socialism.

And by and large, we have no problem with that except when the beneficiaries bitch that they aren't making enough.

What we have a problem with is handing over a giant slice of the health care dollar to insurance companies, so that some people have comprehensive medical care while others go to hospital emergency rooms, often after it's too late in the game.

.

fettpett
10-07-2011, 10:07 AM
What we have a problem with is handing over a giant slice of the health care dollar to insurance companies, so that some people have comprehensive medical care while others go to hospital emergency rooms, often after it's too late in the game.

.

and who's fault was it with all the mandates that each state has? oh right...the State Governments

Novaheart
10-07-2011, 10:11 AM
it's unaffordable

No it isn't. We're paying for universal care, we're just not getting what we are paying for.

I find it amusing when people who say that no one should be turned away from a hospital, or go on about the "charity once did this" routine, then are adamant that we can't afford to provide healthcare for all Americans. Which is it? Are we doing it, or can we not do it? Go down to your local housing project and tell me which one of those children you want to take off medicaid, which little asthmatic you want to snatch the rescue inhaler from. Pick one, now.

Then go to the nursing home and tell me which one of those people should be cut off. Which one of them isn't worth the price of admission? Which one is simply waiting to die and consuming resources in the process? Pick a granny, now.

You have a problem and you need to resolve it rather than continue in the BS cycle. That problem is that you are trying to justify your own greed and selfishness because you think it is consistent with your political philosophy. No, donating to your neighborhood church so that middle class kids can ride horses in the mountains at camp is not charity, it's deductible. Charity isn't putting a roof on some artifact of our cave dwelling ancestors. Charity is putting yourself in the place of the recipient.

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2011, 10:14 AM
you don't fucking get it. IT"S NOT THE GOVERNMENTS JOB TO PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE

it's unaffordable

If the government works for the people, then the people decide what the government's job is.

Also it's not unaffordable, it's about priority. The wars on the middle east have cost us over a trillion dollars, with some estimates (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629) over 3 trillion.

According to CBO estimates (http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/88162/cbo-projections.pdf), the Bush tax cuts cost around $1.5 Trillion

We're spending between 1-3 Trillion dollars on wars while cutting $1.5 Trillion dollars in taxes mostly for wealthy people, and then saying we don't have enough money to provide health insurance to regular working class people.

There's also the bank bailouts but you get my point.

When it comes to cutting taxes for wealthy people, bailing out banks or major corporations, or invading a couple of countries and fighting decade-long wars, there is no question whatsoever about the cost, but when it comes to providing much needed help to working class families, it's suddenly a problem.

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2011, 10:17 AM
If an uninsured person grows ill, but it is not an immediate emergency, they will often avoid seeing a doctor because they cannot afford it out of pocket. If they grow more ill because of their lack of care, they end up in an emergency room where they must be treated, and if the illness is worse the treatment is usually more expensive (especially for things like surgeries).

If they have no money, they still aren't going to pay the bill, so who does? Everyone else.

It makes far more fiscal sense to pay less money to provide these people with affordable insurance so they can get proper treatment so everyone else doesn't have to pay for high-cost emergency care.

Novaheart
10-07-2011, 10:21 AM
and who's fault was it with all the mandates that each state has? oh right...the State Governments

This isn't a game or a pissing contest between you and I.

When I was transferred out of the special care unit in my recent hospital stay, my new room mate was a man who had come to the hospital because he had not urinated in three days. He had to have an emergency catheterization, and was then dialyzed. He was now a kidney patient. But he was not going to be discharged from the hospital anytime soon because he had no health insurance and the dialysis centers don't take people without health insurance. So the social worker was trying to expedite his application to medicare and medicaid so he could be discharged. The infuriating thing about this is that this man already knew he was diabetic. Had he had proper medical care, his doctor would have picked up on his failing kidneys in time for him to prepare for dialysis without undergoing dangerous catheterization and an extend hospital stay. This man had a prosthetic lower left leg, and yet he worked as a lawn care laborer. So he didn't qualify for anything until he was on what might have been his death bed. You can't convince me that this is the right way to do this.

Novaheart
10-07-2011, 10:24 AM
If an uninsured person grows ill, but it is not an immediate emergency, they will often avoid seeing a doctor because they cannot afford it out of pocket. If they grow more ill because of their lack of care, they end up in an emergency room where they must be treated, and if the illness is worse the treatment is usually more expensive (especially for things like surgeries).

If they have no money, they still aren't going to pay the bill, so who does? Everyone else.

It makes far more fiscal sense to pay less money to provide these people with affordable insurance so they can get proper treatment so everyone else doesn't have to pay for high-cost emergency care.

And this generates lots of people who have bad credit, which in turn becomes profit to places like Aaron Rents, pay as you go phone companies, third party utility guarantors, pawn shops, Amscot, and all kinds of slimy and predatory parallel businesses which cater to people who are ruined by hospital collection agencies.

fettpett
10-07-2011, 10:38 AM
yes, the Government is at the will of the people, but they also have to follow the law of the land, which is the US Constitution. Show me where any of these programs are authorized by it.

We've had them because politician's and judges haven't had the backbone since before FDR to reign it in. We've spent trillions of taxpayers money that would have gone much farther in the private sector and more efficiently than in the hands of the Government. The Government's job is to serve as referee NOT as a player.

Arroyo_Doble
10-07-2011, 10:43 AM
And this generates lots of people who have bad credit, which in turn becomes profit to places like Aaron Rents, pay as you go phone companies, third party utility guarantors, pawn shops, Amscot, and all kinds of slimy and predatory parallel businesses which cater to people who are ruined by hospital collection agencies.

I have a friend who is an economist at a consulting firm and does some work with AEI. He is a true believer in The Market.

He once told me no one gets rich off of poor people. I asked him how such an educated man as himself (doctorate level) could be so ignorant.

Elspeth
10-07-2011, 02:43 PM
what now libs? I thought Obamacare was all about making it cheaper but the Government wasn't going be all up in your business and making you take anything specific

They lied. (Of course)

The fact that legislators are telling insurance companies what they can and cannot provide should be no surprise considering that, in order to pass the bill in 2010, Reid had to take coverage for abortion services out of it. While most people here believe that abortion is a grievous sin, look at the situation legally: abortion is a legal procedure. If Congress could exclude this legal procedure based on the opinions of a bunch of politicians, then the precedent has been set: Congress can exclude ANY legal procedure based on the opinions of a bunch of politicians. Hence the current situation of CONGRESS deciding what health care average Americans get instead of letting us buy the coverage we see fit.

The LEFT should be up in arms about this. When insurance gets over-regulated at the state level by the government (as it did in Virginia in 2006), the first thing that goes are domestic partner benefits for gay couples. Even if the insurance company wants to offer them because it believes it can bring in lots of gay customers this way, it can't: the government hath spoken. The LEFT should be furious, but watch the 99%ers on Wall Street not mention this at all. After all, Obama their Savior is doing it.

And as for the rest of us? Perhaps someone will try to shove down our throats the idea that taking the morphine shot and dying is better for society than us getting chemo, if we're older or less useful or something.

(Sorry if I seem to be screaming. I HATE HATE HATE Obamacare with a passion and think it is the worst thing for not only medical care but medical privacy in this country.)

lacarnut
10-07-2011, 03:27 PM
This isn't a game or a pissing contest between you and I.

When I was transferred out of the special care unit in my recent hospital stay, my new room mate was a man who had come to the hospital because he had not urinated in three days. He had to have an emergency catheterization, and was then dialyzed. He was now a kidney patient. But he was not going to be discharged from the hospital anytime soon because he had no health insurance and the dialysis centers don't take people without health insurance. So the social worker was trying to expedite his application to medicare and medicaid so he could be discharged. The infuriating thing about this is that this man already knew he was diabetic. Had he had proper medical care, his doctor would have picked up on his failing kidneys in time for him to prepare for dialysis without undergoing dangerous catheterization and an extend hospital stay. This man had a prosthetic lower left leg, and yet he worked as a lawn care laborer. So he didn't qualify for anything until he was on what might have been his death bed. You can't convince me that this is the right way to do this.

Just wait till Obamacare kicks in if you think it's bad now. Medicare and Medicaid patients will be kicked out of the hospital early. The hospital, the Doctor and the social worker get together now to determine when you get discharged. Throw in a jackass from DC that is doing a cost benefit analysis based on age, llife expectancy for each disease and we will go from a great health care system to one that resembles the post office. Ineffecency and death panels will be the norm. The poor and working middle class will suffer.

Many doctors will retire or not take new patients. That is happening now. The quaily of health care will go down also. Students will be reluctant to become doctors if they have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and the Feds will mandate how much they can charge.

fettpett
10-07-2011, 03:40 PM
I have a friend who is an economist at a consulting firm and does some work with AEI. He is a true believer in The Market.

He once told me no one gets rich off of poor people. I asked him how such an educated man as himself (doctorate level) could be so ignorant.

mmmm, ever think that just maybe he thinks that it's more important for those "poor" people to make themselves better?

give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and feed him for a lifetime

Novaheart
10-07-2011, 08:09 PM
I have a friend who is an economist at a consulting firm and does some work with AEI. He is a true believer in The Market.

He once told me no one gets rich off of poor people. I asked him how such an educated man as himself (doctorate level) could be so ignorant.

Wow. That challenges everything I have come to believe and observed in Saint Petersburg. I have seen dozens of businesses open up to cater to wealthy people, and go right down the tubes. Meanwhile, I've seen Amscot go from being practically a side entrance on a pawn shop, to having their name on an office building.

http://www.amscotfinancial.com/financial/graphics/newHQ.jpg

Amscot Financial's Corporate Headquarters -
Tampa, Florida
Amscot Financial opened its doors in 1989 with the first location on 4808 East Broadway in Tampa, Florida. Since then, we have opened locations all across Central Florida. At Amscot, our focus is to provide excellent customer service with every visit. We offer clean, well-lit, convenient locations in which to conduct your financial transactions. Many locations are open 24 hours a day.



We offer a variety of products and services, from check cashing and cash advances to free money orders and wire transfers. Our staff is professional and courteous. Come visit a location near you and see why we are the best in the business!

You should see that place on Friday and Saturday night. Friday night the "no account" are cashing their paychecks (and paying a fee to do it) and Saturday night they are borrowing against their next paycheck. It's pretty busy from about 5pm tp 2 am.

Novaheart
10-07-2011, 08:17 PM
Just wait till Obamacare kicks in if you think it's bad now. Medicare and Medicaid patients will be kicked out of the hospital early. The hospital, the Doctor and the social worker get together now to determine when you get discharged. .

Yes Sarah, death panels.

Guess what? It already works that way and not just for Medicare and Medicaid, but for United Health Care and BCBS. You don't seriously think that you can stay in the hospital an extra day or two to err on the side of caution without the permission of your health insurance company, do you? Some may be easier to get along with than others, but basically all of them are to one degree or another "managed care".

I'm in an HMO. I have gotten the care that I need, and as usual, I had to threaten to leave against medical advice on my last hospital stay. In the long run, it is preferable to any other insurance I have had , especially in terms of out of pocket expenses.

lacarnut
10-07-2011, 11:57 PM
Yes Sarah, death panels.

Guess what? It already works that way and not just for Medicare and Medicaid, but for United Health Care and BCBS. You don't seriously think that you can stay in the hospital an extra day or two to err on the side of caution without the permission of your health insurance company, do you? Some may be easier to get along with than others, but basically all of them are to one degree or another "managed care".

I'm in an HMO. I have gotten the care that I need, and as usual, I had to threaten to leave against medical advice on my last hospital stay. In the long run, it is preferable to any other insurance I have had , especially in terms of out of pocket expenses.

Sonny Boy, I have been in the emergency room and the hospital with my parents many many times. I know how the present system works. Your experience pales in comparison to mine. I have spent weeks in the hospital with their numerous strokes and my dad's leg that the doctor wanted to cut off due to circulation problems What you fail to realise is that Obamacare will drasticall change the present system or you are just ignorant.

AmPat
10-08-2011, 10:43 AM
hmm, I can see why people would oppose this.

How would you feel about a middle alternative, where the federal government can provide their own insurance policy something like medicare for people who want government health insurance, and let people with private insurance have whatever they are willing to pay for?

After all, I agree with many people here that the government should not require people to purchase private health insurance (the mandate), and I can understand why people want to pick their own plans based on their own needs and budgets.

This way, the government can provide a barebones package for people who don't want to buy private health insurance and people who do want it can purchase whatever they like.

It still amounts to the government picking money out of my pocket and giving it to somebody else. Wrong is wrong no matter how tortured your argument.

AmPat
10-08-2011, 10:45 AM
Yes Sarah, death panels.

Guess what? It already works that way and not just for Medicare and Medicaid, but for United Health Care and BCBS. You don't seriously think that you can stay in the hospital an extra day or two to err on the side of caution without the permission of your health insurance company, do you? Some may be easier to get along with than others, but basically all of them are to one degree or another "managed care".

I'm in an HMO. I have gotten the care that I need, and as usual, I had to threaten to leave against medical advice on my last hospital stay. In the long run, it is preferable to any other insurance I have had , especially in terms of out of pocket expenses.

Sarah was right. :cool:

AmPat
10-08-2011, 10:50 AM
I have a friend who is an economist at a consulting firm and does some work with AEI. He is a true believer in The Market.

He once told me no one gets rich off of poor people. I asked him how such an educated man as himself (doctorate level) could be so ignorant.

Yes, poor people are conduits for money also. So what? The money that they get is spent just like rich people's money. The poor also get that money from rich people. How many poor people create jobs? Have you ever been hired by a poor person? :rolleyes:

Novaheart
10-08-2011, 11:01 AM
It still amounts to the government picking money out of my pocket and giving it to somebody else. Wrong is wrong no matter how tortured your argument.

Assuming that you are healthy, all insurance amounts to the entity taking your premiums and paying them out for someone else's medical problem.

If you are fortunate enough to live long enough, you might consume in medical care all that you have paid in premiums as well as the estimate of premium equivalents paid on your behalf by the taxpayer as your employer in the military. It really can take one silly accident to do it. From personal experience, I can tell you that scraping your leg in warm shallow water can cost the equivalent of 20 years of combined "premiums" calculated at the annual medical cost per person in the US. That babble means that if you divide the cost of a major medical event by $7500 it will render a ballpark of your medical profit or loss.

But if you and your family remain healthy then yes, your money went to pay someone else's medical expenses, unless you are in a private healthcare plan in which case it also went to take corporate executives to their summer homes in helicopters and paid to heat their McMansion's driveways so they don't have to shovel snow.

Novaheart
10-08-2011, 11:03 AM
Yes, poor people are conduits for money also. So what? The money that they get is spent just like rich people's money. The poor also get that money from rich people. How many poor people create jobs? Have you ever been hired by a poor person? :rolleyes:

Every dollar of welfare money ends up in a rich person's pocket. So who is creating what?

Constitutionally Speaking
10-08-2011, 12:04 PM
If the government works for the people, then the people decide what the government's job is.

.

Not unless they follow the PROPER procedures to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION.

We are NOT supposed to be a nation guided by popular whims but by LAWS.

Of course those laws are to be responsive to the people, but not just by whim.

Constitutionally Speaking
10-08-2011, 12:06 PM
Every dollar of welfare money ends up in a rich person's pocket. So who is creating what? Not so and not relevant.

lacarnut
10-08-2011, 12:22 PM
Every dollar of welfare money ends up in a rich person's pocket. So who is creating what?

Poor, poor Nova worrying about what others have and playing the victim card. It must be terrible to be green with envy and not be happy that you live in the greatest country in the world. It is a shame that many liberals feel that way, and do not appreciate the many benefits of the USA.

fettpett
10-08-2011, 01:06 PM
sorry, I'd rather be guided by laws that have worked than the whims of emotion that rule peoples individual lives.

AmPat
10-08-2011, 05:23 PM
Every dollar of welfare money ends up in a rich person's pocket. So who is creating what?

By your twisted "logic'" there would be no welfare money eventually.:rolleyes: Poor people create need. Rich people create wealth. You liberals aren't attacking the poor to rob them of tax dollars. I wonder why?:confused::rolleyes:

AmPat
10-08-2011, 05:26 PM
Assuming that you are healthy, all insurance amounts to the entity taking your premiums and paying them out for someone else's medical problem.

If you are fortunate enough to live long enough, you might consume in medical care all that you have paid in premiums as well as the estimate of premium equivalents paid on your behalf by the taxpayer as your employer in the military. It really can take one silly accident to do it. From personal experience, I can tell you that scraping your leg in warm shallow water can cost the equivalent of 20 years of combined "premiums" calculated at the annual medical cost per person in the US. That babble means that if you divide the cost of a major medical event by $7500 it will render a ballpark of your medical profit or loss.

But if you and your family remain healthy then yes, your money went to pay someone else's medical expenses, unless you are in a private healthcare plan in which case it also went to take corporate executives to their summer homes in helicopters and paid to heat their McMansion's driveways so they don't have to shovel snow.
I don't believe ANY entity has the right to steal my money and give it to somebody else. DO YOU GET IT? I buy insurance for me and MY family. If you want to pay for all the starving people in India, go for it. My money is for MY family, Not that lazy SOB down the street. Charity is voluntary, not forced by government.

Novaheart
10-11-2011, 12:49 AM
Not so and not relevant.

Close enough.


The food stamps and Section 8 that a woman gets because she doesn't make enough at McDonald's for her and her child to live on, goes to the grocery chains and her landlord. OK, so the landlord might not be "rich" by our standards, but he might be.

And by subsidizing the woman's income, we're subsidizing McDonald's because they don't have to pay a living wage as long as they can get workers who are on food stamps and Section 8.

fettpett
10-11-2011, 07:52 AM
Close enough.


The food stamps and Section 8 that a woman gets because she doesn't make enough at McDonald's for her and her child to live on, goes to the grocery chains and her landlord. OK, so the landlord might not be "rich" by our standards, but he might be.

And by subsidizing the woman's income, we're subsidizing McDonald's because they don't have to pay a living wage as long as they can get workers who are on food stamps and Section 8.


see, minimum wage and living wage are not the same, nor should they be. Thats what you libtards don't understand. If you want to make more money, work harder, spend less time fucking around, get promoted etc. I've worked in those kind of places, it really isn't hard to separate ones self in there and get raises and promotions, just takes hard work.

minimum wage is just that, minimum, a starting point, not the end all. Those kind of jobs should be for those starting out on the bottom, High School students, thats WHY they get shit pay, they aren't doing anything that uses anything more than basic math skills and interpersonal skills. Sadly I've worked with enough people to know that many don't even have that.

Elspeth
10-11-2011, 02:39 PM
Close enough.


The food stamps and Section 8 that a woman gets because she doesn't make enough at McDonald's for her and her child to live on, goes to the grocery chains and her landlord. OK, so the landlord might not be "rich" by our standards, but he might be.

And by subsidizing the woman's income, we're subsidizing McDonald's because they don't have to pay a living wage as long as they can get workers who are on food stamps and Section 8.

You're correct about this.

It's the same story with illegal aliens. Agribusiness and construction (among other industries) hire them at crap wages and they pay no significant taxes due to their illegal status and their low wages. It's the citizens of California who pay for a host of social services related to food, health care, education, etc. to actually make conditions livable for the illegals. That is why we have the highest state income tax and, I believe, the highest sales tax, hovering near 10%, in the nation.

If you're a small business, you pay for everything and have a ton of red tape, government interference, and fees. If you're a huge business, you get your buddies in the legislature to subsidize your expenses through taxes and you are courted by states and municipalities with tax breaks to set up shop.

Elspeth
10-11-2011, 03:35 PM
see, minimum wage and living wage are not the same, nor should they be. Thats what you libtards don't understand. If you want to make more money, work harder, spend less time fucking around, get promoted etc. I've worked in those kind of places, it really isn't hard to separate ones self in there and get raises and promotions, just takes hard work.

minimum wage is just that, minimum, a starting point, not the end all. Those kind of jobs should be for those starting out on the bottom, High School students, thats WHY they get shit pay, they aren't doing anything that uses anything more than basic math skills and interpersonal skills. Sadly I've worked with enough people to know that many don't even have that.

This is the way it should be. And for a lot of people it is that way.

But since the 1970s, industries have been fleeing overseas and many people (not all, but many) have been forced into the low-paying service sector, which is where most of the new jobs are. It's just an economic fact. There's a reason why men's wages have gone down in this country over the past 20 years: the better paying industrial jobs went overseas and what's left is service work.

Now, if you decide you want to create wealth by starting your own business (instead of working for crap wages somewhere), the government immediately gets in your way with taxes, red tape, etc. and makes it near impossible in some places (like CA). If you decide you want to get a college degree to better your situation, it costs a fortune in government student loans. Unless you were lucky enough to have parents with their own business or with college funds they saved for you, it becomes incredibly difficult to get out of the service sector trap.

Now, on the other hand, some people do have the opportunity to do better and they don't take it. I know a woman with two adult children. The woman herself has worked hard all her life. She raised her kids singlehandedly (husband took off) and took care of her aging mother, and raised her grandson until he was 16. She was a hard worker, and every time her company was bought out, she was hired into the new company because she did well.

Her children, however, have not fared anywhere near as well. Both of the children were diagnosed by the public schools as having "learning disabilities" and were placed in Special Ed. The daughter started dating Special Ed males (remember, Special Ed includes learning and emotional problems). The daughter ended up having two children as a teenager and raised neither of them: her mother raised her son and her daughter was taken by the father's family to raise. (Neither father, however, is actively involved). The daughter ended up working part time as a waitress when she got out of school with a useless diploma, and she has remained at the same job, working part time as a waitress. She has no ambition for more. She is now in her early 30s and has taken back her son because she needed him to get HUD Section 8 housing. (This broke her mother who had been raising the boy). She has never married and men have mostly used her as a plaything. But, because of her status as a single mother and her low (part-time) income, she has gotten a nice 2-bedroom (subsidized) apartment in a suburban area for which see pays only $200 a month. Her mother--whose original employer folded in the crash and is now working for less money--can't afford an apartment that nice in that area. The daughter also got free health care for her son (although for many years she couldn't be bothered to fill out the forms to actually get it for him) among other things.

The woman's son has actually fared worse. He started out a bright kid and scored high on IQ tests, but he ended up in Special Ed because the school said he had ADHD and needed to be on Ritalin. Of course, the kid didn't actually take the Ritalin but dealt it to his friends for spending money. He may still be ADHD, but he has never gone for treatment as an adult. The son has never been able to keep a job for more than a few months in his entire adult life. The only reason he is not on public assistance is because he finds insecure women to be his meal ticket. He moves in for a couple of years and each new woman thinks she can change him. When the woman finally gets wise and kicks him out, he goes back to his mom (who doesn't want to leave him on the street) until he find a new target. He is now around 30 as well. This is a guy who can't even keep a restaurant job, even though he is intelligent, young, and in good shape. He, too, doesn't seem to want any more than what he has. When he was in his early 20s, he was dating a girl whose parents had some money. The girls father offered to pay his way through college. He turned it down.

These two young adults are cases of people who have become satisfied where they are and have no ambition for more. Now in their 30s, these patterns are pretty much set. Their mother wonders what she did wrong and feels guilty for the way they have turned out. Her example to them was one of hard work and ambition. When her husband left her, she went back to school for computers and got a good job with the same company for many years. When the company recently folded, this woman was able to find a decent (if lower-paying) job in a bad economy, and she is doing well there. This is why she can't figure out how her kids ended up not following in her footsteps. I believe it had a lot to do with being stuck in Special Ed--I used to teach high school and know what those classes can be like. But even as adults, these children have had choices along the way and have decided not to improve, but to stay put. There's not much that can be done about that.

Novaheart
10-11-2011, 06:20 PM
Thats what you libtards don't understand.

Aww, nice.

Novaheart
10-11-2011, 06:33 PM
minimum wage is just that, minimum, a starting point, not the end all. Those kind of jobs should be for those starting out on the bottom, High School students .

So the day and age when an adult could have a low skilled job with low pay but a living wage are over? When I was a child, some of the service people had been in their jobs for decades. When did we decide that everyone should be a manager and that only manager would make a living.

And while we're on the subject of managers, let me put that in quotes "managers" because it has a definition under labor law which is largely ignored. Managers in almost all service businesses and retail are used by their employers as hourly workers, except that they claim that the employee is exempt. The exempt employee is not supposed to be a source of cheap labor for business, he's supposed to be a manager. Most assistant managers these days would be rightly classified as a key-hourly, and most managers would be assistants. The goal of corporate America is obvious: reduce the American people to a country of cashiers and flunkies; make them interchangeable and without serious decision making or responsibility so they can be paid crap and be easily replaced.

And this is something you want to cheer? Or is it that that makes you feel successful? I think it makes you sound like a fool.

MrsSmith
10-11-2011, 07:18 PM
So the day and age when an adult could have a low skilled job with low pay but a living wage are over? When I was a child, some of the service people had been in their jobs for decades. When did we decide that everyone should be a manager and that only manager would make a living.

And while we're on the subject of managers, let me put that in quotes "managers" because it has a definition under labor law which is largely ignored. Managers in almost all service businesses and retail are used by their employers as hourly workers, except that they claim that the employee is exempt. The exempt employee is not supposed to be a source of cheap labor for business, he's supposed to be a manager. Most assistant managers these days would be rightly classified as a key-hourly, and most managers would be assistants. The goal of corporate America is obvious: reduce the American people to a country of cashiers and flunkies; make them interchangeable and without serious decision making or responsibility so they can be paid crap and be easily replaced.

And this is something you want to cheer? Or is it that that makes you feel successful? I think it makes you sound like a fool.Now you sound like a fool. Why would only managers make a decent wage? My father did manual labor all his life, and always made a living wage. Of course, we couldn't afford to ski in Colorado every winter or drive $40,000 SUV's, but we certainly could afford a home, food, clothing, utilities, medical care, etc.

I only have an Associates Degree, and I got a minimum wage job after college, but by now I'm making about $20 an hour more than I made straight out of college, and I'm not any kind of a manager. A huge portion of my knowledge has come from on-the-job training.

Believe me, if I can "make it" after going to college with 3 kids and ending up with 5, anyone can make it...if they have the gumption to get off their whiny butts and work for it.

Novaheart
10-11-2011, 07:21 PM
Now you sound like a fool. .

Thank you for sharing

Rockntractor
10-11-2011, 07:57 PM
Thank you for sharing

Hey she just said you sounded like one, I flat out call you one.:D

fettpett
10-11-2011, 09:57 PM
So the day and age when an adult could have a low skilled job with low pay but a living wage are over? When I was a child, some of the service people had been in their jobs for decades. When did we decide that everyone should be a manager and that only manager would make a living.

And while we're on the subject of managers, let me put that in quotes "managers" because it has a definition under labor law which is largely ignored. Managers in almost all service businesses and retail are used by their employers as hourly workers, except that they claim that the employee is exempt. The exempt employee is not supposed to be a source of cheap labor for business, he's supposed to be a manager. Most assistant managers these days would be rightly classified as a key-hourly, and most managers would be assistants. The goal of corporate America is obvious: reduce the American people to a country of cashiers and flunkies; make them interchangeable and without serious decision making or responsibility so they can be paid crap and be easily replaced.

And this is something you want to cheer? Or is it that that makes you feel successful? I think it makes you sound like a fool.

you're completely twisting what I said. I was specifically talking about fast food and similar jobs that START at minimum wage, and it's just that, a STARTING POINT. Promotion doesn't mean going straight to management, there are steps in between. One can work harder, get training and move up. Hell just staying in the FF realm one can move up and buy a franchise fairly easily if they plan and save properly, becoming one of those "evil rich business owners". It happens ALL. THE. TIME.

Novaheart
10-11-2011, 10:12 PM
you're completely twisting what I said. I was specifically talking about fast food and similar jobs that START at minimum wage, and it's just that, a STARTING POINT. Promotion doesn't mean going straight to management, there are steps in between. One can work harder, get training and move up. Hell just staying in the FF realm one can move up and buy a franchise fairly easily if they plan and save properly, becoming one of those "evil rich business owners". It happens ALL. THE. TIME.

I'd say that it happens regularly, but as a percentage it would be rare.

I have had the same cashiers at Walgreens for the last ten to fifteen years. You know why? Because Walgreens has health insurance. These women work there, a job that requires you to stand whether it is necessary or not, with aching backs and feet, because they need health insurance.