More Job Losses

[runawayjim]

No one who is set in their belief otherwise believes this as credible .. but there was a story on yahoo news in which there was a study that determined that pot does not cause lung cancer (or any other form of cancer linked to smoking), period. I wouldn't drink past a beer now and then if pot was legal. I'd probably have a few plants out in the garden. I haven't touched the stuff since college, it's not worth getting a record for a little high.

i'd still drink my beer... beer is great (as long as it's great beer). but yeah, i'd grow pot if it were legal, and i'm not even much of a pothead. i'd probably use it more as a house plant.

[runawayjim]

I'm not talking about pot... I think pot supplanting alcohol as the high of choice in this country would be a good thing. Cocaine, among other drugs, was widely used in college. Most people I knew used it at least now and then, though I never did. That is a dangerous substance.

legalize everything. let people get their thrills and tax them for it. that's the american way.

pot would be better than alcohol because people who are high don't get violent. that alone will solve many problems.

[HartfordTycoon]

legalize everything. let people get their thrills and tax them for it. that's the american way.

pot would be better than alcohol because people who are high don't get violent. that alone will solve many problems.

Amen to that. I think a lot of us have made these arguments in vein before. Everything sounds like points I've made before. Marijuana is better than alcohol anyday. I would much prefer anyone I cared about be a heavy weed smoker as opposed to a heavy alcoholic.

[jcrc]

We could certainly offset some the cost by raising taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and unhealthy foods. That would work pretty well, unless we actually change our habits. If that happens we won't need so much healthcare anyway. That would also encourage those who can't afford it, not to smoke, drink or eat unhealthy foods. The only loss is to the corporations that sell legalized narcotics and other poison. Not a huge problem in my view.

No. Everyone who has to pay lost. It doesn't matter if you drink a bottle of beer a day or a six pack a day, you lose. Be that as it may, no matter how much sin taxes you raised, you are not going to get away with the fact that working Americans who can afford healthcare will have to pay for those who cannot afford healthcare. No matter how you slice it, for most working Americans who are already paying a healthy premium for their own coverage, you are asking them to come up with an additional amount that is not a small sum of money; and you are asking them to give it up for some moral value they may or may not share with you.

[HartfordTycoon]

No. Everyone who has to pay lost. It doesn't matter if you drink a bottle of beer a day or a six pack a day, you lose. Be that as it may, no matter how much sin taxes you raised, you are not going to get away with the fact that working Americans who can afford healthcare will have to pay for those who cannot afford healthcare. No matter how you slice it, for most working Americans who are already paying a healthy premium for their own coverage, you are asking them to come up with an additional amount that is not a small sum of money; and you are asking them to give it up for some moral value they may or may not share with you.

That is exactly what I am asking. Absolutely!! I wish everyone thought it was worth it, but they don't. I am now paying to fight a war that I don't agree with or think is worth it. That's how living as a nation works. We beotch and complain about the leadership and when the time comes try to change things at the ballot. If we elect leaders that want to go to war, then that's what we all have to pay for even if less than half of America voted for that leader (Bush vs. Gore). That's just how it is. If fortunes change hands and my party comes to power we will have to get used to the policies they implement, and I hope expanded healthcare for all Americans is one of those things. I think that it's a priority to my party and hopefully we will see some action on it soon. If you disagree, don't vote for those who support such measures. Simple as that. Just understand that at least to some extent what happens will be the will of the people, at the very least a substantial portion of them. It doesn't get any fairer than that. You make it seem like I personally want to force you to chip in. I don't look at it that way. I want different leadership and different policies than you, so I will vote accordingly. It's that leadership whom I would like to force you to do some things differently, the same way someone you vote for could force me the change my life in a way I don't particularly agree with. If it bothers me enough I can move to another country and you can do the same. I'm still here and don't really like what I'm seeing, I assume you would stay even if you don't get your way.

[drc72]

LEGALIZE ILLEGAL DRUGS. it's the answer to a lot of problems.

Great idea! Get more of our kids into drugs, so they will become unproductive members. They'll be to stoned or wasted to do anything useful with their lives. If you make it legal, chances are more and more kids will try it and get hooked. Morally is this the right thing to do? It's bad enough the way it is now, let's not make it worse.

[damus]

Great idea! Get more of our kids into drugs, so they will become unproductive members. They'll be to stoned or wasted to do anything useful with their lives. If you make it legal, chances are more and more kids will try it and get hooked. Morally is this the right thing to do? It's bad enough the way it is now, let's not make it worse.

You'd rather have it being sold by street thugs who do not care how old the person is they're selling to? I think we all know that alcohol prohibition was a mistake that resulted in disastrous crime levels. The drug war has done the same.

[runawayjim]

Great idea! Get more of our kids into drugs, so they will become unproductive members. They'll be to stoned or wasted to do anything useful with their lives. If you make it legal, chances are more and more kids will try it and get hooked. Morally is this the right thing to do? It's bad enough the way it is now, let's not make it worse.

how do you know an upstanding citizen like myself doesn't smoke a bowl every night and drop acid every weekend?

i am a very productive member of society, as are many other recreational drug users.

[drc72]

how do you know an upstanding citizen like myself doesn't smoke a bowl every night and drop acid every weekend?

i am a very productive member of society, as are many other recreational drug users.

I've known a few people that have litteraly ruined their lives, because of that stuff. I also dated a former drug counsler and believe me she has seen it all and it ain't pretty. I don't know, I guese you can handle drugs better than most, but most people aren't you.

[runawayjim]

I've known a few people that have litteraly ruined their lives, because of that stuff. I also dated a former drug counsler and believe me she has seen it all and it ain't pretty. I don't know, I guese you can handle drugs better than most, but most people aren't you.

the problem is with the drugs that are physically addicting (heroin for one). those are the ones that ruin lives. acid, mushrooms, pot, and even coke don't ruin as many lives (coke is borderline).

i'll be honest, i don't smoke a bowl every night (ok, there are some weeks when i do) and i've never dropped acid. but regardless, there are a lot of lawyers, doctors, teachers, etc who are avid recreational drug users.

[drc72]

the problem is with the drugs that are physically addicting (heroin for one). those are the ones that ruin lives. acid, mushrooms, pot, and even coke don't ruin as many lives (coke is borderline).

i'll be honest, i don't smoke a bowl every night (ok, there are some weeks when i do) and i've never dropped acid. but regardless, there are a lot of lawyers, doctors, teachers, etc who are avid recreational drug users.

LOL! I wouldn't doubt it, the way some act.

[jcrc]

That is exactly what I am asking. Absolutely!! I wish everyone thought it was worth it, but they don't. I am now paying to fight a war that I don't agree with or think is worth it. That's how living as a nation works. We beotch and complain about the leadership and when the time comes try to change things at the ballot. If we elect leaders that want to go to war, then that's what we all have to pay for even if less than half of America voted for that leader (Bush vs. Gore). That's just how it is. If fortunes change hands and my party comes to power we will have to get used to the policies they implement, and I hope expanded healthcare for all Americans is one of those things. I think that it's a priority to my party and hopefully we will see some action on it soon. If you disagree, don't vote for those who support such measures. Simple as that. Just understand that at least to some extent what happens will be the will of the people, at the very least a substantial portion of them. It doesn't get any fairer than that. You make it seem like I personally want to force you to chip in. I don't look at it that way. I want different leadership and different policies than you, so I will vote accordingly. It's that leadership whom I would like to force you to do some things differently, the same way someone you vote for could force me the change my life in a way I don't particularly agree with. If it bothers me enough I can move to another country and you can do the same. I'm still here and don't really like what I'm seeing, I assume you would stay even if you don't get your way.

Fair enough. If Bush can con us into a war costing lifes and billions, then who is to say you and your party can't talk average Americans into paying someone else's medical bills.

[HartfordTycoon]

Fair enough. If Bush can con us into a war costing lifes and billions, then who is to say you and your party can't talk average Americans into paying someone else's medical bills.

To bring this all back to jobs, do you think that a nationalized healthcare system would reduce the benefit burden on our corporations? Don't you think that could improve the business climate in America? It seems to me like our corporations are being forced to make tough decisions, that firms in Europe and Canada don't really have to make since they have more comprehensive Gov't healthcare. Any thoughts? That would mean that no matter how much growth we have at our respective businesses, benefits is not one of our concerns. I think that would be pretty good for small business owners.

[runawayjim]

To bring this all back to jobs, do you think that a nationalized healthcare system would reduce the benefit burden on our corporations? Don't you think that could improve the business climate in America? It seems to me like our corporations are being forced to make tough decisions, that firms in Europe and Canada don't really have to make since they have more comprehensive Gov't healthcare. Any thoughts? That would mean that no matter how much growth we have at our respective businesses, benefits is not one of our concerns. I think that would be pretty good for small business owners.

i'd be willing to bet that corporations will still have to contribute something into the system. but yes, it would take a lot of the burden off of them.

[HartfordTycoon]

i'd be willing to bet that corporations will still have to contribute something into the system. but yes, it would take a lot of the burden off of them.

Especially since everyone in this country would still be able to opt for private insurance. I still think it would offer substantial relief though and possibly make our corporations more competitive. I am sure, however that some corporations would scrap offering benefits altogether if the government was providing the service. I actually do see how this could be a drawback to nationalizing the system. I still think overall, we would still be better off as a nation though.

[drc72]

You'd rather have it being sold by street thugs who do not care how old the person is they're selling to? I think we all know that alcohol prohibition was a mistake that resulted in disastrous crime levels. The drug war has done the same.

The same street thugs willl be selling it, except now they will be legal. So if you have a kid and someone sells drugs to them you can't do anything about it. Unless they put some really strong restrictions on who they sell too, which would probably be the case if they made drugs legal.

[runawayjim]

The same street thugs willl be selling it, except now they will be legal. So if you have a kid and someone sells drugs to them you can't do anything about it. Unless they put some really strong restrictions on who they sell too, which would probably be the case if they made drugs legal.

is it legal for someone to sell alcohol on the street? last i checked, it was controlled to the point where you can't. in fact, if you're caught selling it to a minor, i'm pretty sure you won't be selling alcohol again.

i see the same thing happening with drugs.

[HartfordTycoon]

is it legal for someone to sell alcohol on the street? last i checked, it was controlled to the point where you can't. in fact, if you're caught selling it to a minor, i'm pretty sure you won't be selling alcohol again.

i see the same thing happening with drugs.

I agree, the illegal drug trade would be done, just like bootlegging was after prohibition. I think crime would go down by at least 50% in most urban neighborhoods. Drug crime wouldn't really exist, turf battles would be pretty meaningless, and the "culture of hustling" if you will, would be severely diminished. Historically, black neighborhoods had little crime up until the crack era began. It wasn't nearly as bad when my parents were growing up.

[jcrc]

To bring this all back to jobs, do you think that a nationalized healthcare system would reduce the benefit burden on our corporations? Don't you think that could improve the business climate in America? It seems to me like our corporations are being forced to make tough decisions, that firms in Europe and Canada don't really have to make since they have more comprehensive Gov't healthcare. Any thoughts? That would mean that no matter how much growth we have at our respective businesses, benefits is not one of our concerns. I think that would be pretty good for small business owners.

i'd be willing to bet that corporations will still have to contribute something into the system. but yes, it would take a lot of the burden off of them.

If we cut expenses elsewhere, those who benefited from those expenses will suffer, be they education, infrastructure and construction, defense, foreign aid, social security or entitlement and welfare. If we do not cut expenses, then those who bear the burden will suffer. In this case the majority is bearing the burden, therefore the majority will suffer. If you and I are paying for it, assuming we can't get a raise to offset the added tax, we will have less disposable incomes, therefore we will spend less, thus hurting the economy. If businesses are paying for it, they will pass the cost to consumers by making things more expensive, therefore we will spend less, thus hurting the economy. A less robust economy will result in less business formation and more business failures, and therefore more unemployment. If you look at countries with better "safety net", you'll find countries with less GDP growth, larger budget deficit (in percentage), and higher unemployment rate.

[runawayjim]

If we cut expenses elsewhere, those who benefited from those expenses will suffer, be they education, infrastructure and construction, defense, foreign aid, social security or entitlement and welfare. If we do not cut expenses, then those who bear the burden will suffer. In this case the majority is bearing the burden, therefore the majority will suffer. If you and I are paying for it, assuming we can't get a raise to offset the added tax, we will have less disposable incomes, therefore we will spend less, thus hurting the economy. If businesses are paying for it, they will pass the cost to consumers by making things more expensive, therefore we will spend less, thus hurting the economy. A less robust economy will result in less business formation and more business failures, and therefore more unemployment. If you look at countries with better "safety net", you'll find countries with less GDP growth, larger budget deficit (in percentage), and higher unemployment rate.

the way i'm thinking, no one pays much more into it than they currently do and businesses pay less into it. the government needs to adjust their spending. welfare abuse is too rampant and easy to do. foreign aid spending is higher than i would like to see it, as is defense spending. government spending on education and infrastructure is too low because of things like the billions we're spending on iraq (which is a waste of our country's resources).

if this were to work (i am not necessarily for a nationalized health care but more of a socialized state health care system that the federal gov't will help subsidize a bit), it would reduce the burden on everyone. the problem is, the people who can't get health care are suffering from illnesses that many people have cured easily. they pass these on, increasing the medical expenses for people who can afford it and getting more people who can't afford it sick and stuck. they get treated at hospitals without paying, which gets passed down to those who can afford to pay (indirectly of course). if everyone had coverage, it would be less of a burden on everyone and if everyone had coverage, we'd all be able to receive care in a timely manner and the spread of illnesses wouldn't be as bad, especially in poor neighborhoods.

but because our current government thinks that spending billions of dollars on a losing battle in iraq is a good investment of our time, money, people, and other resources, the budgets will never shift to pay for things that need it more (like education). instead, they pass this fake law that forces states to pay more for education when they couldn't pay enough for education before the law was passed. the government, right now, is backwards.

socialism isn't all bad either.

[HartfordTycoon]

the way i'm thinking, no one pays much more into it than they currently do and businesses pay less into it. the government needs to adjust their spending. welfare abuse is too rampant and easy to do. foreign aid spending is higher than i would like to see it, as is defense spending. government spending on education and infrastructure is too low because of things like the billions we're spending on iraq (which is a waste of our country's resources).

if this were to work (i am not necessarily for a nationalized health care but more of a socialized state health care system that the federal gov't will help subsidize a bit), it would reduce the burden on everyone. the problem is, the people who can't get health care are suffering from illnesses that many people have cured easily. they pass these on, increasing the medical expenses for people who can afford it and getting more people who can't afford it sick and stuck. they get treated at hospitals without paying, which gets passed down to those who can afford to pay (indirectly of course). if everyone had coverage, it would be less of a burden on everyone and if everyone had coverage, we'd all be able to receive care in a timely manner and the spread of illnesses wouldn't be as bad, especially in poor neighborhoods.

but because our current government thinks that spending billions of dollars on a losing battle in iraq is a good investment of our time, money, people, and other resources, the budgets will never shift to pay for things that need it more (like education). instead, they pass this fake law that forces states to pay more for education when they couldn't pay enough for education before the law was passed. the government, right now, is backwards.

socialism isn't all bad either.

Well said. This is the same debate being fought on a national level currently. There are two distinct ideologies competing for dominance in America right now. One wants to keep things the way they are, because that's perceived to be good for them. The other side wants change because it's percieved it will be better for them. Many people on the left do regard some socialistic principles as being applicaple and worthy of American investigation. The right supposedly wants smaller government, yet they are aggressively nation building overseas and trying to cut services at home. I know what side of the isle I'm on and for what reasons. It is sad that the lines are being drawn so harshly, but we CAN'T agree. It's not going to happen. This is a true conflict here and for my part I will remain vigilant in fighting the fight that I believe in. End of Rant. Back to the topic.

[runawayjim]

Well said. This is the same debate being fought on a national level currently. There are two distinct ideologies competing for dominance in America right now. One wants to keep things the way they are, because that's perceived to be good for them. The other side wants change because it's percieved it will be better for them. Many people on the left do regard some socialistic principles as being applicaple and worthy of American investigation. The right supposedly wants smaller government, yet they are aggressively nation building overseas and trying to cut services at home. I know what side of the isle I'm on and for what reasons. It is sad that the lines are being drawn so harshly, but we CAN'T agree. It's not going to happen. This is a true conflict here and for my part I will remain vigilant in fighting the fight that I believe in. End of Rant. Back to the topic.

that's the thing... there's a difference between our current republicans and people who are politically conservative. our current republicans are not politically conservative, which is why they're called neo-cons. traditionally those who are politically conservative (or right-winged) are in favor of small government. it's quite obvious that this is not the case with our current republicans who have probably given more power to the federal government than any other congress/president in our history.

[HartfordTycoon]

that's the thing... there's a difference between our current republicans and people who are politically conservative. our current republicans are not politically conservative, which is why they're called neo-cons. traditionally those who are politically conservative (or right-winged) are in favor of small government. it's quite obvious that this is not the case with our current republicans who have probably given more power to the federal government than any other congress/president in our history.

OK, that's true. The Neo Cons are one of the biggest threats to the unity of this country since the civil war, with their leader "The Almighty Decider" (Divider)

[jcrc]

the way i'm thinking, no one pays much more into it than they currently do and businesses pay less into it. the government needs to adjust their spending. welfare abuse is too rampant and easy to do. foreign aid spending is higher than i would like to see it, as is defense spending. government spending on education and infrastructure is too low because of things like the billions we're spending on iraq (which is a waste of our country's resources).

if this were to work (i am not necessarily for a nationalized health care but more of a socialized state health care system that the federal gov't will help subsidize a bit), it would reduce the burden on everyone. the problem is, the people who can't get health care are suffering from illnesses that many people have cured easily. they pass these on, increasing the medical expenses for people who can afford it and getting more people who can't afford it sick and stuck. they get treated at hospitals without paying, which gets passed down to those who can afford to pay (indirectly of course). if everyone had coverage, it would be less of a burden on everyone and if everyone had coverage, we'd all be able to receive care in a timely manner and the spread of illnesses wouldn't be as bad, especially in poor neighborhoods.

but because our current government thinks that spending billions of dollars on a losing battle in iraq is a good investment of our time, money, people, and other resources, the budgets will never shift to pay for things that need it more (like education). instead, they pass this fake law that forces states to pay more for education when they couldn't pay enough for education before the law was passed. the government, right now, is backwards.

socialism isn't all bad either.

Even before Iraq's mess that is costing us billions, it would have been impossible without drastic spending cut or major tax hike. To complicate the matter, we are already deep in national debts, and our unfunded social security will go belly up in the near future. You just need to look at Federal government's tax collection and expenditure to know there is no easy way out of current budget problems nevermind taking on another expensive proposition. Bill Clinton won his first term on promise of healthcare reform, the first agenda of his administration was an universal healthcare plan. It didn't even make it to the Democratic controlled Congress for a vote.

I disagree universal healthcare will reduce the burden for everyone. There is just no credible study to support your claim. While universal healthcare will reduce visits to emergency rooms, I can't imagine the saving will offset the cost of enrolling 45 million people. I am not sure what illnesses you have in mind that are being spread, most of the sicknesses affecting us today are not communicable by casual contact.

Let's put it this way, if universal healthcare reduce the burden for everyone, including large corporations, why are they not for it? We all know politicians are in the pockets of big business, right? You would have think we can get have universal healthcare no problem if big business is behind it.

[runawayjim]

Even before Iraq's mess that is costing us billions, it would have been impossible without drastic spending cut or major tax hike. To complicate the matter, we are already deep in national debts, and our unfunded social security will go belly up in the near future. You just need to look at Federal government's tax collection and expenditure to know there is no easy way out of current budget problems nevermind taking on another expensive proposition. Bill Clinton won his first term on promise of healthcare reform, the first agenda of his administration was an universal healthcare plan. It didn't even make it to the Democratic controlled Congress for a vote.

I disagree universal healthcare will reduce the burden for everyone. There is just no credible study to support your claim. While universal healthcare will reduce visits to emergency rooms, I can't imagine the saving will offset the cost of enrolling 45 million people. I am not sure what illnesses you have in mind that are being spread, most of the sicknesses affecting us today are not communicable by casual contact.

Let's put it this way, if universal healthcare reduce the burden for everyone, including large corporations, why are they not for it? We all know politicians are in the pockets of big business, right? You would have think we can get have universal healthcare no problem if big business is behind it.

health care lobbyists. health care is a multi billion dollar industry. they've got big guns.