chasteh

Never fear, A mnealtx will always be here.

>Never said "all". Never in insinuated it. "No, no confusion. Modern Democrate = progresive = solicalists. Nothing confusing about that." Actually, you did.

"They want us to have light bulbs, but they have to tell us which ones we should/can use. We can have cars but, they have to get the gas milage they aprove of. Health care? first step to telling us which food we can eat cause if we get fat it harms to collective. We also may be too old for a life saving treatment. Or like in OR you cant get life saving drugs but they will pay for the DR and drugs for the Dr assited killing yourself." Were you going to show us how all democrats are progressives and thus socialists? Or were you, at some point, going to stop leading us on a red herring long enough so that we could get back towards your statement?

Says the school bus mechanic. Who pays you to work on those school buses, again? As if "working for it" was only a hallmark of conservativism. Brilliant response, again.

>No, no confusion. Modern Democrate = progresive = solicalists. Nothing confusing about that edit: Sorry, I just had to re-do the spelling on your post. Solicalists? I have to say, I like your style. That made me laugh. >>No, no confusion. Modern Democrats = progressive = socialists. Nothing confusing about that That is like saying: All humans are male, and all males are white. Or All conservatives are Bush supporters, and all Bush supporters are crazy religious people. Thank you for supplying us with a brilliant display of a hasty generalization.

>Tell me. Looking at your registration date leads me to believe you may have been or are one of those paid to support Obama on line. Are you one of those people? What? First of all, November 30th was 26 days after his landslide victory. He could start doing that now, but it won't be so critical for a couple more years. You might say: Well you are here to support democratic legislation! And then I would say: I said I didn't support the democratic congressmembers, or the entirety of thi bill they proposed, either. Assuming I were an Obama supporter, don't you think I would try harder at justifying his policies than that? No, you wouldn't.

>I thought that was what you meant by selling your soul? Nuh uh. Now that I think about it, what I meant by it kindof didn't make sense. >Not Really. So you were in the Air Force. I thought about that for a while. Not for me. Maybe when one of those justified wars comes along again i'll join.

Can't. Don't want to take money from the government. Or does that not count? Were you in the military?

>Not just no, but hell no? LoL. Oh man. I guess I wasn't expecting that. >The healthcare field is so full of bureaucratic over-regulation (both from the government and the insurance companies) that I'd have trouble saying there's much free market influence at all, especially on a macro level. Ok, so after eliminating the regulations, which we still need to consider each of them to be removable, and then we have to answer for their policies*. The only thing we have outside of market influence is government regulation to get insurance companies to change their policies and prices, is it not? In other news, I wonder if selling my soul would make it so that I could afford law school, as opposed to just being ready for it.

>The system is basically stacked to favor them, largely because it was created at the lobbying behest of similarly situated corporations. Ok. Maybe you could show how Hyatt hotels and Atlantic aviation, FBOs has done this. There are examples of smaller resorts out there that rival Hyatt's resorts. I am sure, as a hotel, that they treat their employees like shit also. Hotels pride themselves on subordinating their employees to guests. That is how they work. - Oh yea, and the incentives I had available could hardly be comparable to the amount of work I had to do as I was "promoted."

> It's more like virtually everyone So that means everyone has the means to do so. We'll have to hold you to that when the next beurocratic apocolypse occurs - thus allowing libertarians (another) chance in history to "make it right, the free-market way." >How are you defining the term capital? What I mean, entirely, is that: does free-marketism genuinely set the stage so that anyone can buy health insurance? Or does it restrict w ho can buy it in the same way that it only allows the affluent to purchase expensive things? Under your view, can we realistically say that more people would be insured? (Does a simple "yes" here suffice, or do we need examples?) >I think there is a way that every person can purchase some amount of health care (that's distinct from health insurance--the two are not interchangeable). So, we should do away with "insurance" unless we can totally be aware of the policy. I would have to look at this option further. I have paid for health care on my own, several times, and I have found the inurance option to be far, far less expensive - considering my broken/dislocated shoulder would have cost exponentially more without the insurance package. How do you propose the costs of health care be reduced? Hasn't the free-market done everything it can to make that price affordable? I know I can't afford it. I can't even afford health insurance on my own, and I have quite a few qualifications to boot. >The key to controlling costs is being able to make rational decisions about care. In our current system, that's virtually impossible because all of the information needed to make those decisions is hidden from people/patients/consumers. So, by eliminating ambiguous insurance policies, we allow free market forces to take hold again? Can we safely say that that is what has inflated costs for us? Is that really it?

>As a generalization, you're right. There are definitely counter-examples of companies that realize good people are their most important resource, and cultivate them accordingly (Google springs to mind, for example). Yea yea and some base jumping firms out there treat people otherwise, or so I hear. >The major problem is that the larger a company is, the more leverage it has to lobby the government for special benefits Sure. Let's not, however, assume that the only way a large company can exist is through lobbying the government for more money. I think, although many businesses have done this, we still have a ways to go to say that even most mid-to large sized businesses have done this. ( I say mid to large because I can't get myself to say that there has been a major corporation that at some point hasn't lobbied the government for special benefits. While this is a factor, I don't think it is close to the cause of employee mistreatment.) (edit) Even you admitted that my (or who was it?) manager's practices were a complete disaster. The business I was working for at that time is not among those businesses receiving funds from the government. It was just another giant American business, with a giant beurocracy of managers and policies.

What do I mean? I mean: do you think there are only a select few who deserve to have health insurance? Similiar to: do you think there are only a select few who deserve to have private property? The key similarity here is that only the person who has employed capital successfully enough would be deserving of those two. Do you think this way? Or do you think that there is, in fact, a way each and every person can realistically afford health care coverage - just that we haven't employed those means yet?

>Libertarians see an excessively powerful (and in some senses corrupt) government that is takes from the taxpayers and rewards it's supporters with the money. Sure. >Socialists see a corporate lobby that basically dictates policy to the government, to benefit it, at the expense of the common man. This is false. You confuse the modern democrat with "socialists." Did you ever watch that video I sent you on PM? It would completely negate what you just said. Of course, we have done a major disservice to socialism by confusing it with a beurocratic mess. You seem to be confusing arguments against authoritarian police states with socialism. One is used as a means of exploiting man for beurocracy, and the other one holds that there shall never be a situation in which man exploits another man for his own benefit. That is actually far, far closer to libertarianism that most libertarians would care to admit - thus it is much easier to confuse socialism with fascism, and attack it as such.

I'm reading it now... well in a second.... end of sentence. What do you propose is the solution, be it not through employment, and not throught the U.S. government? Are there only a select few who "deserve" to have health insurance, in a similar way to how there are only a select few who "deserve" to have private property?

I will try the best I can to take your comments out of my post. >no fantasy that is my world It just isn't the case for most businesses. I applaud you for treating your workers well. I wish it was like this for larger businesses and all small businesses. >ok so they are not disposable?? I don't think they are, but most businesses do. >Maybe some day my company will be big enough and I won't have to give a shit about the workers Maybe. Don't do it. Don't be the scum of firms out there. You're doing great, if what you said about your operation is true. >Paying them well and ghaving good working conditions does not mean I don't "crack the whip" once in a while. You should always be cracking the whip! Do you see a natural smile? Eliminate it! Do you have security guards in your firm? Use them as happiness screening agents. Make sure they are watching the cameras, and immediately reporting incidents of personal pleasure. This must be stopped for you to really be wealthy!

>I really want to know where the federal government gets the power to tell private business what it can pay its employees. Does it? I thought the state gov. does.... >And don't quote some stupid court ruling. They don't change the constitution and what it means. (laughing) Yea. Just like each interpretation of the 2nd amendment and 4th amendment don't either. Stupid court rulings! Being at the head of interpreting legislation, and all!

>Wow what a crock Maybe in Rick's "treat an employee as a human being" fantasy island it is. Unfortunately, most businessmen don't feel this way at all. Human labor is viewed merely as a means of production, just like capital is. If they can produce, they fit the job. >It is my interest to keep my good hard working employees happy and comfortable Actually it does typically fit in your self-interest to do this, as it often spikes productivity levels and the "sellability" of the business - your workers go greater lengths to promote you, as opposed to hating you. Unfortunately, the larger the business is - the less likely it is to consider its employees humans. >Maybe I am just a bad entrepreneur but i believe in rewarding hard work and I think you might find many business owners feel the sqame way Sure sure. Tom Aiello apparently went to the same school of "rational business owners." You guys are nuts, treating employees like humans. Seriously, crack a whip every once in a while. What were you thinking? Happy workers. Shit. >How many business's have you run? As far as the tax man is concerned, I am running one right now. I have also worked for several firms, of varying size and in different industries. It seems like the larger it is, the further away its owner is, and the more managers it hires - the worse off its employees are. "Get another job if you don't like it there!" Hell, you almost might think it is important for the employer to treat its workers fairly.

>I changed the word "companies" to "industry". Does that clear up the confusion as to the meaning? >Sure they can--from the insurance industry who lobbied for the bill. Everyone is required to purchase their product. Now we have a different issue to handle. Here the general libertarian opposition to socializing and industry applies. I still don't necessarily support forcing people to purchase it. However, I do support insuring more people than "getting a job" has done for us, especially today.

Mmmmm or we just stop electing the same people over and over again. Or we stop electing people who are so submissive that they will sell themselves to the highest bidder for their vote. That might do it too. Of course, my option requires people to have integrity. And we all know, congresspersons (lawyers) don't necessarily have integrity.

Maybe you should delete post 76, then. >Any idea what percentage of insurance companies didn't lobby congress on this bill? What percentage of policies are currently written by the ones who did? Any expectation as to what percentage of the new policies required by this bill will be written by those companies? Wasn't that up to you to provide, considering your statement from #76? Do you really think there won't be other firms, aside from those lobbying for the bill, who can provide a qualifying level of insurance? > don't think I ever said big, scary socialism was responsible for it. >It's more like big, scary fascism. Good. Close enough. I don't recall supporting the creation of a law that requires people to have it and suffer fines by not having it. My understanding was that this bill would be far less of a "gotcha!" than it has turned out to be. How could I expect different, after seeing this thing. It is big enough that I could barely load it on my computer, and I have a very fast computer. I also don't recall supporting the Patriot act either. It seems that no matter who the majority is, congress just seems to be out of control. Oh yea, don't forget to delete post 76.

>Simply put - Tax deductions = Legal But tax evasion is not. >Illegal Immigrationj = ILLEGAL. How scary! Let's find a way to equate it to something far more serious than it really is! FEAR! MURDER! RUN! >It's really not that hard to understand. Correct. You seem to be eager to accuse me of supporting law-breaking. But wait, if he supports breaking laws, then he supports murder! And if he supports murder, he is a horrible person. No one wants to support horrible murderers! Oh, the horror!

>It doesn't have to lay out _who_ you have to buy it from. It says you _must_ buy it. That means you _are_ going to have to buy it from someone who actually sells it. Ok. But wasn't the point you were trying to make that the bill limits who you can buy it from? >so that you will be forced to purchase their product. "Their" being health insurance companies? I understand that. But you were restricting the health insurance universe of discourse that the bill limits us to is restricted to the companies you mentioned. Are you only saying that it restricts us to buying insurance from simply anyone who can supply it? I don't have such a problem with that. You, I thought, had a pretty interesting point about limiting options to specific firms, but I guess you meant something else. >In this case the "health insurance industry," that being, specifically, the group of all health insurance companies offering policies in the USA, are on the verge of passing a law forcing every single American to purchase their products. Ok. So you do have a problem with the government requiring everyone to purchase health insurance in general. I see how your opposed to it, but I don't necessarily agree. If it made one specific business far more money than another, I would see a problem. >Now, as a thought problem... Ok. Yep. >Sure they can--from the insurance companies who lobbied for the bill. It s ure looked like you were stating that the bill restricted who you could buy the plans from, considering you mentioned "who lobbied for the bill" not "all American health insurance companies." >You seem awfully eager to defend an industry which has successfully lobbied Congress to abuse it's power on their behalf, rewarding them with a massive windfall of profit from new customers who are the very people least able to afford it. Not at all. The point here is to make sure every person in the U.S. has health insurance, as opposed to just using "go get a job and get insurance with it" as an excuse. I fully understand and agree with your objections concerning using the force of congress to make people buy insurance. That wasn't my goal, but you seem to think it was. >This seems very out of character from your other views. Read above. I don't necessarily agree with the big, scary socialism that you say is responsible for ths bill. I also didn't say that I agreed with every provision of the bill, either. >Let me be the first to say "WTF?" Are you just blinded by the fact that the industry lobbyists have bought the democrats this time around? Scary huh. Its been a while since we could strictly blame a conservative congress and president for the same. >the industry lobbyists have bought the democrats this time around I also didn't say that I support those members of congress, either. I think you and I can easily agree that they represent a form of socialism that is far closer to a "bad" form of socialism than the kind Marx or Fromm consider socialism to be. >Seriously: are you really not understanding what I'm saying, or are you just trying to create an argument? You mean a quarrell, or a fight? No. Remember, you were constructing the argument, not me. Judging by post #76, your goal was far different than it appears now. (Far less objectionable)

There are actually terminators that are already walking around our DZ. The way we detect them is by hanging a giant magnet i the middle of the packing floor that dangles from a six foot rope. (Our ceiling is high enough so that we won't hit anyone on the head with it) When one walks by, the magnet moves BIG time. And then it starts... We pay particular attention to anyone who visits Disney World. http://disneyworld.disney.go.com/ The deals are so unbelievably good, that almost anyone would be willing to go. Don't fall into the trap! They are using great deals as a ploy to attract you and yours into their holdings. The terminators we have found all had small, almost invisible signs of happiness - which came in the form of park entrance stamps on their left hands. If you or anyone at your DZ finds one, run!

Well your defense, were you to be one of those conservatives, would be that you end up paying more for or contributing more towards the implementation of that infrastructure and the methods by which you maintain it. So in that sense, if you were avoiding paying taxes, then yes, it would be just as problematic. It would be pennies to the dollar compared to tax evasion by a middle class member.