Smitty, This is the same guy who couldn’t figure out how to do his taxes, hence his new name Turbo Tax Tim. He is in charge of the IRS by the way. This is the quality of help the Federal Government has and we are actually paying his salary. Should never have been appointed to start with, but they rammed his appointment through.
“the law helps small businesses offset health care costs through a tax credit that is worth up to 35 percent of health insurance premiums and is available immediately. This credit is scheduled to rise to 50 percent starting in 2014”
Gee Timmy, where does the 35% and 50% tax credit come from?
Scary when the man in charge of the US Treasury can understand so little about basic math. How can adding more people (especially sick people) to the rolls of the insured, while having everyone else pay for it (it has to be paid for)reduce our health care cost? Does he believe that the Act will require all those uninsured people to pay their own true cost? If that’s the case what are all the subsidies for, and who pays for the subsidies?
Does he think the $1,000 per worker will go just vanish because people have free or subsidized insurance? Adding more people to Medicaid won’t decrease the cost of health insurance Does he really believe that??
Sarah, I think Jim is on track. You can’t add 30 million people who presumably were not previously insured because of some health issue or that they were too poor to pay for it. Either way, its going to cost the govt (i.e. the taxpayer) more, not less, to cover those people. The CDO’s numbers are useless, as they have been massaged to death. Simple logic will tell you that we will all be WISHING for just a $1000 increase in the near term future! If the avg cost of a family plan is $9,000 pre-ACA, and estimated to rise 30% post-ACA, that’s a $2,700 increase. I personally experienced a $2,500 increase in my annual premium for 2011 and the entire bill has not kicked in yet.
The free market system has not served the US citizens well regarding health care costs but that does not mean we need such ill concieved massive litigation. The free market system can work and it can solve the problem. Legislation should do more to bring competition into the fold with certain regulatory mandates such as guaranteed renewals and cross border competition. In addition, legal reform needs to be accomplished and certain mandatory loss ratio’s need to be developed where excess profits are taxed if niot used for rate reduction.
Yeah, but…but…but…what about death panels and..and..and socialists and commies and nazis and immigrants and little green men from Mars and rationing….and…and you know, all that bad stuff that…that…that the secret non-American, really a Muslim terrorist plant President has in his grand plan to ruin the Nation? I mean, can the geniuses Beck and Limbaugh be be wrong about everthing? I think not and any blackboard proves it.
My firm has 111 full time employees and my cost of health insurance went up an additiopnal $50,000 this year, said increase having nothing to do with adverse claim development. Unless the law of supply and demand is “repealed” how on earth can the US add 30 million users without a proportional increase in the number of doctors? The cost of health care can only rise under the present scenario.
For those who say this will drive up cost are looking at a very narrow view of the situation. Do you think these people were just curling up in the corner and dying and not going to doctors? No, they go to the ER because of the flu and then don’t pay their bill. We are already paying for these people one way or anther through higher fees to off-set those who don’t pay their bills or through taxes that support programs to subside medical care. By adding these people into the system, we are dealing with the cost issue head on instead of on the back end like the current system. ‘Once of prevention is worth a pound of cure’ ring a bell to anyone? Is the new health care plan the end all be all, no. But its a step in the direction of trying to make it more equitable. Do we really want to be a nation that says your too poor to live? Don’t stand in the way unless you have a better idea of how to address the issues.
In my humble opinion, Geithner’s remarks should come as no surprise to anyone. And, ultimately, we need to stop being outraged by things that should not come as a surprise.
We need to get beyond the platitudes, speeches, buzz words / phrases and supposed indignation about the conduct of our federal government and those in positions of power and influence within the government because, at the end of the day, Washington DC operates exactly the way we want it to operate.
Thinking otherwise is not only naive, but the exact reason we find ourselves in constant battle with the very government that was established by our founding fathers to protect our liberty and freedom while holding our republic together.
It will not stop until we decide it must stop and, therefore, make it stop. Have we forgotten that we and the States in which we reside are in charge? Very simply, we have allowed and continue to allow the inmates to run the asylum.
While we’re on the topic of naivete, we also have to come to grips with the fact that the political parties are NOT the answer. Politicians have allegiance to themselves first and politial party second with the American people a distant third if they are even considered at all. The faces and names can change (as happened in November), but the result will likely be the same. I think far too many people view government spending and control as a problem only when they are done by the other party.
We can decry the evils of Obama, Pelosi and Reid while singing the praises of Boehner, Cantor, McConnell and Paul, but I think we will be extremely disappointed in the end when we discover there was little or no meaningful change. This isn’t just about some spending cuts or controlling tax rates. Chumps and suckers will scream victory from the rooftops when tax rates stay the same and/or we cut $100B from federal spending.
If we really want to transform our federal government, it is going to take massive changes including elimination of entire departments (e.g. EPA, Energy, Education), simplification of the tax code by eliminating tens of thousands of pages from it, transformation of social programs and the states finally standing up and saying “enough is enough” to a federal government operating outside the bounds of its enumerated powers.
And, yes, the American people will have to stop complaining and get off the government dole themselves. And I’m talking about everyone including corporate cronies, recipients of subsidies, recipients of targeted tax break, etc. Plain and simple, our social programs are fiscal suicide, which means we are going to have to do the unthinkable….fend for ourselves to a much greater degree. In other words, we all have our hands out to the same government we seem to endlessly complain about.
We have what amounts to a rather simple choice. We can either live in an environment of freedom of liberty, which requires self-sufficiency, rugged individualism and the need to help our fellow man on a voluntary basis (rather than have the feds steal money from us in the name of social justice or fairness) or we can live in servitude under an oppressive federal government while “enjoying” the fruits of collectivism rather than our own labor.
There is a big difference between having a perceived mandate and the obligation to bee responsible in the enactment of legislation. Billions have been spent in gearing up for implementing the new health care law. New plans were filed with the Commissioner in every state. Seminars have been and are being held all over America to educate people on how to make it work.
I am a registered Republican voter. Nevertheless, I have to hold the actions of the House as irresponsible. They do not have a mandate to scuttle the ship. They have a mandate to make it work, not just for them, but for all Americans.
If we are to scuttle universal health care, let us first cuttle the health plan Members of Congress have voted for themselves, which is arguably the best plan in America.
Think! Gentlemen. Think. There is nothing responsible in what you did yesterday. You decry the deficit, then add to it in a universal way.
To Buckeye, Show me one sucessful industrized country that depends entirely on self-sufficiency and rugged indvidualism. There are none ecause it’s doesn’t work. In a civilized capitalistic system, by it’s very nautre, the systme generates winners and losers. How does the system deal with those who are at the bottom end? When our country has the educational inequities it currently has, millions, though little fault of their’s will end up at the bottom of economic food chain. Maybe you want to live is a society without regard for those folks, but not me.
Fred, It is not about disregarding them and I never claimed it was. We all have to be kind and charitable to our fellow man. However, when government gets in way of success and actually punishes and demonizes success, it makes it much more difficult to achieve.
Capitalism by its very nature is the most compassionate economic system the world has ever know. It provides human beings with a heck of a lot more opportunity to succeed than the utopian systems worshipped by the left. One can fail in a capitalistic system and still have ample opportunity to succeed. Outcomes are not certainly not guaranteed, but opportunities are plentiful
In addition, when the government is confiscating income / wealth and regulating the daylights out of the producers, the pie is smaller and there is less to go around (i.e. choking supply and economic growth).
One of the fallacy’s of the left’s argument is they paint conservatives as evil rich or lacking in compassion. Conservatives are definitely concerned about their fellow man (I would argue much more concerned by the bleeding heart left). It is not and never has been about whether we should help our fellow man, but rather the best way to go about it.
This conservative will go to his grave knowing the individual choice to be charitable or lend a helping hand is at the core of true virtue and charity. Attempting to rely on government to dictate winners and losers is not only fruitless, but has been proven to be folly.
And since you brought up inequities in education, hasn’t the heavy hand of the federal government worked wonders in the public education system over the last 50 years? In my fine state, some urban districts can’t graduate more than 25% of these poor kids in spite of spending $15,000+ per student while other districts have stellar performance for less than 2/3 the cost.
By the way, I attended a public school in an urban area and sat in the same classroom as kids from all races and income levels. I, like a lot of my classmates, grew up in a blue collar middle class household. Not a single person in my family (past or present) had gone to college, so I could have packed it all in and simply been happy with being on the bottom of the economic food chain.
However, I made what I think were some very good choices and decisions, which has resulted in some personal success. Other classmates did the same. However, others (some black, some white, some poor, some rather well off) made very bad choices and decisions, which resulted in a lack of success.
We’re all dealt a hand that can be changed. It takes some sacrifice and responsibility, but the hand can be changed and significantly so in many instances. We should never abandon those less fortunate than us, but some people are simply going to have a different lot in life. One’s lot in life is determined to some extent, though, by his / her choices and decisions. Compassion should not be simply a matter of equalizing outcomes.
It should come as no surprise that Geithner made these remarks. Every position he’s had has been with government or a firm that exclusively contracts with governments. He understands markets about as well as a drunk understands sobriety. It’s amazing how easily his type spend other peoples’ money.
Response to Buckeye, By the way, I’m also a Buckeye. I have to take exception to your claim that capitalism is the most compassionate system. Study history, child labor and the sweat shops of the 1900’s, gave birht to the labor movement in this country. Today, look at worker abuses taking place around the world in order to supply us with inexpensive stuff. Tell the 55 year old worker who’s been laid off after 25 years service through no fault of their’s, can’t find another job due to his or her age, having gone thropugh their savings, had to sell their house and are now living with the kids. Nice. What about the cleck who checks you out the the grocery or dept. store who makes $8 or $9 an hour with no benefits. What about the hairdresser to has to work nights (second job) just to get health insurance. Buckeye, you must be in the ownership class v a worker bee.
Well, Fred, we’re probably going to have to agree to disagree. So, tell me….what is the human condition in countries with socialist, communist or facsist regimes in power? Reasonable people should be able to agree that it is not very good.
Working conditions in the U.S. have improved greatly over the past 100 years because of capitalism not in spite of it. The free enterprise system and the entrepreneurs within it are the reason working conditions improve. In a free enterprise system, not only does business compete for consumers, it competes for employees. Therefore, the competition for good employees will naturally lead to better working conditions. All the while, the quest for profit and success within a competitive environment result in advancement of the human condition.
The situations you describe above could be considered by many to be unfortunate. Many people (even those currently in the “ownership class”) have had economic setbacks and have worked at relatively low-paying jobs. That doesn’t mean you are stuck, though, or even all that unhappy in the meantime.
Those who lose their job after 25 years and have very little prospect for another job represents an extremely sad story. Anyone going through it certainly deserves our compassion. Is it possible, though, that the family solution you describe following the economic setback is not horrible? It is obviously not the ideal situation or at least the one they expected, but a family coming together to take care of each other might turn out to be a great and wonderful experience.
Regarding the other examples you reference, is it possible the grocery clerk or department store employee are working in their chosen profession? Maybe they like what they do and are quite happy with their lives. If they really have a desire to do something different, they could choose to change professions, train for another profession or take advantage of educational opportunities.
Also, is it possible the hairdresser is working in his / her dream job? Who are we do judge the profession that others choose? I don’t know your lot in life, but maybe we should simply let people choose their own way in life and not judge them for said choice. Maybe, Fred, you are, in fact, part of the ownership class or looking down your nose at others since you seem very quick to have a negative view of someone else’s lot in life or condescend someone who chooses to work in a profession you find unattractive.
My grandpa was a tire builder for 40+ years and lived a very modest life. He was dead by the time he was 65, but he had a great life and was thankful for his job in the sweat shop. He was proud of his ability to raise a support a large family.
My other grandpa was a cookware salesman, which some might think was a menial and less than attractive job. However, he loved it, took great pride in it and might have been the best cookware salesman in the world (at least I thought so). He lived a great life and died a very happy man.
My dad was a laid off tire builder. Instead of packing it in, he took a job as a milkman and then a soda pop delivery driver. He then went through an apprenticeship program and became an electrician at the same company who laid him off as a tire builder several years prior. He loved his job in the sweat shop and has lived a great life. He and my mother, who worked a sweat shop job as a happy homemaker, are living very happily in retirement.
I was 19 years old and was working in a steel mill (sweat shop to you, I guess). I loved the job, but was laid off. I could have packed it in, but chose to go back to school to get a degree. While in school I worked several jobs: print shop laborer, lawn maintenance, building maintenance, cabinet mfr, security guard, inventory company, parking boot attendant. The bottom line was I was willing to do what it took to get through school so I could improve my lot in life. And, by the way, I am proud of the jobs I had and am a better person for having those jobs.
My point, Fred, is capitalism and free society (both political and economic freedom) provide ample opportunity for those who choose to take advantage of it. Yes, some fail. However, the system that might result in failure is the same one that is still there to provide opportunity and the potential for succes.
It is also important to keep in mind that people define success based on their own wants and needs. Again, maybe the hairdresser loves his / her job and is more than happy to work a second job in order to provide the family with security and, yes, allow him / her to live the dream. Maybe the department store clerk has a servant’s heart and loves to sell clothes. In other words, they might get up every day to what they view as a glorious day, go off to a job that provides for them and their family and sleep well at night with pride in their accomplishments.
Here’s what the Healthcare act did for me.
My heath care premium went up 15% as of Jan 1st. I’m retired, I work out, I’m healthy, I go to the Dr’s office 2 times a year for a check up and for all this I pay close to $15,000 a year. So this Healthcare act simply cost me more money for being healthy. By the time I get sick and die I’ll be on medicare so I’ve paid health insurers a TON of money for all the years and never got a cent in return.OK I’m lucky. Could have gone the otherway. But, never the less, there are more “well” people paying into a flawed medical insurance system than sick people (who ultimately get canceled if they are sick)so where is the money going? Into the shareholder and executive pockets. The healthcare act should be more about opening the system up to cross border competition, to limit rate increases based on sensible and responsible loss ratio’s, to limit cancellation provisions,to provide standard health insurance policy wording as a minimum coverage benchmark, to set a minimum underwriting standard for all applicants. Such amendments would reduce costs to the private industry over the long term. We then can study the best ways to cover those that don’t qualify or do not have healthcare available.But forcing 30 million people to buy health insurance without changing the way the health insurers do business is doing nothing to control costs and will only drive rates up. Lets put the horse in front of the cart this time around.
Is this a joke, has some teenage prankster hijacked the facebook account of Geithner?
If he really said that crap the guy should be manually removed, he should be in jail.
Smitty, This is the same guy who couldn’t figure out how to do his taxes, hence his new name Turbo Tax Tim. He is in charge of the IRS by the way. This is the quality of help the Federal Government has and we are actually paying his salary. Should never have been appointed to start with, but they rammed his appointment through.
“the law helps small businesses offset health care costs through a tax credit that is worth up to 35 percent of health insurance premiums and is available immediately. This credit is scheduled to rise to 50 percent starting in 2014”
Gee Timmy, where does the 35% and 50% tax credit come from?
Scary when the man in charge of the US Treasury can understand so little about basic math. How can adding more people (especially sick people) to the rolls of the insured, while having everyone else pay for it (it has to be paid for)reduce our health care cost? Does he believe that the Act will require all those uninsured people to pay their own true cost? If that’s the case what are all the subsidies for, and who pays for the subsidies?
Does he think the $1,000 per worker will go just vanish because people have free or subsidized insurance? Adding more people to Medicaid won’t decrease the cost of health insurance Does he really believe that??
Jim, do you understand the relationship between insurance cost and the size of the risk pool it covers? This is Insurance Journal, you know.
Sarah, I think Jim is on track. You can’t add 30 million people who presumably were not previously insured because of some health issue or that they were too poor to pay for it. Either way, its going to cost the govt (i.e. the taxpayer) more, not less, to cover those people. The CDO’s numbers are useless, as they have been massaged to death. Simple logic will tell you that we will all be WISHING for just a $1000 increase in the near term future! If the avg cost of a family plan is $9,000 pre-ACA, and estimated to rise 30% post-ACA, that’s a $2,700 increase. I personally experienced a $2,500 increase in my annual premium for 2011 and the entire bill has not kicked in yet.
The free market system has not served the US citizens well regarding health care costs but that does not mean we need such ill concieved massive litigation. The free market system can work and it can solve the problem. Legislation should do more to bring competition into the fold with certain regulatory mandates such as guaranteed renewals and cross border competition. In addition, legal reform needs to be accomplished and certain mandatory loss ratio’s need to be developed where excess profits are taxed if niot used for rate reduction.
“Repealing….would be bad for business and bad for the economy.” Um…WHAT?
Yeah, but…but…but…what about death panels and..and..and socialists and commies and nazis and immigrants and little green men from Mars and rationing….and…and you know, all that bad stuff that…that…that the secret non-American, really a Muslim terrorist plant President has in his grand plan to ruin the Nation? I mean, can the geniuses Beck and Limbaugh be be wrong about everthing? I think not and any blackboard proves it.
My firm has 111 full time employees and my cost of health insurance went up an additiopnal $50,000 this year, said increase having nothing to do with adverse claim development. Unless the law of supply and demand is “repealed” how on earth can the US add 30 million users without a proportional increase in the number of doctors? The cost of health care can only rise under the present scenario.
For those who say this will drive up cost are looking at a very narrow view of the situation. Do you think these people were just curling up in the corner and dying and not going to doctors? No, they go to the ER because of the flu and then don’t pay their bill. We are already paying for these people one way or anther through higher fees to off-set those who don’t pay their bills or through taxes that support programs to subside medical care. By adding these people into the system, we are dealing with the cost issue head on instead of on the back end like the current system. ‘Once of prevention is worth a pound of cure’ ring a bell to anyone? Is the new health care plan the end all be all, no. But its a step in the direction of trying to make it more equitable. Do we really want to be a nation that says your too poor to live? Don’t stand in the way unless you have a better idea of how to address the issues.
tsk…tsk….liberals..
In my humble opinion, Geithner’s remarks should come as no surprise to anyone. And, ultimately, we need to stop being outraged by things that should not come as a surprise.
We need to get beyond the platitudes, speeches, buzz words / phrases and supposed indignation about the conduct of our federal government and those in positions of power and influence within the government because, at the end of the day, Washington DC operates exactly the way we want it to operate.
Thinking otherwise is not only naive, but the exact reason we find ourselves in constant battle with the very government that was established by our founding fathers to protect our liberty and freedom while holding our republic together.
It will not stop until we decide it must stop and, therefore, make it stop. Have we forgotten that we and the States in which we reside are in charge? Very simply, we have allowed and continue to allow the inmates to run the asylum.
While we’re on the topic of naivete, we also have to come to grips with the fact that the political parties are NOT the answer. Politicians have allegiance to themselves first and politial party second with the American people a distant third if they are even considered at all. The faces and names can change (as happened in November), but the result will likely be the same. I think far too many people view government spending and control as a problem only when they are done by the other party.
We can decry the evils of Obama, Pelosi and Reid while singing the praises of Boehner, Cantor, McConnell and Paul, but I think we will be extremely disappointed in the end when we discover there was little or no meaningful change. This isn’t just about some spending cuts or controlling tax rates. Chumps and suckers will scream victory from the rooftops when tax rates stay the same and/or we cut $100B from federal spending.
If we really want to transform our federal government, it is going to take massive changes including elimination of entire departments (e.g. EPA, Energy, Education), simplification of the tax code by eliminating tens of thousands of pages from it, transformation of social programs and the states finally standing up and saying “enough is enough” to a federal government operating outside the bounds of its enumerated powers.
And, yes, the American people will have to stop complaining and get off the government dole themselves. And I’m talking about everyone including corporate cronies, recipients of subsidies, recipients of targeted tax break, etc. Plain and simple, our social programs are fiscal suicide, which means we are going to have to do the unthinkable….fend for ourselves to a much greater degree. In other words, we all have our hands out to the same government we seem to endlessly complain about.
We have what amounts to a rather simple choice. We can either live in an environment of freedom of liberty, which requires self-sufficiency, rugged individualism and the need to help our fellow man on a voluntary basis (rather than have the feds steal money from us in the name of social justice or fairness) or we can live in servitude under an oppressive federal government while “enjoying” the fruits of collectivism rather than our own labor.
There is a big difference between having a perceived mandate and the obligation to bee responsible in the enactment of legislation. Billions have been spent in gearing up for implementing the new health care law. New plans were filed with the Commissioner in every state. Seminars have been and are being held all over America to educate people on how to make it work.
I am a registered Republican voter. Nevertheless, I have to hold the actions of the House as irresponsible. They do not have a mandate to scuttle the ship. They have a mandate to make it work, not just for them, but for all Americans.
If we are to scuttle universal health care, let us first cuttle the health plan Members of Congress have voted for themselves, which is arguably the best plan in America.
Think! Gentlemen. Think. There is nothing responsible in what you did yesterday. You decry the deficit, then add to it in a universal way.
To Buckeye, Show me one sucessful industrized country that depends entirely on self-sufficiency and rugged indvidualism. There are none ecause it’s doesn’t work. In a civilized capitalistic system, by it’s very nautre, the systme generates winners and losers. How does the system deal with those who are at the bottom end? When our country has the educational inequities it currently has, millions, though little fault of their’s will end up at the bottom of economic food chain. Maybe you want to live is a society without regard for those folks, but not me.
Fred, It is not about disregarding them and I never claimed it was. We all have to be kind and charitable to our fellow man. However, when government gets in way of success and actually punishes and demonizes success, it makes it much more difficult to achieve.
Capitalism by its very nature is the most compassionate economic system the world has ever know. It provides human beings with a heck of a lot more opportunity to succeed than the utopian systems worshipped by the left. One can fail in a capitalistic system and still have ample opportunity to succeed. Outcomes are not certainly not guaranteed, but opportunities are plentiful
In addition, when the government is confiscating income / wealth and regulating the daylights out of the producers, the pie is smaller and there is less to go around (i.e. choking supply and economic growth).
One of the fallacy’s of the left’s argument is they paint conservatives as evil rich or lacking in compassion. Conservatives are definitely concerned about their fellow man (I would argue much more concerned by the bleeding heart left). It is not and never has been about whether we should help our fellow man, but rather the best way to go about it.
This conservative will go to his grave knowing the individual choice to be charitable or lend a helping hand is at the core of true virtue and charity. Attempting to rely on government to dictate winners and losers is not only fruitless, but has been proven to be folly.
And since you brought up inequities in education, hasn’t the heavy hand of the federal government worked wonders in the public education system over the last 50 years? In my fine state, some urban districts can’t graduate more than 25% of these poor kids in spite of spending $15,000+ per student while other districts have stellar performance for less than 2/3 the cost.
By the way, I attended a public school in an urban area and sat in the same classroom as kids from all races and income levels. I, like a lot of my classmates, grew up in a blue collar middle class household. Not a single person in my family (past or present) had gone to college, so I could have packed it all in and simply been happy with being on the bottom of the economic food chain.
However, I made what I think were some very good choices and decisions, which has resulted in some personal success. Other classmates did the same. However, others (some black, some white, some poor, some rather well off) made very bad choices and decisions, which resulted in a lack of success.
We’re all dealt a hand that can be changed. It takes some sacrifice and responsibility, but the hand can be changed and significantly so in many instances. We should never abandon those less fortunate than us, but some people are simply going to have a different lot in life. One’s lot in life is determined to some extent, though, by his / her choices and decisions. Compassion should not be simply a matter of equalizing outcomes.
It should come as no surprise that Geithner made these remarks. Every position he’s had has been with government or a firm that exclusively contracts with governments. He understands markets about as well as a drunk understands sobriety. It’s amazing how easily his type spend other peoples’ money.
Response to Buckeye, By the way, I’m also a Buckeye. I have to take exception to your claim that capitalism is the most compassionate system. Study history, child labor and the sweat shops of the 1900’s, gave birht to the labor movement in this country. Today, look at worker abuses taking place around the world in order to supply us with inexpensive stuff. Tell the 55 year old worker who’s been laid off after 25 years service through no fault of their’s, can’t find another job due to his or her age, having gone thropugh their savings, had to sell their house and are now living with the kids. Nice. What about the cleck who checks you out the the grocery or dept. store who makes $8 or $9 an hour with no benefits. What about the hairdresser to has to work nights (second job) just to get health insurance. Buckeye, you must be in the ownership class v a worker bee.
Well, Fred, we’re probably going to have to agree to disagree. So, tell me….what is the human condition in countries with socialist, communist or facsist regimes in power? Reasonable people should be able to agree that it is not very good.
Working conditions in the U.S. have improved greatly over the past 100 years because of capitalism not in spite of it. The free enterprise system and the entrepreneurs within it are the reason working conditions improve. In a free enterprise system, not only does business compete for consumers, it competes for employees. Therefore, the competition for good employees will naturally lead to better working conditions. All the while, the quest for profit and success within a competitive environment result in advancement of the human condition.
The situations you describe above could be considered by many to be unfortunate. Many people (even those currently in the “ownership class”) have had economic setbacks and have worked at relatively low-paying jobs. That doesn’t mean you are stuck, though, or even all that unhappy in the meantime.
Those who lose their job after 25 years and have very little prospect for another job represents an extremely sad story. Anyone going through it certainly deserves our compassion. Is it possible, though, that the family solution you describe following the economic setback is not horrible? It is obviously not the ideal situation or at least the one they expected, but a family coming together to take care of each other might turn out to be a great and wonderful experience.
Regarding the other examples you reference, is it possible the grocery clerk or department store employee are working in their chosen profession? Maybe they like what they do and are quite happy with their lives. If they really have a desire to do something different, they could choose to change professions, train for another profession or take advantage of educational opportunities.
Also, is it possible the hairdresser is working in his / her dream job? Who are we do judge the profession that others choose? I don’t know your lot in life, but maybe we should simply let people choose their own way in life and not judge them for said choice. Maybe, Fred, you are, in fact, part of the ownership class or looking down your nose at others since you seem very quick to have a negative view of someone else’s lot in life or condescend someone who chooses to work in a profession you find unattractive.
My grandpa was a tire builder for 40+ years and lived a very modest life. He was dead by the time he was 65, but he had a great life and was thankful for his job in the sweat shop. He was proud of his ability to raise a support a large family.
My other grandpa was a cookware salesman, which some might think was a menial and less than attractive job. However, he loved it, took great pride in it and might have been the best cookware salesman in the world (at least I thought so). He lived a great life and died a very happy man.
My dad was a laid off tire builder. Instead of packing it in, he took a job as a milkman and then a soda pop delivery driver. He then went through an apprenticeship program and became an electrician at the same company who laid him off as a tire builder several years prior. He loved his job in the sweat shop and has lived a great life. He and my mother, who worked a sweat shop job as a happy homemaker, are living very happily in retirement.
I was 19 years old and was working in a steel mill (sweat shop to you, I guess). I loved the job, but was laid off. I could have packed it in, but chose to go back to school to get a degree. While in school I worked several jobs: print shop laborer, lawn maintenance, building maintenance, cabinet mfr, security guard, inventory company, parking boot attendant. The bottom line was I was willing to do what it took to get through school so I could improve my lot in life. And, by the way, I am proud of the jobs I had and am a better person for having those jobs.
My point, Fred, is capitalism and free society (both political and economic freedom) provide ample opportunity for those who choose to take advantage of it. Yes, some fail. However, the system that might result in failure is the same one that is still there to provide opportunity and the potential for succes.
It is also important to keep in mind that people define success based on their own wants and needs. Again, maybe the hairdresser loves his / her job and is more than happy to work a second job in order to provide the family with security and, yes, allow him / her to live the dream. Maybe the department store clerk has a servant’s heart and loves to sell clothes. In other words, they might get up every day to what they view as a glorious day, go off to a job that provides for them and their family and sleep well at night with pride in their accomplishments.
Should employees get healthcare through employers or should employers help them get it through the state exchange? http://www.healthcaretownhall.com/?p=3416
Here’s what the Healthcare act did for me.
My heath care premium went up 15% as of Jan 1st. I’m retired, I work out, I’m healthy, I go to the Dr’s office 2 times a year for a check up and for all this I pay close to $15,000 a year. So this Healthcare act simply cost me more money for being healthy. By the time I get sick and die I’ll be on medicare so I’ve paid health insurers a TON of money for all the years and never got a cent in return.OK I’m lucky. Could have gone the otherway. But, never the less, there are more “well” people paying into a flawed medical insurance system than sick people (who ultimately get canceled if they are sick)so where is the money going? Into the shareholder and executive pockets. The healthcare act should be more about opening the system up to cross border competition, to limit rate increases based on sensible and responsible loss ratio’s, to limit cancellation provisions,to provide standard health insurance policy wording as a minimum coverage benchmark, to set a minimum underwriting standard for all applicants. Such amendments would reduce costs to the private industry over the long term. We then can study the best ways to cover those that don’t qualify or do not have healthcare available.But forcing 30 million people to buy health insurance without changing the way the health insurers do business is doing nothing to control costs and will only drive rates up. Lets put the horse in front of the cart this time around.