What makes you think that they want facts that contradict their beliefs?
--- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, Susan <sailorgirl43@...> wrote:
>
> Business go out of business for a huge variety of reasons.
> Labor costs go up too much due to unions, the product is out dated and more.
> It is the employees fault if they demand so much the company can't make
> money. When that happens people won't invest their money in the company.
>
> I don't want to sound insulting but do you have any idea how business works
> let alone capitalism? I don't have a business degree but know enough to know
> how it works. I really think you need to educate yourself about this
> subject.
>
> On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 10:20 AM, iloveubuntulinux
> <valchaulinux@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > most companies go out of business due to the ineptitude of those running
> > them or under capitalization or corruption. It isn't the fault of employees.
> >
> >
> > --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, "zeus32117"
> > <zeus32117@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Why do you think most companies go out of business?
> > >
> > > --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, "Sheep&Goatlady"
> > springcreek@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Unions allow sub standard employees to keep their jobs? how many union
> > workers do you know? Bad teachers? I guess you know nothing about teaching,,
> > teachers have a contract, and they are renew very often on a yearly basis,
> > > > and you are very wrong about UPS,, you know nothing about them,, One a
> > driver gets one accident while working for ups , that can be fired on the
> > spot,, You still have no clue about them at all,
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Susan
> > > > To: Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 10:50 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Re: Health reform for all
> > Americans - St Pete Times
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I find your comments interesting at best. I think you need to look at
> > all types of companies and who owns them. Not all companies are run by those
> > who work at them by far. It is ridiculous to assume so and very closed
> > minded.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Unions allow sub-standard employees to keep their jobs when otherwise
> > they would be replaced. I don't know if you read the news but there are huge
> > numbers of bad teachers out there who cannot be fired because of tenure and
> > the unions. UPS for example has to jump through hoops to fire employees who
> > preform badly as in sleeping in the trucks, constantly late to work or not
> > showing up at all. Unions are too big and need to go.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 10:17 AM, iloveubuntulinux valchaulinux@wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, Susan
> > <sailorgirl43@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Some corporations are like that but in the past 10 years corporations
> > have
> > > > > been eliminating their bloat to make money, pay people and please
> > their
> > > >
> > > > > share holders. the people they pay are those running the company and
> > those folks are also often very big shareholders so it is a form of self
> > dealing
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Private corporations are much more streamed lines than the
> > > >
> > > > > government because they do answer to others. that is a myth. the
> > biggest shareholders now are those running the corp. They got stock options
> > and now run the place
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have never seen such waste as
> > > > > in government and especially when the workers have a union to defend
> > their
> > > >
> > > > > bad actions. unions don't defend 'bad actions' of workers. They
> > defend against bad actions of management and the management is all self
> > dealing since they both run the corporation and own large chunks of its
> > stock
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 12:42 AM, iloveubuntulinux
> > > >
> > > > > valchaulinux@:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the govt is just like the big corporations - top heavy with those
> > who are
> > > > > > fat and lazy and rake in the dough. And the actual work is done by
> > human
> > > > > > beings with families who are (in private industry) easily discarded
> > but in
> > > > > > the govt have at least some rights
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, Susan
> > sailorgirl43@
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are surveys done and money is counted when it comes in to
> > > > > > charities,
> > > > > > > very simple to find out.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is huge waste in the all government. It is top heavy and so
> > money
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > wasted by the thousands. Evangelical Christians don't restrict
> > donations.
> > > > > > > Where do you get this stuff.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Sheep&Goatlady
> > > >
> > > > > > > springcreek@:
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Are they? How do you know what other folks donate? Waste money
> > in
> > > > > > giving a
> > > > > > > > decent health care to folks? Heatlh care to child? To have safe
> > food on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > table? To ensure women get decent wages? that is a waste of
> > money? Do
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > know what the nieghbor next door gives? there was a gentleman
> > on tv,,
> > > > > > his
> > > > > > > > ID was hidden, that gave away 100 dollar bucks to needy,, Do
> > you know
> > > > > > who he
> > > > > > > > was? No,, and most evangelical christians restrict who they
> > give their
> > > > > > money
> > > > > > > > too,, some folks give without making a big to do about it,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > *From:* Susan sailorgirl43@
> > > > > > > > *To:* Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 21, 2010 4:16 PM
> > > > > > > > *Subject:* Re: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Health reform for
> > all
> > > > > > > > Americans - St Pete Times
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The group of people who give the most money away
> > > > > > > > are Evangelical Christians. There are many million and
> > billionaires who
> > > > > > give
> > > > > > > > tons of money to needy people. It is not that people don't want
> > to give
> > > > > > > > because they do. They resent paying high taxes to people who
> > waste the
> > > > > > money
> > > > > > > > in big government machine.
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:51 PM, elaine mckay glyndon47@:
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I don't understand why many conservatives focus on getting
> > more money
> > > > > > > >> and never on giving something to humanity, even in their own
> > country.
> > > > > > > >> Not everyone can afford life giving treatment and so die?
> > thats so
> > > > > > wrong.
> > > > > > > >> I don't have class envy because in Australia we don't have
> > that class
> > > > > > > >> system.
> > > > > > > >> Everyone is entitled to free health care and education. If you
> > want
> > > > > > better
> > > > > > > >> you pay for it, and thats fine.
> > > > > > > >> it's called looking after you fellow man, or having a social
> > > > > > concience.
> > > > > > > >> --- On *Mon, 20/12/10, patrick mc govern mcgvrn_ptrck@*
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> From: patrick mc govern mcgvrn_ptrck@
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Subject: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Health reform for all
> > > > > > Americans -
> > > > > > > >> St Pete Times
> > > > > > > >> To: "free" freethinkersclub@yahoogroups.com, "dea" <
> > > > > > > >> DuanesEverythingandAnything@yahoogroups.com, "pcc" <
> > > > > > > >> politics_currentevents_group@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > >> Received: Monday, 20 December, 2010, 10:42 PM
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Health reform for all Americans
> > > > > > > >> By Eric H. Holder Jr. and Kathleen Sebelius, Washington Post
> > > > > > > >> In Print: Wednesday, December 15, 2010
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> In March, New Hampshire preschool teacher Gail O'Brien, who
> > was unable
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> obtain health insurance through her employer, was diagnosed
> > with an
> > > > > > > >> aggressive form of lymphoma. Her subsequent applications for
> > health
> > > > > > > >> insurance were rejected because of her condition. With each
> > round of
> > > > > > > >> chemotherapy costing $16,000, she delayed treatment because
> > she knew
> > > > > > her
> > > > > > > >> savings wouldn't last. • Then President Barack Obama signed
> > the
> > > > > > Affordable
> > > > > > > >> Care Act. Thanks to this law, O'Brien is getting treatment
> > through a
> > > > > > > >> temporary program that provides affordable coverage to people
> > who have
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > > >> shut out of the insurance market because of a pre-existing
> > condition.
> > > > > > Even
> > > > > > > >> better, she knows that in 2014 insurers will be banned from
> > > > > > discriminating
> > > > > > > >> against any American with pre-existing conditions.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> That's what makes the recent lawsuits challenging the
> > Affordable Care
> > > > > > Act
> > > > > > > >> so troubling. Roughly 20 cases question the new law's
> > individual
> > > > > > > >> responsibility provision, which says that Americans who can
> > afford to
> > > > > > must
> > > > > > > >> maintain basic health coverage.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Federal courts in Michigan and Virginia have upheld the law as
> > > > > > > >> constitutional, but Monday, a federal court in Virginia
> > reached the
> > > > > > opposite
> > > > > > > >> result. These and other cases will continue through our courts
> > as
> > > > > > opponents
> > > > > > > >> try to block the law. But these attacks are wrong on the law,
> > and if
> > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > >> to succeed, they would have devastating consequences for
> > everyone with
> > > > > > > >> health insurance.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> The majority of Americans who have health insurance pay a
> > higher price
> > > > > > > >> because of our broken system. Every insured family pays an
> > average of
> > > > > > $1,000
> > > > > > > >> more a year in premiums to cover the care of those who have no
> > > > > > insurance.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Everyone wants health care to be affordable and available when
> > they
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > >> it. But we have to stop imposing extra costs on people who
> > carry
> > > > > > insurance,
> > > > > > > >> and that means everyone who can afford coverage needs to carry
> > minimum
> > > > > > > >> health coverage starting in 2014.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> If we want to prevent insurers from denying coverage to people
> > with
> > > > > > > >> pre-existing conditions, it's essential that everyone have
> > coverage.
> > > > > > Imagine
> > > > > > > >> what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance
> > until after
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > > >> got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would
> > be
> > > > > > > >> unaffordable, and responsible drivers would be priced out of
> > the
> > > > > > market.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> The same is true for health insurance. Without an individual
> > > > > > > >> responsibility provision, controlling costs and ending
> > discrimination
> > > > > > > >> against people with pre-existing conditions doesn't work.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> The legal arguments made against the law gloss over this
> > problem even
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> opponents have sought to invent new constitutional theories
> > and dig up
> > > > > > old
> > > > > > > >> ones that were rejected 80 years ago.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Opponents claim the individual responsibility provision is
> > unlawful
> > > > > > > >> because it "regulates inactivity." But none of us is a
> > bystander when
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> comes to health care. All of us need health care eventually.
> > Do we pay
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> advance, by getting insurance, or do we try to pay later, when
> > we need
> > > > > > > >> medical care?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> The individual responsibility provision says that as
> > participants in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> health care market, Americans should pay for insurance if they
> > can
> > > > > > afford
> > > > > > > >> it. That's important because when people who don't have
> > insurance show
> > > > > > up at
> > > > > > > >> emergency rooms, we don't deny them care. The costs of this
> > > > > > uncompensated
> > > > > > > >> care — $43 billion in 2008 — are then passed on to doctors,
> > hospitals,
> > > > > > small
> > > > > > > >> businesses and Americans who have insurance.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> As two federal courts have already held, this unfair
> > cost-shifting
> > > > > > harms
> > > > > > > >> the marketplace. For decades, Supreme Court decisions have
> > made clear
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> the Constitution allows Congress to adopt rules to deal with
> > such
> > > > > > harmful
> > > > > > > >> economic effects, which is what the law does — it regulates
> > how we pay
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> health care by ensuring that those who have insurance don't
> > continue
> > > > > > to pay
> > > > > > > >> for those who don't. Because of the long-held legal precedent
> > of
> > > > > > upholding
> > > > > > > >> such provisions, even President Ronald Reagan's solicitor
> > general,
> > > > > > Charles
> > > > > > > >> Fried, called legal objections to the law "far-fetched."
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> As these lawsuits continue, Americans should be clear about
> > what the
> > > > > > > >> opponents of reform are asking the courts to do. Striking down
> > the
> > > > > > > >> individual responsibility provision means slamming the door on
> > > > > > millions of
> > > > > > > >> those like Gail O'Brien, who have been locked out of our
> > health
> > > > > > insurance
> > > > > > > >> markets, and shifting more costs onto families who have acted
> > > > > > responsibly.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> It's not surprising that opponents, having lost in Congress,
> > have
> > > > > > taken to
> > > > > > > >> the courts. We saw similar challenges to laws that created
> > Social
> > > > > > Security
> > > > > > > >> and established new civil rights protections. Those challenges
> > > > > > ultimately
> > > > > > > >> failed, and so will this one.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Rather than fighting to undo the progress we've made, and
> > returning to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> days when one out of seven Americans was denied insurance due
> > to their
> > > > > > > >> medical histories, supporters of repeal should work with us to
> > > > > > implement
> > > > > > > >> this law effectively. The initial decisions about the
> > Affordable Care
> > > > > > Act
> > > > > > > >> will be reviewed on appeal. We are confident that the law will
> > > > > > ultimately be
> > > > > > > >> upheld.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> © 2010 Washington Post
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment