This reminds me of the saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". I am in favor of finding ways of dealing with everything that would not have severe negative side effects.
--- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, patrick mc govern <mcgvrn_ptrck@...> wrote:
>
> Regulations are a good thing, their whole purpose is to protect the masses and to create a equal playing field.
>
>
> Â You can lead people to knowledge but you can't make them think
>
> --- On Mon, 12/27/10, zeus32117 <zeus32117@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: zeus32117 <zeus32117@...>
> Subject: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Re: Health reform for all Americans - St Pete Times
> To: Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, December 27, 2010, 7:00 AM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> If everyone did not have to comply with more laws and more government regulations than most people can read and understand then so many jobs would be created that companies would have to compete for workers, instead of workers having to compete for jobs. Had this been the case, most people would simply choose to apply for those jobs that offer the best financial compensation and the best working conditions.
>
> --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, patrick mc govern <mcgvrn_ptrck@> wrote:
> >
> > $17 dollars a week is a bargain and who gives a crap if the union wants him to vote for Pro- Middle class people, he sure in the hell doesn't have too, he can vote for anyone he pleases including those who hate him.
> >
> >
> >  You can lead people to knowledge but you can't make them think
> >
> > --- On Sun, 12/26/10, Susan <sailorgirl43@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Susan <sailorgirl43@>
> > Subject: Re: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Re: Health reform for all Americans - St Pete Times
> > To: Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Sunday, December 26, 2010, 6:37 PM
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> >
> >
> > No, my son who drives thought it was a complete waste of time and money to stay in the union. It also put him off when the union people came in and told them who to vote for. He is going to get out of the union soon because he thinks paying $17.00 a week to be a member is too much. He says if he has an issue he goes to his supervisor and the issue is resolved quickly.
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 10:27 AM, patrick mc govern <mcgvrn_ptrck@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Management always hates unions and it sounds like your driving son has bad feelings about another driver not the union
> >
> >
> >  You can lead people to knowledge but you can't make them think
> >
> > --- On Sat, 12/25/10, Susan <sailorgirl43@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Susan <sailorgirl43@>
> >
> > Subject: Re: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Re: Health reform for all Americans - St Pete Times
> >
> > To: Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Saturday, December 25, 2010, 7:31 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > I have two sons who work for UPS and both hate the union. One is in management and he tells me how hard it is to fire a bad worker. The other is a driver and he tells how ridiculous the situation is. I do know what I am talking about. Once a teacher gets tenure it is almost impossible to fire them, I guess you don't keep up in the news.ÂÂ
> >
> >
> > Medicare wastes more money than any other group, it is fraught with corruption.ÂÂ
> >
> >
> > I also know a lot about corporations and the ones who to answer to share holders and employees are the best and the best run.ÂÂ
> >
> >
> > You have no idea how the corporate world works and only get your information from uninformed idiots.ÂÂ
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Sheep&Goatlady <springcreek@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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,ÂÂ
> > 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,
> > ÂÂ
> >
> >
> > ----- 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.ÂÂ
> >
> >
> > 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.ÂÂ
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 10:17 AM, iloveubuntulinux <valchaulinux@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- 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 â€" $43 billion in 2008 â€" 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 â€" 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
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
