It was delayed, not removed -- and the delay was not done to prevent the type of damage described above. Instead, they (Congress) simply claimed that the corporate reporting system isn't ready and those exact mandates were pushed back one whole year. Did I miss the part wherein they plan to remove those corporate mandates altogether?
This part strikes me as fairly ridiculous. Being poor is so completely far from "comfortable" that it's hard to know where to start. Anyone buying lobster or (good quality) steak with foodstamps is going to be suffering from extreme hunger the rest of the month, because benefits are meager. Central air is hardly the world's most exotic luxury in 2013, and for poor senior citizens in some areas can literally be life or death (they could have a window unit I guess, but that's more expensive over time). Most of all, though, no one in history has aimed at being poor and didn't want to be rich instead. There will always be some small percent of fraud/waste/corruption that we need to be vigilant for and minimize, but I'd seriously suggest considering some community service in poor areas that lets you get to know the people and see how hard-working most poor people are despite never getting ahead. Poverty in America is widespread and its prevalence in a nation as rich as we are should shock and disgust everyone.
The supply of doctors isn't a free market, production is controlled by the AMA who have a monopoly and artificially inflate the price (ie wages) by lowering supply. There are so few medical schools because the AMA won't allow more until they decide doctors will remain scarce enough. There are also plenty of people who become doctors for reasons other than becoming rich. We have tons of teachers, for example, and that pays poorly. There are plenty of doctors in every other single-payer country in the world. There is no reason to think we would have more of a shortage of doctors than we do now.
How many 50 inch plasma TVs should the poor have? I've seen real poverty in places like Cuba. The "poor" here send money to the real poor there. I'm not saying that poor people live in luxury here but they've got it pretty damn good in comparison.
Do you have any idea how much people can get per person in food stamps? It isn't meager at all. Plus the real point I was making is that luxury items shouldn't be covered by food stamps. They should cover the basics and the basics only. No pop, no ice cream, no candy, no lobster.
I'm not talking about aiming to be poor I'm talking about making their poorness too comfortable that its hard to escape. Lets say somebody wants to take a new job but they are on assistance. They have to weigh whether the lost benefits is going to be more than the gain in pay. In many cases getting a raise can lead to a lower quality of life. If you can't improve yourself to totally overcome the differences between benefits and the new job why take the job?
I want poor people to not be poor just as much as anybody. But I don't want bad life choices subsidized to the extent they are now. I believe it leads to more bad life choices, not less.
I said we should help the poor with health care. I said that in response to the totally privatized system you were talking about. I wasn't arguing for a completely privatized system.
It's much easier to become a teacher than it is a doctor. I think that has more to do with us having "tons" of teachers than the wages.
There was talk of this.
When did righties become bitches? All they do is whine. You name it and they will find something to whine about. When something they were whining about is addressed they whine about how long it took to get it addressed.
Ask them to provide a solution to a problem and they will whine about that.
Well guess what, you had your chance to add your input into the healthcare reform debate and you chose to whine about it instead of contributing.
So go to your room like the little kids you are and don't come out until you are done whining.
No one likes a whiner.
I await your whiny responses
Facebook
Twitter