Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Legislation finally going up before congress for this

I've always wondered at Americans strange attitudes towards this. America is the only wealthy country that doesn't mandate any paid time off at your job. You rarely hear about it.
I had to do a web search to find the article above. Problem is even if it passes it isn't going to mandate much. One week after one year and 2 weeks after 3...that isn't enough.

I'm not advocating 30 days right out of the gate like in France, but I don't think 10 days immediately progressing up to 30 after 20 years or so on the job is out of line.

I've found some discussion around the net on this and many are calling it socialism which is hardly the case. Why don't Americans realize that there's more to life than just work.

The US needs mandatory paid time off...and not just 1 or 2 weeks.

The company is forced to give paid time off or people are forced to take the time off?

In either event I don't see how it would stimulate the economy to reduce productivity.

Nothing against time off but making it mandatory seems . . . extreme.

Shouldn't this be dealt with in a contract between employer and employee, rather than under the authority of a totally contextually irrelevant body?

Originally posted by inimalist
Shouldn't this be dealt with in a contract between employer and employee, rather than under the authority of a totally contextually irrelevant body?

No, most employees don't have a contract. Vacation time built up over the years can be taken away under a new owner if your company is bought out.

Like I said, Americans get far less time off than people in any other developed nation. It's time to change that.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
No, most employees don't have a contract. Vacation time built up over the years can be taken away under a new owner if your company is bought out.

Like I said, Americans get far less time off than people in any other developed nation. It's time to change that.

most employees don't have a contract?

are you talking about temp work? afaik I had to sign a contract to work at McDonalds...

Originally posted by inimalist
most employees don't have a contract?

I recall someone telling me the same thing and looking at Google it seems pretty widely accepted. However, I can't seem to find any statistic to back it up except that apparently US Govt employees never have contracts.

wow

/insert foot to mouth

Originally posted by inimalist
most employees don't have a contract?

are you talking about temp work? afaik I had to sign a contract to work at McDonalds...

No, I'm referring to full time permanant workers. In the US only upper level management and union employees have contracts. Everyone else's employment is subject to company policy and whatever state laws are in place. Federal laws regarding employment are very few.

I already get 30+ days off a year...I just don't take the days off.

I cash out my PTO (Paid Time Off). I get 10 days a year, paid for, by my employer, outside of PTO. (Paid holidays.) I usually take of 3-5 days for vacation, a year. More days than that is just a tad excessive for me.



In other words, Nya Nya.





This legistlation won't do anything for me.



I don't think this legislation should exist, though.

You don't like the vacation options you have? Work for someone else.

Can't get a job that has those vacation options? Tough shit.

What we need, especially right now is kurzarbeit

Originally posted by Darth Jello
What we need, especially right now is kurzarbeit

What is kursabeit? I don't know what that is.

If I were to guess, I would say that expertus (Latin) would be a better way to express that, as more people would understand it.

Of course, I could be wrong about the context of whatever "kurzabeit" means.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
What we need, especially right now is kurzarbeit

Guzuntheit.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Guzuntheit.

This legislation is a fantastic thing. Wonderful. Just closes off one more way companies can screw their workers.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Guzuntheit.

WTF?

Originally posted by King Kandy
This legislation is a fantastic thing. Wonderful. Just closes off one more way companies can screw their workers.

hmm

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
hmm
What?

Originally posted by King Kandy
What?

You phrased it as though you were being sarcastic. Was I wrong?

No, I was serious. That's what I believe.

instead of laying you off workers temporarily or permanently during tough economic times, you tell them not to come to work or to come to work at reduced hours and don't pay them. Instead, the government pays them two thirds of their previous wages so that they can keep living and consuming and once the economy picks up and business gets better (something that happens in a more quick and equitable way since instead of a direct bailout or subsidy, laid off consumers still participate in the market so market forces determine the fate of business), those same workers come back to their old jobs at their previous wages. If the business fails or more than 24 months pass, people move to the unemployment system, collect less money, and look for jobs. This is thought of as both a social safety net, a more fair and competitive socialism, and as an insurance policy against political extremism. Germany is the world's fourth largest economy and so the depression and the failure of AIG have set it's economy in free fall and in a position almost as bad as the last years of the Weimar Republic with the unemployment rate (which actually counts everybody who doesn't have work over there including kurzarbeiters) is at 8.5%. And yet the economy is starting to turn around faster than America's and there isn't the kind of depression and misery as there is in the United States where so many companies are just taking advantage of the situation and looting to the degree that in some polls, 35% of Americans are now identifying themselves as socialist or communist.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
instead of laying you off workers temporarily or permanently during tough economic times, you tell them not to come to work or to come to work at reduced hours and don't pay them. Instead, the government pays them two thirds of their previous wages so that they can keep living and consuming and once the economy picks up and business gets better (something that happens in a more quick and equitable way since instead of a direct bailout or subsidy, laid off consumers still participate in the market so market forces determine the fate of business), those same workers come back to their old jobs at their previous wages. If the business fails or more than 24 months pass, people move to the unemployment system, collect less money, and look for jobs. This is thought of as both a social safety net, a more fair and competitive socialism, and as an insurance policy against political extremism. Germany is the world's fourth largest economy and so the depression and the failure of AIG have set it's economy in free fall and in a position almost as bad as the last years of the Weimar Republic with the unemployment rate (which actually counts everybody who doesn't have work over there including kurzarbeiters) is at 8.5%. And yet the economy is starting to turn around faster than America's and there isn't the kind of depression and misery as there is in the United States where so many companies are just taking advantage of the situation and looting to the degree that in some polls, 35% of Americans are now identifying themselves as socialist or communist.

Good idea. Let's git rid of Social Security and Medicare and replace it with this.

Uh...I don't see how federal legislation requiring more luxury for workers is necessary. If the regulation helped some essential human right I'd go for it, but otherwise.....why?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I already get 30+ days off a year...I just don't take the days off.

I cash out my PTO (Paid Time Off). I get 10 days a year, paid for, by my employer, outside of PTO. (Paid holidays.) I usually take of 3-5 days for vacation, a year. More days than that is just a tad excessive for me.



In other words, Nya Nya.





This legistlation won't do anything for me.



I don't think this legislation should exist, though.

You don't like the vacation options you have? Work for someone else.

Can't get a job that has those vacation options? Tough shit.

I just don't get attitudes like yours. Fukk the little guy. I am also on a PTO system, I currently get 24 days a year and I use all of it. I'd rather have the time off than sell it back to the company, like I said, there's more to life than work.

Thing is, if my company is bought out I could lose my PTO or have it reduced. Time off should not be viewed as a luxury..it should be a right.

< works for the school system; gets checks during summer months off. Woo-Hoo!

That said, Americans love their jobs, it's the core of their self-image. They just can't work enough...otherwise, how are you going to prove your better/richer/tougher/smarter than everyone else, and all while still in your 20s?

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud


The US needs mandatory paid time off...and not just 1 or 2 weeks.

I agree. Too many companies don't care about their employees and can't be trusted to regulate themselves, because they won't.

There's also a bill for paid sick days.
Seven days, I think it should be ten and increase until you have twenty or thirty.

Also, companies shouldn't be able to fire employees unless they have well thought out reason.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Uh...I don't see how federal legislation requiring more luxury for workers is necessary. If the regulation helped some essential human right I'd go for it, but otherwise.....why?
Because otherwise there's nothing insuring companies will give employees what they need.

But people don't need paid time off.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Uh...I don't see how federal legislation requiring more luxury for workers is necessary. If the regulation helped some essential human right I'd go for it, but otherwise.....why?

because evidence in countries that do this proves that it results in less sick leave, greater longevity, and greater work productivity.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But people don't need paid time off.

That's your opinion. People definitly need time away from work. Often their bills don't allow for them to do so unless it's paid. I really fail to understand many American attitudes towards issues like this. Many rank and file workers and lower level management support corporate policy no matter how unethical it may be despite the fact that most corporations see such personell as nothing more than expendable liabilities.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
That's your opinion. People definitly need time away from work. Often their bills don't allow for them to do so unless it's paid. I really fail to understand many American attitudes towards issues like this. Many rank and file workers and lower level management support corporate policy no matter how unethical it may be despite the fact that most corporations see such personell as nothing more than expendable liabilities.

In an event they certainly don't need paid time off. With all the benefits of time off, enough workers will eventually demand it that they'll be able to get it. Having the government require that companies literally pay people for doing nothing strikes me as insane.

Well luckily, with the current economy and economic system, if the US Government is convinced enough by corporate money, they can technically afford to give as much as 60% of the population unpaid permanent time off and still see stable economic growth and maintain power. It's done by using private security firms. See, you don't really need a social policy when you can strong arm subsidies from the government, fly to work in a helicopter, build really tall walls with gun towers around your house and market all your products overseas with a minimal domestic level of manufacturing and service.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In an event they certainly don't need paid time off. With all the benefits of time off, enough workers will eventually demand it that they'll be able to get it. Having the government require that companies literally pay people for doing nothing strikes me as insane.

You're wrong here. Corporations are currently eliminting or at least reducing things such as health care benefits, company match 401K contributions, and yes, vacation/paid time off. This was the case before the economic downturn and it has massivley accerelated with the poor economy. Unless unions make a strong comeback (extremely unlikely) goverment mandates are the only thing which will prevent the eventual thirdworldization of the American labor market.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I just don't get attitudes like yours. Fukk the little guy. I am also on a PTO system, I currently get 24 days a year and I use all of it. I'd rather have the time off than sell it back to the company, like I said, there's more to life than work.

Thing is, if my company is bought out I could lose my PTO or have it reduced. Time off should not be viewed as a luxury..it should be a right.

I'm more of a capitalist than a socialist.


Like I said, I'd trade out SS and Medicare for this program in a heartbeat. They are both failed systems. They need to be scrapped anyway. This vacation thing would make more people happy.



However, if I had my choice...we'd get rid of SS and Medicare...AND not have this idea, too.

Then use the money saved to help bring down some of the deficit.

I am a "f*** 'em" type of person. Can't get a job that you like? Your fault. Don't get enough pay? Your fault. F*** you, etc.

This is America. It's the "f*** 'em" way.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm more of a capitalist than a socialist.


Like I said, I'd trade out SS and Medicare for this program in a heartbeat. They are both failed systems. They need to be scrapped anyway. This vacation thing would make more people happy.



However, if I had my choice...we'd get rid of SS and Medicare...AND not have this idea, too.

Then use the money saved to help bring down some of the deficit.

I am a "f*** 'em" type of person. Can't get a job that you like? Your fault. Don't get enough pay? Your fault. F*** you, etc.

This is America. It's the "f*** 'em" way.

You're right, your way of thinking will win in the end. And that's precisly why America's days as a first world country are numbered.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
You're wrong here. Corporations are currently eliminting or at least reducing things such as health care benefits, company match 401K contributions, and yes, vacation/paid time off. This was the case before the economic downturn and it has massivley accerelated with the poor economy. Unless unions make a strong comeback (extremely unlikely) goverment mandates are the only thing which will prevent the eventual thirdworldization of the American labor market.

Yes, but how does the economy benefit from forcing companies to pay people when they aren't working? If anything that would damage the businesses, reducing jobs, reducing money for consumers, damaging economies. This sort of thing is best left up to business because it really isn't a neccessity for the workers. Good for morale? Sure. But not something workers need to have.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
You're right, your way of thinking will win in the end. And that's precisly why America's days as a first world country are numbered.


Oh, hell no, dude. I haven't met one person, outside the internet, that thinks that same way as I do. Not even close. It's all about "more government programs."

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, hell no, dude. I haven't met one person, outside the internet, that thinks that same way as I do. Not even close. It's all about "more government programs."

You're reading the wrong sites then. I'm not advocating more government programs. I just want to make labor laws more worker friendly.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes, but how does the economy benefit from forcing companies to pay people when they aren't working? If anything that would damage the businesses, reducing jobs, reducing money for consumers, damaging economies. This sort of thing is best left up to business because it really isn't a neccessity for the workers. Good for morale? Sure. But not something workers need to have.

The economy benifits by people spending money on leisure activities. Money flowes through the system. You are overstating job reduction and economic damage which would both be minimal (how does a nine figure bonus for a CEO benifit the economy), just as naysayers of minimum wage do. Business already has too much power in our society. I'm not advocating socialism, just balance. In the end, it's about doing what's best for the workforce.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
You're reading the wrong sites then.

That doesn't make sense. I just said that the only place I am meeting people similar to my line of thought (less government) is on the internet.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I'm not advocating more government programs. I just want to make labor laws more worker friendly.


B-b-b.......

Okay.

But you are, indirectly. There would have the be an oversight group to enforce this new law. By programs I simply mean "money". There's probably a lot more involved and I just can't think of anything at the moment. Well, there is the employer side of things, as well.

Some girl came around my house wanting me to donate money and sign some sheet to help fund the Paid Days Off movement or something.

I asked her, "Why should people get paid for not working?" after a good 10 second awkward silence she decided to leave.

Originally posted by KidRock
Some girl came around my house wanting me to donate money and sign some sheet to help fund the Paid Days Off movement or something.

I asked her, "Why should people get paid for not working?" after a good 10 second awkward silence she decided to leave.




That was a good story.

Originally posted by KidRock
Some girl came around my house wanting me to donate money and sign some sheet to help fund the Paid Days Off movement or something.

I asked her, "Why should people get paid for not working?" after a good 10 second awkward silence she decided to leave.

Originally posted by KidRock
Some girl came around my house wanting me to donate money and sign some sheet to help fund the Paid Days Off movement or something.

I asked her, "Why should people get paid for not working?" after a good 10 second awkward silence she decided to leave.
So that it hopefully makes up to your employees for your company shitting on their benefits more every day.

Almost every western first world country has more government programs, and they score higher on most observable benchmarks for their standards of living. Lack of govt. aid is making America slowly self-destruct.

I mean, yeah, if Big Bama is so insistent on making America more like Europe then WHERE the FUK is OUR 3 months vacation?

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
I mean, yeah, if Big Bama is so insistent on making America more like Europe then WHERE the FUK is OUR 3 months vacation?
Gobbled up by Capitalism, i'm afraid. Same with our health care and social safety net.

Maggots

Originally posted by King Kandy
Gobbled up by Capitalism, i'm afraid. Same with our health care and social safety net.

Yeah, stupid capitalism, paying people who work and not those who dont.

Does that mean that Bush owes us 900 days worth of presidential back pay?

Yeah, they've tried that before many times and it turns out that society falls apart and turns totalitarian faster than under Communism. Look at all the "shock and awe" bullshit that the International Monetary Fund does when they offer countries loans conditional to them privatizing everything including social services. What do you get? Massive poverty, unemployment, the elderly stripped of retirement selling war medals in the streets for food and a country that is more or less a failed state for years.

People just forget about what happens when you screw populations over like that. See, unions used to be illegal and during strikes or protests over things like lack of healthcare, child labor, low/no wages and worker safety, they used to just deal with that by sending in goons from the Pinkerton detective agency to beat and murder them and occasionally to rape and murder their families. Then people got really pissed off and started to riot and side with the socialists and communists, so government and big business got even more repressive. So anarchists got involved, resulting in a period of global terror where instead of protests, strikes and riots, prominent businessmen, bankers, monarchs, and world leaders started getting surgically assassinated on weekly basis in what seemed to be random, uncoordinated attacks ending with the assassination of President William McKinley by Leon Czolgosz. It resulted in a big red scare and political repression but also made businessmen and politicians realize that when you oppress your population, especially in a liberal society, you are never safe and finally started to bring unions and reforms to the table.
That, in a nutshell is why no social safety net doesn't work. Eventually people get so desperate and upset that they stop pillaging, raping, and killing each other and start going after those that denied them benefits in the first place.

Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, stupid capitalism, paying people who work and not those who dont.

To bad that's not how it works. The people who work get to pay for those who don't and Big Bama wants us to give MORE..,DIG DEEP? Jesus christ, the fukin commie wants the american public to get fed up and go on welfare and Government assistance.

Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, stupid capitalism, paying people who work and not those who dont.
Yeah, I agree. And why don't we just fire everyone who gets sick, instead of giving them health-care. I mean, that would be more economically sensible. Hell, why do we have jails. It makes more economic sense to just hang everybody instead of paying for their food and the like. That would benefit everyone. Well, everyone if you only count rich people. The uninsured would be kind of screwed.

Privatized health care was the absolutely worst idea ever conceived. it puts treatment in the hands of people who have incentive to help as few people as possible. A more logical system would make it so that everybody had to be treated. Then we couldn't have corporations preventing people from getting health-care. Which is basically murder, to let someone be sick when you could help them be well. Same with vacation. If you don't pay people for vacation, then they have an incentive to take as little time off as possible. So basically you have screwed over the quality of these people's lives in order to make the corporations heads richer.

You know what would make the most sense? Slavery. You can just treat everybody like shit and make them work twenty hours a day. That would save a lot of money. That's why I ask all of you to denounce "socialized freedom" for the communist plot that it is. For, if we allow people to actually preserve their quality of life, the reds have already won.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes, but how does the economy benefit from forcing companies to pay people when they aren't working? If anything that would damage the businesses, reducing jobs, reducing money for consumers, damaging economies. This sort of thing is best left up to business because it really isn't a neccessity for the workers. Good for morale? Sure. But not something workers need to have.
Government is supposed to look out for the interests of its people as a whole, in doing so its going to transgress at some point beyond the line of bare minimum workers' rights.
To say it would hurt the economy sounds like reasoning stretched too thin really.


Kinda like those maids that live in your home that demand pay. I mean, you give them food and a place to live in already.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yeah, I agree. And why don't we just fire everyone who gets sick, instead of giving them health-care. I mean, that would be more economically sensible. Hell, why do we have jails. It makes more economic sense to just hang everybody instead of paying for their food and the like. That would benefit everyone. Well, everyone if you only count rich people. The uninsured would be kind of screwed.

Privatized health care was the absolutely worst idea ever conceived. it puts treatment in the hands of people who have incentive to help as few people as possible. A more logical system would make it so that everybody had to be treated. Then we couldn't have corporations preventing people from getting health-care. Which is basically murder, to let someone be sick when you could help them be well. Same with vacation. If you don't pay people for vacation, then they have an incentive to take as little time off as possible. So basically you have screwed over the quality of these people's lives in order to make the corporations heads richer.

You know what would make the most sense? Slavery. You can just treat everybody like shit and make them work twenty hours a day. That would save a lot of money. That's why I ask all of you to denounce "socialized freedom" for the communist plot that it is. For, if we allow people to actually preserve their quality of life, the reds have already won.

http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/strawman2.jpg

Originally posted by KidRock
http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/strawman2.jpg
Great job dodging having to actually have a discussion in the discussion forum there.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Great job dodging having to actually have a discussion in the discussion forum there.

Because it's pointless to have a discussion with someone as irrational and misguided as you are.



Riiight.



Why dont they just pay for their own healthcare? They have a job.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Yeah, they've tried that before many times and it turns out that society falls apart and turns totalitarian faster than under Communism. Look at all the "shock and awe" bullshit that the International Monetary Fund does when they offer countries loans conditional to them privatizing everything including social services. What do you get? Massive poverty, unemployment, the elderly stripped of retirement selling war medals in the streets for food and a country that is more or less a failed state for years.

People just forget about what happens when you screw populations over like that. See, unions used to be illegal and during strikes or protests over things like lack of healthcare, child labor, low/no wages and worker safety, they used to just deal with that by sending in goons from the Pinkerton detective agency to beat and murder them and occasionally to rape and murder their families. Then people got really pissed off and started to riot and side with the socialists and communists, so government and big business got even more repressive. So anarchists got involved, resulting in a period of global terror where instead of protests, strikes and riots, prominent businessmen, bankers, monarchs, and world leaders started getting surgically assassinated on weekly basis in what seemed to be random, uncoordinated attacks ending with the assassination of President William McKinley by Leon Czolgosz. It resulted in a big red scare and political repression but also made businessmen and politicians realize that when you oppress your population, especially in a liberal society, you are never safe and finally started to bring unions and reforms to the table.
That, in a nutshell is why no social safety net doesn't work. Eventually people get so desperate and upset that they stop pillaging, raping, and killing each other and start going after those that denied them benefits in the first place.


I have no idea how this post, which is almost tangential to mine, addresses the virtually failed SS and Medicare systems. Social programs are great, in all. But if they fail, they fail.

They old should have saved better.


"They" tell me that I'll need a little more than 2 million in savings by the time I retire, to live comfortably when I retire.

I'll work on that. Since I don't plan on NOT working until the day I die, I doubt I'll have any problems.


Shouldn't I NOT have to pay for other's who didn't plan for retirement? Shouldn't I get to keep every last dollar and not have to pay into SS? hmmmm? I would certainly love to. I could use those thousands of dollars that I'm literally WASTING each year into a system I won't benefit from.


On topic, I'll repeat myself:

Get rid of the soon to fail SS and Medicare. Either use that money to help bring in budget, or use it for social ideas like the vacation idea.

Social Security is great. How else would Bill Clinton have balanced the budget without the ability to steal from SS?

Surprisingly I don't entirely disagree with this. We privatized social security here in Chile and it worked out surprisingly well, both for Big Money and the worker. And from what I hear Medicare is very inefficient, universal health care system is the way to go.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Surprisingly I don't entirely disagree with this. We privatized social security here in Chile and it worked out surprisingly well, both for Big Money and the worker. And from what I hear Medicare is very inefficient, universal health care system is the way to go.

I'm all about bringing down medical costs in America, going to a single payer system, getting rid of medicare and SS, and privatizing SS. Sounds like a win win win over the current system, to me. At the very least it's an improvement X3 system.

Ya, this is a no. The issue of vacation is between an employer and a employee, not the government and employer.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Surprisingly I don't entirely disagree with this. We privatized social security here in Chile and it worked out surprisingly well, both for Big Money and the worker. And from what I hear Medicare is very inefficient, universal health care system is the way to go.

Was that before or after Pinochete and the collapse of your economy?

Oh, and once again Kid Rock has obviously either never had any medical problems or has had mommy and daddy pay for his medicine his entire life.

Originally posted by KidRock
Because it's pointless to have a discussion with someone as irrational and misguided as you are.
Wow, you sure showed me. Why bother debating when you can just start insulting?


Originally posted by KidRock
Riiight.
Did you not see the point I was trying to make with that?


Originally posted by KidRock
Why dont they just pay for their own healthcare? They have a job.
Because healthcare providers can charge prohibitive amounts or refuse to insure them for any number of reasons. Also, even if you do have insurence insurers have so many ways to avoid having to actually cover you.

If I may reprint my own experience as related in a previous thread about health care-

See, the trouble is that private companies want you to pay as much as possible to receive as few services as possible. And there aren't any other options, because you NEED that kind of care. You can't bargain by "walking out", so you have to pay whatever they want.

What we should really do is skip insurance entirely and have a govt. managed infrastructure where doctors can only charge set prices for services, like in Japan. Then people could pay out of their own pockets and if they couldn't afford it the government would pay the difference.

Originally posted by King Kandy
See, the trouble is that private companies want you to pay as much as possible to receive as few services as possible.

I think the dirty word here is...and, mods, don't ban me because I know it isn't PG-13...


The word is....


Profit.





Originally posted by King Kandy
And there aren't any other options, because you NEED that kind of care. You can't bargain by "walking out", so you have to pay whatever they want.

That wouldn't be as much of a problem if medical equipment, employee (physicians, nurses, etc.) didn't get paid as much, insurance wasn't as much, and the amount of money that could be won in malpractice suits was drastically reduced and capped.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That wouldn't be as much of a problem if medical equipment, employee (physicians, nurses, etc.) didn't get paid as much, insurance wasn't as much, and the amount of money that could be won in malpractice suits was drastically reduced and capped.

If you don't pay doctors a lot why would they spend years getting a degree?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think the dirty word here is...and, mods, don't ban me because I know it isn't PG-13...


The word is....


Profit.




Yeah, why people got the idea trusting their health to purely for-profit companies was a good idea, i'll never understand.


Originally posted by dadudemon
That wouldn't be as much of a problem if medical equipment, employee (physicians, nurses, etc.) didn't get paid as much, insurance wasn't as much, and the amount of money that could be won in malpractice suits was drastically reduced and capped.
That's my point. The root cause of the problem is that doctors charge too much for people to pay out of their own pockets. Which is why the govt. should impose set prices for services.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That wouldn't be as much of a problem if medical equipment, employee (physicians, nurses, etc.) didn't get paid as much, insurance wasn't as much, and the amount of money that could be won in malpractice suits was drastically reduced and capped.

Doctor's should have more than profit as a motive and I'm sorry but if someone comes in for an appendectomy and you end up switching charts and take out his testicles, his kidney, two feet of bowl, and leave a sponge and scalpel inside him, he should be able to sue for millions as punitive damage.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I'm sorry but if someone comes in for an appendectomy and you end up switching charts and take out his testicles, his kidney, two feet of bowl, and leave a sponge and scalpel inside him, he should be able to sue for millions as punitive damage.

Nah. There should be a cap. I have to pay more on my medical bills (which comprise of annual check-ups, woo hoo) and insurance because some douche bag in New York sues and wins millions in a malpractice suit.



What happens there, affects my insurance rates here. Which is retarded.



They should cap it at 250,000. No matter what happens, it should be capped there. That would be an excellent start in significantly reducing medical costs in practice insurance, alone.


All that money will not bring your balls back...or you child...or your spouse. But what should happen is better investigative oversight to determine if it was criminal negligence. (Any lawyers out there that can clarify that?)

That cap idea is ridiculous. The best way to reduce costs is to have government set prices.

And for Doctor's guilty of gross malpractice to have to pay out of their own pockets. Do you really think someone who is permanently disabled can get care for $250,000? Hate to defend Old Testament law but what we call malpractice today is actually what the torah/bible refers to as "witchcraft" and their prescribed punishments range from burning to stoning.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Doctor's should have more than profit as a motive and I'm sorry but if someone comes in for an appendectomy and you end up switching charts and take out his testicles, his kidney, two feet of bowl, and leave a sponge and scalpel inside him, he should be able to sue for millions as punitive damage.

Yes

That's why they go to school for so long. Things like this shouldn't happen. If they do, ching ching. king

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
To bad that's not how it works. The people who work get to pay for those who don't and Big Bama wants us to give MORE..,DIG DEEP? Jesus christ, the fukin commie wants the american public to get fed up and go on welfare and Government assistance.

No he doesnt. Obama just wants votes and will do anything he can to make people feel happy, even if it means ruining their kids future behind their backs.

Originally posted by KidRock
No he doesnt. Obama just wants votes and will do anything he can to make people feel happy, even if it means ruining their kids future behind their backs.
You're right. I wish we still had good old "raise a 7 trillion deficit" Bush.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You're right. I wish we still had good old "raise a 7 trillion deficit" Bush.

You talking about the budget deficit? If so I would like proof of this 7 trillion dollar budget deficit

as i just posted in a different thread. Quickest way to avoid big deficits and hyperinflation-shut down the federal reserve and ban short selling.

My facts were off a bit. Bush roughly doubled our national deficit, from about five trillion to about ten trillion.

By contrast, it was raised less then one trillion during Clinton's eight years. So in terms of "ruining their kids future behind their backs", republicans are 10x worse than democrats.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
And for Doctor's guilty of gross malpractice to have to pay out of their own pockets. Do you really think someone who is permanently disabled can get care for $250,000? Hate to defend Old Testament law but what we call malpractice today is actually what the torah/bible refers to as "witchcraft" and their prescribed punishments range from burning to stoning.

Pharmakia, literally means drugs, and appears five times in the New Testament: in Gal 5:20, Rev 9:21, 18:23, 21:8, and 22:15.
In each of the above five passages, pharmakia, or drugs is listed as a work of the flesh of man as opposed to the Spirit of God working in us.

Synthetic prescription drugs

Originally posted by King Kandy
My facts were off a bit. Bush roughly doubled our national deficit, from about five trillion to about ten trillion.

By contrast, it was raised less then one trillion during Clinton's eight years. So in terms of "ruining their kids future behind their backs", republicans are 10x worse than democrats.

Link and proof please?

Or are you confused, again, and mean our NATIONAL DEBT?

Budget deficit = how much money we are in the red each fiscal year the budget is passed or an excess of expenditures over revenues

National debt = The total debt accumulated by a government

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/images/history_debtchart.jpg

Note what happened while Reagan and Bush sr. were in office, and how Bush jr. reversed the reductions made by clinton.

Originally posted by KidRock
Link and proof please?

Or are you confused, again, and mean our NATIONAL DEBT?

Budget deficit = how much money we are in the red each fiscal year the budget is passed or an excess of expenditures over revenues

National debt = The total debt accumulated by a government
I never said "budget deficit", stop putting words in my mouth. I said national deficit, which is another term for national debt.

Originally posted by King Kandy
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/images/history_debtchart.jpg

Note what happened while Reagan and Bush sr. were in office, and how Bush jr. reversed the reductions made by clinton.

And now Obama is running the highest budget deficit since WWII..

But this is okay, ya know, Bush did it too!

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

I don't think you guys understand how much of your bill is going towards your doctors massive insurance bill.


$250,000 cap would be wonderful for costs.

It's stupid douchebags who sue and get millions for bullshit items that is the problem. And, no, I don't think $7 million should be awarded to the family that lost "little sarah" because she was given the wrong anethesia. $250,000 and loss of license is more than enough if it is shown to be preventable.

Originally posted by KidRock
And now Obama is running the highest budget deficit since WWII..

But this is okay, ya know, Bush did it too!

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg
Projected, you mean. The national debt was accumulated under Reagan and the bush family so yes, bush did "do it" and now Obama has to carry that budget deficit.

BTW, I like how that graph of yours shows how Bush managed to reverse Clinton's budget SURPLUS. Yeah, that's definitively not screwing our children.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think you guys understand how much of your bill is going towards your doctors massive insurance bill.


$250,000 cap would be wonderful for costs.

It's stupid douchebags who sue and get millions for bullshit items that is the problem. And, no, I don't think $7 million should be awarded to the family that lost "little sarah" because she was given the wrong anethesia. $250,000 and loss of license is more than enough if it is shown to be preventable.
Most of the bill is going towards the exorbitant prices doctors charge. They are in complete control, because if you can't pay then you die.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Projected, you mean. The national debt was accumulated under Reagan and the bush family so yes, bush did "do it" and now Obama has to carry that budget deficit.

BTW, I like how that graph of yours shows how Bush managed to reverse Clinton's budget SURPLUS. Yeah, that's definitively not screwing our children.

Yeah, amazing surplus Clinton had.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656

Oops, maybe not.


And for laughs: Old Barry Obama will double the national debt just like you claim bush did.

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obamadebt1.jpg

But feel free to stumble over yourself with, "Well, they are just projections"

Ever hear of a Republican strategy detailed at, I believe the 1972 Republican National Convention called the Two Santas Plan?

The idea is that Republicans say they are fiscally conservative. Then when they get in office they spend as much as possible. Then when Democrats get in they're forced to cut back on their policy, make up the deficit, and get mercilessly criticized for any government spending.

It's kind of like how both your parents are responsible for stuff you don't like when your a kid, but in some situations, either mom or dad times/manipulates things to make it appear that he/she is the fun parent and the other one is the "bad guy" who tells you to turn off the Nintendo, put you're homework in your back pack and go to bed.

They are just projections... But that's not the issue.

Reagan tripled national debt. Bush doubled it. Clinton... well it raised a little bit but a lot less then the republicans did. In terms of deficit, Clinton's administration achieved a surplus.

In the past, republicans have increased the by substantial amounts in every single administration since Reagan, whereas democratic administrations have lowered it. So where you get the idea democrats are the ones who "screw your children" is beyond me. Outside of projections (every one of the ones you quoted came from a conservative website.)

I forgot to explain. It's called Two Santas cause it makes one party seem like a second Santa Clause handing out presents while demonizing the other party.

Originally posted by King Kandy
They are just projections... But that's not the issue.

Reagan tripled national debt. Bush doubled it. Clinton... well it raised a little bit but a lot less then the republicans did. In terms of deficit, Clinton's administration achieved a surplus.

In the past, republicans have increased the by substantial amounts in every single administration since Reagan, whereas democratic administrations have lowered it. So where you get the idea democrats are the ones who "screw your children" is beyond me. Outside of projections (every one of the ones you quoted came from a conservative website.)

Again: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656

Read, educate yourself and feel happy knowing you're more intelligent.

Ever heard of this little thing called the Dot Com bubble?

SINCE Reagan? There have been 2 Democrats in office since then..one of which is doubling the national debt and raising the deficit to its highest numbers since WWII.

Originally posted by King Kandy
projections (every one of the ones you quoted came from a conservative website.)

Originally posted by King Kandy


lol oh please..is that really the best you can muster?

I had no idea the Congressional Budget Office was a conservative viewpoint.

Lmao, it is a WHITE HOUSE ESTIMATE.

No, I meant the CATO one.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, I meant the CATO one.

I didn't post any projections from the CATO website..

When I said projections, I actually meant explanations.

Originally posted by King Kandy
When I said projections, I actually meant explanations.

So what about the projections then?

You gave three of them and they all had very differing numbers. The heritage one is inaccurate and suggests that National debt when Obama took office was 5 trillion when it was more like 10 trillion. The other graph gives CBO and white house estimates, and I don't know which one of those is more credible.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You gave three of them and they all had very differing numbers. The heritage one is inaccurate and suggests that National debt when Obama took office was 5 trillion when it was more like 10 trillion. The other graph gives CBO and white house estimates, and I don't know which one of those is more credible.

The numbers are different because they are 2 different graphs showing 2 different things.

I don't know how you would argue that the White House's own estimates or the Congressional Budget Office's estimates are not credible.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I already get 30+ days off a year...I just don't take the days off.

I cash out my PTO (Paid Time Off). I get 10 days a year, paid for, by my employer, outside of PTO. (Paid holidays.) I usually take of 3-5 days for vacation, a year. More days than that is just a tad excessive for me.



In other words, Nya Nya.





This legistlation won't do anything for me.



I don't think this legislation should exist, though.

You don't like the vacation options you have? Work for someone else.

Can't get a job that has those vacation options? Tough shit. I really wish you had explained what PTO means.

Originally posted by KidRock
The numbers are different because they are 2 different graphs showing 2 different things.

I don't know how you would argue that the White House's own estimates or the Congressional Budget Office's estimates are not credible.
The two estimates by CBO and White House are different. They can't both be right, at least one is wrong. I don't know which of the two to believe.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The two estimates by CBO and White House are different. They can't both be right, at least one is wrong. I don't know which of the two to believe.

Does it matter which one is right and which one is wrong? They both show a shitstorm of a deficit, ones that Bush and company never could have dreamed of achieving.

They sure did try, though.

Originally posted by KidRock
Does it matter which one is right and which one is wrong? They both show a shitstorm of a deficit, ones that Bush and company never could have dreamed of achieving.
I don't have data on the deficit. How about you show me projections of the national debt under Obama?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think the dirty word here is...and, mods, don't ban me because I know it isn't PG-13...


The word is....


Profit.







That wouldn't be as much of a problem if medical equipment, employee (physicians, nurses, etc.) didn't get paid as much, insurance wasn't as much, and the amount of money that could be won in malpractice suits was drastically reduced and capped.

Well, I agree about the malpractice suit thing. But I don't agree that profit should come before people's lives. Essential medical services for those that can't afford them should be subsidized by those who can

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Well, I agree about the malpractice suit thing. But I don't agree that profit should come before people's lives. Essential medical services for those that can't afford them should be subsidized by those who can


I don't think you're disagreeing with me at all. I listed quite a few "un-capitalisitc" things. The bottom-line is not always the bottom-line, especially when it comes to saving lives. (lol, I made a witty pun.)


Profit margin is probably where it's at, if you can wade through all of the bullshit...but, in the end, a 0.5% profit margin for revenue of $100 billion can be a much better position than a profit margin of 5% at $9 billion and vice versa. (Really depends.)




Damn it...

That sounds confusing.



Do you need me to explain more of that or do you understand what I'm trying to say?