PLAYER57832 wrote:But that doesn't mean folks without a degree should starve or live on the street or in dangerous housing.
they don't have to. there are plenty of jobs that do not require a degree.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Furthermore, a LOT of the people who work for low wages are skilled, but their companies were downsized or there just are more people wanting jobs in that field than there are.
if the job they have is not enough to support their lifestyle they should think about changing careers.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Why does spending 4 years studying somehow give you so much more right to have a decent life than those who just buckle down and work, often very, very hard? That is a better question.
i didn't study for four years, i started working when i left home at 18 for 7 bucks an hour and learned my job well enough that my company compensated (rewarded) me for all my hard work. it took some time, but with enough sacrafices i've got to where i am today and live a pretty comfortable life. there were times i did without things that most people think is a necessity.
PLAYER57832 wrote:That is not really the point. The point is that we pay for insurance, and now employers are claiming the right to deny specific types of coverage because they just don't happen to like that coverage.
i thought that was exactly the point. that people can't afford contraceptives.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Further, the cost to society for not giving women basic health care, including sometimes birth control or other "female" procedures is high. This is not about being cost-effective, it is truly about a few supposedly religious folks, mostly in heavily male-dominated churches deciding that women's needs are "just optional".
i'm sure that in these churches the problem isn't as rampant as in the areas where there are no churches... maybe they're on to something.....
PLAYER57832 wrote:It is about limiting women's ability to work, becuase without birth control, many women cannot work. It is not about health.
it's not about health????
i'm now confused.
PLAYER57832 wrote:and we are being told everything is "too expensive" right when the top 2% of wage earners have seen their incomes grow by magnitudes. THAT is the problem.
do you think you can take enough money from the the 2 percent of wage earners to keep them interested in earning that wage to fix all the problems? i don't.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Also, in case you missed it... a truly universal healthcare system such as is found in EVERY other developed country and quite a few not so developed countries is CHEAPER, by far than our system.
are they cheaper than the affordable care act?
PLAYER57832 wrote:But some wealthy, powerful people -- likley with heavy investments in the pharmeceutical companies and other for profit health systems (they do pay a good return right now), have convinced a lot of Americans that anything close to socialized medicine means terrible care, despite all evidence to the contrary.
how can we get rid of these people......without them things would be so much better. kind of like all the liberal actors huh?
PLAYER57832 wrote:I see, so after cutting Medicare and Social Security, what exactly are they .. and we, when the time comes, to use for money? These programs are successful. The problem is that no additional money has been put into them, instead the Social security fund was used as a kind of big bank for Reagan and Bush cronies, (along with other presidents since).
hopefully by then we'll be out of debt.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Oh, it is VERY relative. I am not talking about immigrants, and when the 2% see their income, primarily through investments, increase by leaps and bounds at the exact same time they keep shutting down factories, laying people off, denying pay raises... when the CEOs and higher executives in companies take huge bonuses, bonuses unheard of just a few decades ago and THEN claim they cannot pay even a dime more to their employees... it is very, very relevant.
That life in other countries is worse is not an excuse to make the US sink to the gutter, too.
i guess it all depends on what your idea is of a "reasonably decent life" is. i think mine and yours is a bit different.
PLAYER57832 wrote:What a bunch of condescendin ignorant blabber. Do you HONESTLY believe that someone working 40+ hours a day doesn't know how to work, doesn't deserve to eat and have a decent house?
if they are not making enough money to eat and have a pllace to sleep, then they are not working. they are wasting their time and should work towards something better. there are people that live their whole lives on govt assistance. but i think the big problem for them is not that they don't make enough, more like they don't know how to manage their life.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Then you are disgusting.
you are a purple headed snot monster
PLAYER57832 wrote:One illness, one setback.. that is all it takes to move MOST americans from a decent life to homelessness.
i'm not interested in denying people help from a true medical emergency, but still, we've went over it before, if people spent more of their efforts in preparing for their own emergency instead of buying things that they think they want, it would go along way.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Today, blaming the poor has come back into fashion.
there is the poor, and then there is the "poor". you seem to bundle them together, i don't. i blame the "poor" not the poor.
PLAYER57832 wrote:You're an idiot.
you're a yellow nosed poo face
PLAYER57832 wrote:You are not responding to what I am saying, you are simply reciting rhetoric you heard or read somewhere. Try thinking on your own for a change. It does wonders.
you are not responding to what I
am saying, you are simply reciting rhetoric you
heard or read somewhere. try thinking on your
own for a change. it does wonders.
see that, i can say it too.