|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Aug 19, 2009 18:56:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 20, 2009 9:06:29 GMT -8
What kind of fruitcakes would boycott a business that has some great ideas about healthcare? I could understand a boycott based on their really high prices, but not for good ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 24, 2009 8:20:28 GMT -8
"Individual Empowerment"; a right wing-nut euphemism for "I've got mine, screw you".  I agree with some of his suggestions but not all. I especially don't agree with allowing the insurance industry to pick and choose, even more than they do now, on what they will cover and what they won't. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Aug 24, 2009 15:11:23 GMT -8
"Individual Empowerment"; a right wing-nut euphemism for "I've got mine, screw you". I agree with some of his suggestions but not all. I especially don't agree with allowing the insurance industry to pick and choose, even more than they do now, on what they will cover and what they won't. Is that like "Moral Imperative" which is really clueless leftist code words for "lets get Union member's health care subsidized by the tax payers so the Union mobster leadership can spend more money on lobbying and Democrat election campaigns"? |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 24, 2009 15:20:47 GMT -8
"Individual Empowerment"; a right wing-nut euphemism for "I've got mine, screw you". I agree with some of his suggestions but not all. I especially don't agree with allowing the insurance industry to pick and choose, even more than they do now, on what they will cover and what they won't. Is that like "Moral Imperative" which is really clueless leftist code words for "lets get Union member's health care subsidized by the tax payers so the Union mobster leadership can spend more money on lobbying and Democrat election campaigns"? Fixed that for you. They aren't "clueless". There's nothing "clueless" about these grasping, knee-capping bastards. They know exactly what they are trying to do. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 25, 2009 7:11:44 GMT -8
I would agree that in some cases, such as the steel and auto industries, the unions became too powerful and full of themselves. However, if it wasn't for unions we would still be working in the sweatshops of the 1900's. Our current standard of living is a direct result of unions and the creation of the middle class.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 25, 2009 22:20:51 GMT -8
I would agree that in some cases, such as the steel and auto industries, the unions became too powerful and full of themselves. However, if it wasn't for unions we would still be working in the sweatshops of the 1900's. Our current standard of living is a direct result of unions and the creation of the middle class. I must differ with you on that last point. A very small percentage of U.S. workers are unionized, yet how many of them work in "sweatshops?" Labor unions were much needed a century ago as the industrial revolution had only recently taken hold internationally. The level of technology still required lots of unskilled or semi-skilled labor. That kind of labor gets treated much in the same way as machines and animals are treated. Hey, one goat is as good as another, right? One loom is as good as another; if one breaks down you just get a new one. In that kind of world workers really get a raw deal. For that reason the Gompers and Reuthers were needed. Now, however, we are in a world in which unskilled or semi-skilled workers are not worth much. One needs much greater education and training to be of value to industry. The higher the levels of education and training, the more each worker is valuable and less easy to replace than a mule or a lathe. In such a world it does not pay industry to treat people like dogs. Well, at least not nearly so much as in earlier times. Therefore, unions are not so necessary. And, to be fair, there are lots of laws on the books that resulted from the conflict between labor and management in the 20th Century. Labor leaders hate to admit it, provided that they understand, but unions can and do become so entrenched that they exercise a stranglehold over management. What the hell do you think got Detroit into trouble in the past half century? AzWm |
|
