An OLd Liberal " Gets It"

What it means is the end of the Middle Class in the future. Labor is not valued. The rich will have their millions. The liberals have already lost the Middle Class. This will give them more poor to pander to.
 
Cut-Throat said:
Would you like to see the U.S. pass a 'wealth' test to see if we should let the poor vote?

Or maybe you'd just like to see the poor wither and die? :confused:

No, where did you get that? The Democrats mainly promise government benefits to get their votes. Who needs the benefits more than the poor? Should be a win for them. Over time wealth in a nation gets out of balance. I see it tipping tward the wealthy now. The middle class is a fragile thing, most will slip into the ranks of the poor. Globilazion will drive the price of labor down, only people with skills and education will have any chance of a decent life.
 
McGovern is showing more flexibilty of thought than many folks half his age. He's facing the problem squarely, and pitching public programs he favors (i.e. universal health care) as being important for the competetiveness of US business.

Maybe we're getting beyond the politics of "who is oppressing who" and zero-sum thinking (on both sides) and moving toward some real solutions.
 
I am in favor of the Universal Health care which puts me in a minority among conservatives. We have public schools, roads, power grids, ect. Why is this such a stretch for some? We really need this, but we will have to pay for it. We will not be able to redistribute wealth from the rich to do it. There aren't enough of them.

The economy is not a "zero sum game", wealth is created by individuals and businesses. We do have to have a system that prevents all of the wealth from ending up in the hands of a few which it will naturally do in pure capitalism. Right now it isn’t working so well.
 
There is a great article in this month's Atlantic Monthly about Walmart and health coverage. Apparently one of the major anti-Walmart groups attacking the company for its skimpy health care coverage actually has an alternate agenda: to get Walmart to admit "We can't afford it." They figure if they can get Walmart to stand up for universal health coverage, there may be a chance of getting it passed. Interesting idea.
 
Or maybe you'd just like to see the poor wither and die? 

If you are so worried about the poor, give more of your money away to them. Just find somebody off the street (I have been in Minneapolis recently and there plenty of folks panhandling along the road) and give your money away. You are using too much anyway with your lexus and wine drinking habits, anyway. :p
 
Lazarus said:
What it means is the end of the Middle Class in the future. Labor is not valued. The rich will have their millions. The liberals have already lost the Middle Class. This will give them more poor to pander to.

Well then I guess the message is to get your millions and get out of the middle class before it disappears.  

It is a terrible direction the country is moving in and I will keep voting for the losers but the fact of the matter is most of the current middle class to too obcessed with spending money they don't have to buy what the don't need to worry about the direction of the country and what the implications maybe for them and their offspring.  So as always in a democracy the people get what they deserve.

And we are left to plan and take care of our future inspite of the Govs best efforts to ruin it.
 
Well, to get back to the gist of the original post--a prosperous, large group of folks in the middle income levels is a relatively recent development (not just in the US, but everywhere). Manual/unskillled labor paid well in the US for the historical blink of an eye--during the unsusal situation we we in immediately after WWII (last major economy still standing, plenty of demand for our goods needed to rebuild the economies elsewhere). Globalization has caught up with us, and our labor rates will equilibrate with the rest of the world (which is great if you live in a developing country).

What we need now are policies that help the US stay competitive. E.g.
-- Maybe a more efficient health care delivery system is part of the answer.
-- Higher taxes are probably not the answer--unless they are used to make our workers/businesses more productive (example: the interstate highway system in the US).
-- Education: It needs to get better. And, money doesn't seem to be a highly significant factor in educational outcomes, though it certainly can make a difference sometimes. (many states with lower education expenses are getting better outcomes: Students who can read, do math, know geography and some history, etc).
 
REWahoo! said:
Uh Oh.  You drinking that cheap Trader Joes wine again?  :LOL:

Nah, I think our buddy Cutthroat is o.k. at this point. (First bottle of Trader Joe's Vino.).

The second one will produce:

" I scince sum sower grapse" :D
 
Jarhead, doesn't that happen anyway, whether the grapes are sour or not? ;)

The rest of you, I think you're crazy. ;)
 
I think we were talking about ancient history -- there were Greeks and Romans, or dinosaurs or something...
 
That article was hilarious

Typical liberal thinking. Universal healthcare? Sure, why not it will take the burden off of business

Who does he think is going to pay for it? Or should we not worry because it's "free"
 
I too voted for ole George in 72, not so much that I liked his policies or his vision, moreso because he loooked nerdy and I felt it was time we had a nerdy looking president.  And I was against the Vietnam war but not against the G.I.s fighting the war.  My dad was one of them.

But, ole George's newest manifesto of keeping wages down for the middle class is, although genuine of him to say what everyone knows, unworkable in that greed for "more" as John L. Lewis was famous for saying, is a human trait that once tasted can be like a vampire's first taste of blood.  Or, an alcholics first taste of cheap Trader Joe's wine.

Just go into any Trader Joe's and look at the store layout, the wine is always in the very central, most accessible, most visible portion of the store.  And, more importantly, Trader Joe's is second only to Walmart in paying low labor costs.  But, the do it in an insidious way, not by the Walmartian method of low hourly wages but by introducing efficiencies of labor distribution.

How you may ask? And the answer is simple.  The large wine section!   It requires very little tending, Just unload a few cases of Yellow Tail at the end of the aisle and in trundel the alcos and out goes the wine.  As opposed to say the vegetable section where 5 Norwegian looking guys in aprons are hard at work sorting, wetting and pruneing the 80 types of tuber, stalk, leaf and bulbs.  A large labor force is required for a product that produces very little profit.  Yes, just look at the large amount of labour that went into producing a potato and there is the farmer, Ag. inspector,migrant worker, sorter, packer, shipper, unloader, Norwegian looking vegetable aisle worker.  One potato.

Less vegetables, more wine.

I think these same advanced theories can be applied to universal health care.  Take the Norwegian looking guys out of healthcare and it becomes efficient and affordable and universally available to all.

First let's look at the problem.  Hospitals are very inefficient places much like the vegetable aisle in Trader Joe's.  For instance, before you see a physcian, you have already seen 4-5 other people.  At ER lady takes your name, insurance, etc., nurse opens door and allows you in and leads you to a gurney, orderly comes by with gown and booties, technician comes in and puts on EKG pads etc, nurse comes in and takes vitals (temp, rate, BP,etc).  Now the long wait after the Norwegians leave.  Finally, a doctor who now has to read your chart, ask all the same questions the Norwegians asked and by this time your original problem of shortness of breath, heart palpitations, etc. are gone and he says, "You look fine to me, I think you can go home now and schedule an appointment with your primary care physician.".  Now all the Norwegians come back and undo the work done earlier and all seem happy you're OK.  Very inefficient way of running a hospital.

Solution, again, a Trader Joe solution, more doctors, less Norwegians.

An older ER nurse at Northwestern told me the daily pattern is the same year after year.
4-6 PM   Commuters with wreck injuries, and afterschool children's accidents.
8 PM      Mother's with sick children.
Midnight-6 AM   Drunks and druggies having wrecks, falls or OD.
6-9 AM   Drunks needing detox and old men with chest pain.
10AM - 4PM  Quiet time

So as was the case in 1872, I agree with McGovern about universal healthcare but only if you are sober and drug-free.  Hospital should measure blood alcohol level and if it's above the legal driving level, you are billed.  All other healthcare is free.
 
So OAP, you favor fewer nurses? :eek:

Or just fewer Norwegian-looking ones?
 
saluki9 said:
That article was hilarious

Typical liberal thinking. Universal healthcare? Sure, why not it will take the burden off of business

Who does he think is going to pay for it? Or should we not worry because it's "free"

If the current admin can find $300 Billion and cut taxes, when it's already up to it's eyeballs in debt, it should be no problem to fund necessary health care if you can fund an unnecessary war.

It's voodoo economics. ::)
 
bpp,
more female Norwegian doctors is my goal. :D

But, seriously, hospitals just crawl with workers and very few doctors in sight. Just ask a nurse for anything, I wanted a Tylenol for a headache, it took about two hours for her to contact a doctor and get it approved.

By the way, she could give me morphine without approval. But that was what seemed to cause the headache. Go figure, morphine is OK.

On the wall of my room was "Northwestern is commited to minimizing pain".
Well taking 2 hours to get a Tylenol seemed like a pain in the ..../ :eek:
 
"It is a terrible direction the country is moving in and I will keep voting for the losers..."

Ah, that would be all of them, in my opinion. You'll have to be a little more specific. ;)

setab
 
Cut-Throat said:
If the current admin can find $300 Billion and cut taxes, when it's already up to it's eyeballs in debt, it should be no problem to fund necessary health care if you can fund an unnecessary war.

Amazing how everything is linked to the war. Health care, public funding of elections, immigration reform, hairstyles--sooner or later, there it is. Iraq, like Kevin Bacon, is related to everything by less than 5 degrees of separation.
 
Amazing how everything is linked to the war. Health care, public funding of elections, immigration reform, hairstyles--sooner or later, there it is. Iraq, like Kevin Bacon, is related to everything by less than 5 degrees of separation

Hey if it's OK for Administration supporters to tie every f'ing thing including the "NEED" for tax cuts to the war and protecting (rich) Americans, then why on earth would you find it uncomfortable if someone else does the same thing?

No need to adjust your microchip. Just ask "How High?" when they say "Jump".
 
razztazz said:
Hey if it's OK for Administration supporters to tie every f'ing thing including the "NEED" for tax cuts to the war and protecting (rich) Americans, then why on earth would you find it uncomfortable if someone else does the same thing?

No need to adjust your microchip. Just ask "How High?" when they say "Jump".

It's really funny, I didn't notice until about a week ago all of the conservative hating liberals here. I would have guessed (based on my professional observations) that most people who accumulate enough assets to retire early would have to be conservative in general but I was wrong. Either that or it's "I have mine, now you're screwed mentality" a.k.a Cadillac liberals.

Now as for the topic at hand. Do you think that national healthcare would have

1. Have customer service like the IRS
2. Fiscal restraint like the defense dept
3. Operational efficiency like FEMA

I'd vote for all three.
 
saluki9 said:
Now as for the topic at hand.  Do you think that national healthcare would have

1. Have customer service like the IRS
2. Fiscal restraint like the defense dept
3. Operational efficiency like FEMA

I'd vote for all three. 

Me too. To me they sound like an improvement over the current system of American healthcare.
 
Back
Top Bottom