[patb]

[quote=afx114]The next big social networking site.

Friendster => MySpace => Facebook => ???[/quote]

DebtSter.

The site where people can pass their bills around.
Kind of like what wall street did.

[patb]

[quote=esmith][quote]The second rumor which I believe to be much more concrete is the introduction of legislation by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to force employers to hired unskilled workers. That is, for a given number of workers a company hires that are skilled, they must hire a certain number that have basically no skills.[/quote]

A quick search on thomas.loc.gov does not yield any legislation of this kind sponsored by either Pelosi or Reid. I’m not sure if it’s even possible for both of them to have their names on a bill, since Pelosi is a representative and Reid is a senator.[/quote]

actually bills can be cross body sponsored, things like Glass-steagal
which was sponsored by senator glas and rep steagal, the bill which
kept the banks stable for 70 years.

[patb]

[quote=esmith][quote]The second rumor which I believe to be much more concrete is the introduction of legislation by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to force employers to hired unskilled workers. That is, for a given number of workers a company hires that are skilled, they must hire a certain number that have basically no skills.[/quote]

A quick search on thomas.loc.gov does not yield any legislation of this kind sponsored by either Pelosi or Reid. I’m not sure if it’s even possible for both of them to have their names on a bill, since Pelosi is a representative and Reid is a senator.[/quote]

actually bills can be cross body sponsored, things like Glass-steagal
which was sponsored by senator glas and rep steagal, the bill which
kept the banks stable for 70 years.

[patb]

[quote=esmith][quote]The second rumor which I believe to be much more concrete is the introduction of legislation by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to force employers to hired unskilled workers. That is, for a given number of workers a company hires that are skilled, they must hire a certain number that have basically no skills.[/quote]

A quick search on thomas.loc.gov does not yield any legislation of this kind sponsored by either Pelosi or Reid. I’m not sure if it’s even possible for both of them to have their names on a bill, since Pelosi is a representative and Reid is a senator.[/quote]

actually bills can be cross body sponsored, things like Glass-steagal
which was sponsored by senator glas and rep steagal, the bill which
kept the banks stable for 70 years.

[patb]

[quote=esmith][quote]The second rumor which I believe to be much more concrete is the introduction of legislation by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to force employers to hired unskilled workers. That is, for a given number of workers a company hires that are skilled, they must hire a certain number that have basically no skills.[/quote]

A quick search on thomas.loc.gov does not yield any legislation of this kind sponsored by either Pelosi or Reid. I’m not sure if it’s even possible for both of them to have their names on a bill, since Pelosi is a representative and Reid is a senator.[/quote]

actually bills can be cross body sponsored, things like Glass-steagal
which was sponsored by senator glas and rep steagal, the bill which
kept the banks stable for 70 years.

[patb]

[quote=esmith][quote]The second rumor which I believe to be much more concrete is the introduction of legislation by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to force employers to hired unskilled workers. That is, for a given number of workers a company hires that are skilled, they must hire a certain number that have basically no skills.[/quote]

A quick search on thomas.loc.gov does not yield any legislation of this kind sponsored by either Pelosi or Reid. I’m not sure if it’s even possible for both of them to have their names on a bill, since Pelosi is a representative and Reid is a senator.[/quote]

actually bills can be cross body sponsored, things like Glass-steagal
which was sponsored by senator glas and rep steagal, the bill which
kept the banks stable for 70 years.

[patb]

[quote=patientrenter][quote=Scarlet]Not bad.

Healthcare needs to be dealt with too. How can GM ever compete if the Japanese Government pays healthcare for Toyota, Honda, etc. workers? Dito Germany for BMW, Mercedes……

We don’t want GM walking out of the ER nice and healthy only to be hit by the same truck.[/quote]

If it’s the Japanese government, then does that mean it’s cost-free to the people of Japan? Of course not. The cost of the health care for all the people of Japan is borne by the people (taxpayers) of Japan. That includes Toyota and its workers, and it suppliers and their workers, etc. If Toyota and its workers pay $5,000 per worker in taxes to the government for health care for those workers, that has the same long-term economic impact on Toyota and its workers as a direct payment of $5,000 from the company to the health care providers.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that government, or insurance, or any other delivery mechanism for health care, does not provide a free lunch. THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH. The only thing that will help reduce the burden of health care on our pockets and competitiveness is reducing how much we spend on it, not changing who spends it.

Sorry to be brutal, Scarlet, but sometimes I wish that every voter was required to meet economic literacy tests. We can no longer afford the luxury of making big decisions on our economy based on uninformed populism.[/quote]

P_R

If we had single payer we could effectively double
health care delivery, by eliminating waste from the insurance
companies.

Medicare is 30 times more efficient then United Health.

[patb]

[quote=patientrenter][quote=Scarlet]Not bad.

Healthcare needs to be dealt with too. How can GM ever compete if the Japanese Government pays healthcare for Toyota, Honda, etc. workers? Dito Germany for BMW, Mercedes……

We don’t want GM walking out of the ER nice and healthy only to be hit by the same truck.[/quote]

If it’s the Japanese government, then does that mean it’s cost-free to the people of Japan? Of course not. The cost of the health care for all the people of Japan is borne by the people (taxpayers) of Japan. That includes Toyota and its workers, and it suppliers and their workers, etc. If Toyota and its workers pay $5,000 per worker in taxes to the government for health care for those workers, that has the same long-term economic impact on Toyota and its workers as a direct payment of $5,000 from the company to the health care providers.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that government, or insurance, or any other delivery mechanism for health care, does not provide a free lunch. THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH. The only thing that will help reduce the burden of health care on our pockets and competitiveness is reducing how much we spend on it, not changing who spends it.

Sorry to be brutal, Scarlet, but sometimes I wish that every voter was required to meet economic literacy tests. We can no longer afford the luxury of making big decisions on our economy based on uninformed populism.[/quote]

P_R

If we had single payer we could effectively double
health care delivery, by eliminating waste from the insurance
companies.

Medicare is 30 times more efficient then United Health.

[patb]

[quote=patientrenter][quote=Scarlet]Not bad.

Healthcare needs to be dealt with too. How can GM ever compete if the Japanese Government pays healthcare for Toyota, Honda, etc. workers? Dito Germany for BMW, Mercedes……

We don’t want GM walking out of the ER nice and healthy only to be hit by the same truck.[/quote]

If it’s the Japanese government, then does that mean it’s cost-free to the people of Japan? Of course not. The cost of the health care for all the people of Japan is borne by the people (taxpayers) of Japan. That includes Toyota and its workers, and it suppliers and their workers, etc. If Toyota and its workers pay $5,000 per worker in taxes to the government for health care for those workers, that has the same long-term economic impact on Toyota and its workers as a direct payment of $5,000 from the company to the health care providers.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that government, or insurance, or any other delivery mechanism for health care, does not provide a free lunch. THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH. The only thing that will help reduce the burden of health care on our pockets and competitiveness is reducing how much we spend on it, not changing who spends it.

Sorry to be brutal, Scarlet, but sometimes I wish that every voter was required to meet economic literacy tests. We can no longer afford the luxury of making big decisions on our economy based on uninformed populism.[/quote]

P_R

If we had single payer we could effectively double
health care delivery, by eliminating waste from the insurance
companies.

Medicare is 30 times more efficient then United Health.

[patb]

[quote=patientrenter][quote=Scarlet]Not bad.

Healthcare needs to be dealt with too. How can GM ever compete if the Japanese Government pays healthcare for Toyota, Honda, etc. workers? Dito Germany for BMW, Mercedes……

We don’t want GM walking out of the ER nice and healthy only to be hit by the same truck.[/quote]

If it’s the Japanese government, then does that mean it’s cost-free to the people of Japan? Of course not. The cost of the health care for all the people of Japan is borne by the people (taxpayers) of Japan. That includes Toyota and its workers, and it suppliers and their workers, etc. If Toyota and its workers pay $5,000 per worker in taxes to the government for health care for those workers, that has the same long-term economic impact on Toyota and its workers as a direct payment of $5,000 from the company to the health care providers.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that government, or insurance, or any other delivery mechanism for health care, does not provide a free lunch. THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH. The only thing that will help reduce the burden of health care on our pockets and competitiveness is reducing how much we spend on it, not changing who spends it.

Sorry to be brutal, Scarlet, but sometimes I wish that every voter was required to meet economic literacy tests. We can no longer afford the luxury of making big decisions on our economy based on uninformed populism.[/quote]

P_R

If we had single payer we could effectively double
health care delivery, by eliminating waste from the insurance
companies.

Medicare is 30 times more efficient then United Health.

[patb]

[quote=patientrenter][quote=Scarlet]Not bad.

Healthcare needs to be dealt with too. How can GM ever compete if the Japanese Government pays healthcare for Toyota, Honda, etc. workers? Dito Germany for BMW, Mercedes……

We don’t want GM walking out of the ER nice and healthy only to be hit by the same truck.[/quote]

If it’s the Japanese government, then does that mean it’s cost-free to the people of Japan? Of course not. The cost of the health care for all the people of Japan is borne by the people (taxpayers) of Japan. That includes Toyota and its workers, and it suppliers and their workers, etc. If Toyota and its workers pay $5,000 per worker in taxes to the government for health care for those workers, that has the same long-term economic impact on Toyota and its workers as a direct payment of $5,000 from the company to the health care providers.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that government, or insurance, or any other delivery mechanism for health care, does not provide a free lunch. THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH. The only thing that will help reduce the burden of health care on our pockets and competitiveness is reducing how much we spend on it, not changing who spends it.

Sorry to be brutal, Scarlet, but sometimes I wish that every voter was required to meet economic literacy tests. We can no longer afford the luxury of making big decisions on our economy based on uninformed populism.[/quote]

P_R

If we had single payer we could effectively double
health care delivery, by eliminating waste from the insurance
companies.

Medicare is 30 times more efficient then United Health.

[patb]

it does mean a regulator does need to make sure
that if a country or it’s private parties borrows in
foreign currency, there is a limit to it, or that
it’s driven by business deal not as currency speculation.

[patb]

it does mean a regulator does need to make sure
that if a country or it’s private parties borrows in
foreign currency, there is a limit to it, or that
it’s driven by business deal not as currency speculation.

[patb]

it does mean a regulator does need to make sure
that if a country or it’s private parties borrows in
foreign currency, there is a limit to it, or that
it’s driven by business deal not as currency speculation.

[patb]

it does mean a regulator does need to make sure
that if a country or it’s private parties borrows in
foreign currency, there is a limit to it, or that
it’s driven by business deal not as currency speculation.

[Author]

Posts