[quote=BTS]Americans split over Wal-Mart
Polls, conducted by anti-Wal-Mart group, show most have favorable view
Live VoteWal-Mart: Love it or hate it?
29responsesLove it
71 Hate it
Not a scientifically valid survey. Click to learn more.
A political concensus
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
A political concensus
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
A political concensus
BTS wrote: Americans split over Wal-Mart
Polls, conducted by anti-Wal-Mart group, show most have favorable view
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10283165/
no it doesn't Ann
Polls, conducted by anti-Wal-Mart group, show most have favorable view
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10283165/
no it doesn't Ann
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
A political concensus
Public aid bill targets Wal-Mart
BY KAREN LINCOLN MICHEL - Green Bay Press-Gazette
November 16, 2005
MADISON †The discount-retail giant Wal-Mart would be forced to reimburse the state of Wisconsin for insurance costs of 18 percent of its workers enrolled in public health care under a bill introduced Tuesday in the state Senate.
Sen. Dave Hansen, D-Green Bay, said Tuesday that he authored the bill because taxpayers should not have to fund health-care coverage for the state’s largest employers, such as Wal-Mart †which recorded a $10.3 billion profit for the 2005 fiscal year.
“Our bill is basically saying that we’re not against the employees getting BadgerCare and Medical Assistance, but with the kind of resources that companies like Wal-Mart have, they had better either provide affordable quality health care or pay the state,†said Hansen, whose bill targets businesses with more than 10,000 employees.
But Wal-Mart warns such a law would hurt the business climate in Wisconsin.
“Today the number is 10,000 employees, but tomorrow it could be 5,000,†said Dan Fogleman, a Wal-Mart spokesman based at corporate headquarters in Bentonville, Ark. “This should scare the business community in Wisconsin that legislators are putting forth this type of legislation.â€
A similar bill passed in Maryland, Fogleman said, but was vetoed by the governor “because it was not good for the business climate or the business community.â€
Fogleman said Wal-Mart in January will begin offering health-insurance premiums that are 40 percent to 60 percent lower than current coverage plans. He said the options range from $23 a month for single coverage to $65 a month for family coverage. He added that a single-parent family could get coverage for $37 a month under the new plan.
“That’s 50 cents a day for children on that particular plan,†he said. “We’re doing all we can to make it affordable and accessible.â€
A study released two weeks ago by the Wisconsin Citizen Action Fund reported that 4,722 Wal-Mart employees in Wisconsin and their 1,906 dependents are enrolled in public health programs at a cost of nearly $14 million annually. An estimated 3,673 of Wisconsin Wal-Mart employees had no coverage at all, the study found.
The report also named Aurora Health Care, the McDonald’s fast-food chain and Walgreen pharmacies as large employers in Wisconsin whose workers are enrolled in state programs such as BadgerCare, family Medicaid, Medicare Savings programs, and Medicaid for the elderly, blind and disabled.
As for the bill’s chance of passing, a spokesman for Senate Majority leader Dale Schultz, R-Richland Center, said he is doubtful.
“I would be very surprised if Dale would be inclined to move a bill forward which would have the state putting health-care requirements on private business,†said Todd Albaugh, communications director for Schultz.
Meanwhile, a spokesman for the citizen action fund says low-income workers should not be forced to turn to public aid for health-care coverage by the profitable companies that employ them, especially in a time when Wisconsin has been ranked as a state with some of the highest physician prices in the nation and when the state’s uninsured population jumped 17 percent in 2004 compared to the previous year. “There is a social cost, and we think that the very least Wal-Mart can do is pay back the state of Wisconsin for their employees that are on state programs,†said Nathan Sooy, Northeast Wisconsin director for the action fund in Green Bay.
BY KAREN LINCOLN MICHEL - Green Bay Press-Gazette
November 16, 2005
MADISON †The discount-retail giant Wal-Mart would be forced to reimburse the state of Wisconsin for insurance costs of 18 percent of its workers enrolled in public health care under a bill introduced Tuesday in the state Senate.
Sen. Dave Hansen, D-Green Bay, said Tuesday that he authored the bill because taxpayers should not have to fund health-care coverage for the state’s largest employers, such as Wal-Mart †which recorded a $10.3 billion profit for the 2005 fiscal year.
“Our bill is basically saying that we’re not against the employees getting BadgerCare and Medical Assistance, but with the kind of resources that companies like Wal-Mart have, they had better either provide affordable quality health care or pay the state,†said Hansen, whose bill targets businesses with more than 10,000 employees.
But Wal-Mart warns such a law would hurt the business climate in Wisconsin.
“Today the number is 10,000 employees, but tomorrow it could be 5,000,†said Dan Fogleman, a Wal-Mart spokesman based at corporate headquarters in Bentonville, Ark. “This should scare the business community in Wisconsin that legislators are putting forth this type of legislation.â€
A similar bill passed in Maryland, Fogleman said, but was vetoed by the governor “because it was not good for the business climate or the business community.â€
Fogleman said Wal-Mart in January will begin offering health-insurance premiums that are 40 percent to 60 percent lower than current coverage plans. He said the options range from $23 a month for single coverage to $65 a month for family coverage. He added that a single-parent family could get coverage for $37 a month under the new plan.
“That’s 50 cents a day for children on that particular plan,†he said. “We’re doing all we can to make it affordable and accessible.â€
A study released two weeks ago by the Wisconsin Citizen Action Fund reported that 4,722 Wal-Mart employees in Wisconsin and their 1,906 dependents are enrolled in public health programs at a cost of nearly $14 million annually. An estimated 3,673 of Wisconsin Wal-Mart employees had no coverage at all, the study found.
The report also named Aurora Health Care, the McDonald’s fast-food chain and Walgreen pharmacies as large employers in Wisconsin whose workers are enrolled in state programs such as BadgerCare, family Medicaid, Medicare Savings programs, and Medicaid for the elderly, blind and disabled.
As for the bill’s chance of passing, a spokesman for Senate Majority leader Dale Schultz, R-Richland Center, said he is doubtful.
“I would be very surprised if Dale would be inclined to move a bill forward which would have the state putting health-care requirements on private business,†said Todd Albaugh, communications director for Schultz.
Meanwhile, a spokesman for the citizen action fund says low-income workers should not be forced to turn to public aid for health-care coverage by the profitable companies that employ them, especially in a time when Wisconsin has been ranked as a state with some of the highest physician prices in the nation and when the state’s uninsured population jumped 17 percent in 2004 compared to the previous year. “There is a social cost, and we think that the very least Wal-Mart can do is pay back the state of Wisconsin for their employees that are on state programs,†said Nathan Sooy, Northeast Wisconsin director for the action fund in Green Bay.
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
A political concensus
StupidCowboyTricks wrote: no it doesn't Ann
Read the story and say that...........
You pittly poll has 100 responses........... WHOOPIE DEW
The Wake Up Wal-Mart figures came from two national telephone surveys of about 1,000 adults in January and November. The January 15-20 poll by Lake, Snell & Perry had a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, and the November poll by Zogby had a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points.
The number of people who said they viewed Wal-Mart very favorably or somewhat favorably fell 18 percentage points to 58 percent while the number who answered that their view was very or somewhat unfavorable increased by the same amount to 38 percent.
The group said attitudes were starting to change shopping practices. Asked how often they plan to shop at Wal-Mart in the next month, the number who said they would not go at all rose 8 percentage points to 28 percent. The largest group, those who planned to shop there once or twice, fell 7 points to 32 percent.
With that said the smear campain just might not be working:
“It would be hard for anyone to believe that a poll paid for by the United Food and Commercial Workers union was more accurate than the fact that our estimated November store sales were up 4.3 percent and that 10 million people shopped at our stores during the first six hours of sales last Friday,†Wal-Mart spokeswoman Sarah Clark said.
Read the story and say that...........
You pittly poll has 100 responses........... WHOOPIE DEW
The Wake Up Wal-Mart figures came from two national telephone surveys of about 1,000 adults in January and November. The January 15-20 poll by Lake, Snell & Perry had a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, and the November poll by Zogby had a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points.
The number of people who said they viewed Wal-Mart very favorably or somewhat favorably fell 18 percentage points to 58 percent while the number who answered that their view was very or somewhat unfavorable increased by the same amount to 38 percent.
The group said attitudes were starting to change shopping practices. Asked how often they plan to shop at Wal-Mart in the next month, the number who said they would not go at all rose 8 percentage points to 28 percent. The largest group, those who planned to shop there once or twice, fell 7 points to 32 percent.
With that said the smear campain just might not be working:
“It would be hard for anyone to believe that a poll paid for by the United Food and Commercial Workers union was more accurate than the fact that our estimated November store sales were up 4.3 percent and that 10 million people shopped at our stores during the first six hours of sales last Friday,†Wal-Mart spokeswoman Sarah Clark said.
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
A political concensus
BTS wrote: Read the story and say that...........
You pittly poll has 100 responses........... WHOOPIE DEW
The Wake Up Wal-Mart figures came from two national telephone surveys of about 1,000 adults in January and November. The January 15-20 poll by Lake, Snell & Perry had a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, and the November poll by Zogby had a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points.
The number of people who said they viewed Wal-Mart very favorably or somewhat favorably fell 18 percentage points to 58 percent while the number who answered that their view was very or somewhat unfavorable increased by the same amount to 38 percent.
The group said attitudes were starting to change shopping practices. Asked how often they plan to shop at Wal-Mart in the next month, the number who said they would not go at all rose 8 percentage points to 28 percent. The largest group, those who planned to shop there once or twice, fell 7 points to 32 percent.
With that said the smear campain just might not be working:
“It would be hard for anyone to believe that a poll paid for by the United Food and Commercial Workers union was more accurate than the fact that our estimated November store sales were up 4.3 percent and that 10 million people shopped at our stores during the first six hours of sales last Friday,†Wal-Mart spokeswoman Sarah Clark said.
The Poll is on right now go vote.....
why did you say it lost?
You pittly poll has 100 responses........... WHOOPIE DEW
The Wake Up Wal-Mart figures came from two national telephone surveys of about 1,000 adults in January and November. The January 15-20 poll by Lake, Snell & Perry had a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, and the November poll by Zogby had a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points.
The number of people who said they viewed Wal-Mart very favorably or somewhat favorably fell 18 percentage points to 58 percent while the number who answered that their view was very or somewhat unfavorable increased by the same amount to 38 percent.
The group said attitudes were starting to change shopping practices. Asked how often they plan to shop at Wal-Mart in the next month, the number who said they would not go at all rose 8 percentage points to 28 percent. The largest group, those who planned to shop there once or twice, fell 7 points to 32 percent.
With that said the smear campain just might not be working:
“It would be hard for anyone to believe that a poll paid for by the United Food and Commercial Workers union was more accurate than the fact that our estimated November store sales were up 4.3 percent and that 10 million people shopped at our stores during the first six hours of sales last Friday,†Wal-Mart spokeswoman Sarah Clark said.
The Poll is on right now go vote.....
why did you say it lost?
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
A political concensus
StupidCowboyTricks wrote: The Poll is on right now go vote.....
why did you say it lost?
The poll I sited is by the anti-Walmart union and the results were 58% favor them. It was done about 2 weeks ago. It is scientific unlike your online poll.
I quit
why did you say it lost?
The poll I sited is by the anti-Walmart union and the results were 58% favor them. It was done about 2 weeks ago. It is scientific unlike your online poll.
I quit
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
A political concensus
Don't quit, BTS. You defended Walmart magnificenty! I was on the other side, but I'm rethinking my stance right now.
Good job!;)
Good job!;)
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
A political concensus
BTS wrote: The poll I sited is by the anti-Walmart union and the results were 58% favor them. It was done about 2 weeks ago. It is scientific unlike your online poll.
I quit
No it wasn't LMAO
Just because it wasn't FOX
Go ahead and quit Mr. O'Riley
:wah:
I quit
No it wasn't LMAO
Just because it wasn't FOX
Go ahead and quit Mr. O'Riley
:wah:
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
A political concensus
ArnoldLayne wrote: Blimey you two are like a couple of pit bulls, that wont let go
we are only posting articles .........:-3
we are only posting articles .........:-3
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
A political concensus
Jives wrote: Don't quit, BTS. You defended Walmart magnificenty! I was on the other side, but I'm rethinking my stance right now.
Good job!;)
Why is that?:)
Good job!;)
Why is that?:)
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
A political concensus
ArnoldLayne wrote: Goodness, Im not complaining.....its BANTER :rolleyes:
So Walmart is taking over your part of the world...... lol
how do you feel before and how do you feel now?
"banter away":)
So Walmart is taking over your part of the world...... lol
how do you feel before and how do you feel now?
"banter away":)
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
A political concensus
I could not care less if Wal-mart gives their employees no benefits at all. Nor do I care if they pay below average. Employees have no right to employer-paid healthcare beyond job-related issues. But, ya get what you pay for. Eventually, Wal-mart will fix itself or implode.
What I do care about is when Wal-mart or any other business gets in politicians' back pocket and steals private property in the name of imminent domain.
What I do care about is when Wal-mart or any other business gets in politicians' back pocket and steals private property in the name of imminent domain.
A political concensus
posted by accountable
I believe it is condicive to a free society to allow the big and the small to garner for themselves that which they can garner. I am of course against altering the taxation structure so they can keep it - the taxation structure should allow them to keep the vast majority of it without alterations. I believe rich and poor alike should take steps to prevent gov't using tax money for social welfare. Reform is too broad a term to address in this context. The purpose of government (in the USA) is not to govern, or control; it never truly was. The term is a misnomer. The purpose of government is to guard and protect citizens' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Essentially we are in agreement, except i would qualify it slightly in that it is a fuction of govt to prevenmt companies from exploiting it's workers or forcing them tp put up with dangerous work condiions. Good employers tend to have good labour relations bad ones copmp[lain about stroppy union activists or complain about and take sanctions agaianst those who stand up for themselves. Sweeping gemeralisation I now but it is hard not to generalise and being too specific ends up in talking about a particular situation. Ultimately all companies make a profit on the backs of those who work for them and the debate is about what is a fair return for their labour. If you accept that workers have a right to bargain and have a right to demand a bigger share of the profits how do you decide what is a fair wage? Sy is it someone going on strike is being unreasonable while an employer (maybe i should say company, employer makes it seem personal) is making a fair offer.
to quote from Adam Smith, the wealth of nations the father of modern capitalism
In reality, high profits tend much more to raise the price of work than high wages. The rise of profit operates like compound interest. Our merchants complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, but they say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits; they are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains; they complain only of those of other people.
http://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/s ... /smith.htm
posted by accountable
I don't see a tremendous difference between Marxist communist ideals (which never happened in the USSR) and socialism. Looks good on paper, but can't last indefinitely. The one problem I see with all three is that they promote mediocrity. Why try to exel when even the laziest sloth gets what he needs? Why try to exel when any extra you gain will go to that sloth?
Again I would agree in broad terms but the dabate has moved on rather since then. Marxism/socialism don't appear in isolation but have their origins in earler arguements and about social reform of the previous century. communism is an elitist take on the arguement where a more enlightened minority tell everybody what to do.
Some of the ideals and solutions do have a lot of support. If the function of govt is to see to safeguard the citizens rights to life, then why not provide health care for all regardless of whether they are` rich or poor, liberty-well you have just tacitly allowed your government to hold people without trial on an offshore island where your courts can't reach and have an administration that thinks judicial torture of suspects is OK (terrorists win as soon as they get you to change the way you live) and the pursuit of happiness, well surely par of that is helping people out of poverty and ptoviding access to education and opportunity (at this point I shouild make clear i know nothing about the US education system except it teaches you all how to spell badly:sneaky: )
Forcing employers to provide healthcare benefits just gives them another hold over employees-or seems to, there have been several posts on this forum whre people are worried about affording medical benefits. Why do you put up with a situation where being poor means you can't afford medical care and you just die. Most people in this country would think that grossly unfair. Queue jumping to get medical treatment rpivately just because you can afford seemss to lack a sense of natural justice.
Also in the UK most people are within threemonths of not being able to pay their mortgage etc, nowadays it is not so much unemployment but illness resulting in loss of jobs etc. They might not get a lot of help financially and have to sell the house etc but the medical care would be free.
posted by open mind
An international body should be set up by the world’s communities to police relationships between communities.
There should be no national boundaries.
We already have such bodies but to work together nations need to actually have that intention and not just pursue what they see as their own interests.
posted by BTS
"I might be wrong but inthe US if you can't afford medical services they seem to leave you to die".
-------
My point is we are subidising illegals and STILL give health care to any PERSON in the US ...........
Your statement is all BS anti American probaganda. check these sites out that tell you how and what you must do to get medical treatment, food stamps, child care and on and on illegal or not:
I was the one who made the statement, you need to read posts properly. i was asking for clarification of the situation. Many of the posters bring the subject up and yes every american medical drama brings it up as if it is a major problem. You need to get over this childish delusion that every statement is anti-american, it doesn't do you justice. You are welcome to your medical care system.
Also posted by BTS
I believe that there are genuine problems with our health care system. Studies and anecdotal evidence suggest that the uninsured and the poor receive inferior care. But I do not believe that there are any easy answers. In particular, I fail to see how any fair-minded individual could conclude that we ought to increase government's role in health care finance. If the poor under Medicaid are not as well cared for as the rest of us under private systems, then government-funded health care would seem to be part of the problem, not the solution.
That is probably one of the biggest differences between the US and Europe, in the UK the prospect of the private sector getting more involved in the NHS is viewed with horror by most people. In 1997 surveys indicated that people would accepot hif]gher taxes so long as the money was spent on things like the NHS, instead we have higher taxes and the money spent on bureaucracy. The likes of drug companiess hit the headlines accused of evrcharging for thir drugs-make a profit yes rip people off no.
posted by BTS
Ya kinda like all the US car makers jobs going out the window partly because they can't pay for all the benifits that the Unions forced down their throats years ago........... Yet the Asian automakers with plants here have less extensive health plans, a younger work force and basically no health care obligations for retirees, meaning GM will probably still pay thousands more in health care costs per vehicle than Asian automakers.
But then that is part of the BIG plan huh?
Break the big dogs with absurd requirments and demands with any means possible.
General Motors Corp. said Monday it would cut 30,000 hourly jobs and close or scale back operations at about a dozen U.S. and Canadian locations in a bid to save $7 billion a year and halt huge losses in its core North American auto operations.
Now those are REAL JOBS that are gone........
The US`car industry seems rather like the British and european car industries of not so long ago the cars were crap and people are buying foreign because they were simply better. There was an expectation that people would buy crap simply because it was british. Nowadays we don't have a car industry-except we do nissan, toyota factories in the UK export most of their prodiction to europe. Our car industry lost because they forgot how to compete and thought the world owed them a living. The european car industry also had the same problem but fought back by changing work practices and going in to partnership with the japanese and korean amd malaysian car companies. Nowadays a General motors car in europe is either vauxhall, mitsibushi, chevrolet-but made in Korea starting from 800cc engined cars. American made cars like the chrysler neon and PT cruiser and cadillac are just not up to standard-at least not for the asking price.
You need to stop bleating about unfair foreign competition and face up to reality and change the way your car industry works, learning from competition is good business oractice, complaining about it is not.
We have walmart (asda-walmart) here but also a monopolies and mergers commission that stops them acquiring too big a market share, Tescos is the largest but the supermarkets here have a problem with an encreasingly informed shopping public that are used to comparing prices`and quality.Unemployment is not what it was so they can't screw the workers as much as they probably would given half a chance. It's bad management practice to try and expolit people, sooner or later it backfires.
posted by accountable
What I do care about is when Wal-mart or any other business gets in politicians' back pocket and steals private property in the name of imminent domain.
So, Does this mean you think govt should regulate on the way workers are treated and stop companies getting monopolies? Actually any good capitalist should be against monopolies as they work to the detriment of the marketplace.
I believe it is condicive to a free society to allow the big and the small to garner for themselves that which they can garner. I am of course against altering the taxation structure so they can keep it - the taxation structure should allow them to keep the vast majority of it without alterations. I believe rich and poor alike should take steps to prevent gov't using tax money for social welfare. Reform is too broad a term to address in this context. The purpose of government (in the USA) is not to govern, or control; it never truly was. The term is a misnomer. The purpose of government is to guard and protect citizens' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Essentially we are in agreement, except i would qualify it slightly in that it is a fuction of govt to prevenmt companies from exploiting it's workers or forcing them tp put up with dangerous work condiions. Good employers tend to have good labour relations bad ones copmp[lain about stroppy union activists or complain about and take sanctions agaianst those who stand up for themselves. Sweeping gemeralisation I now but it is hard not to generalise and being too specific ends up in talking about a particular situation. Ultimately all companies make a profit on the backs of those who work for them and the debate is about what is a fair return for their labour. If you accept that workers have a right to bargain and have a right to demand a bigger share of the profits how do you decide what is a fair wage? Sy is it someone going on strike is being unreasonable while an employer (maybe i should say company, employer makes it seem personal) is making a fair offer.
to quote from Adam Smith, the wealth of nations the father of modern capitalism
In reality, high profits tend much more to raise the price of work than high wages. The rise of profit operates like compound interest. Our merchants complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, but they say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits; they are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains; they complain only of those of other people.
http://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/s ... /smith.htm
posted by accountable
I don't see a tremendous difference between Marxist communist ideals (which never happened in the USSR) and socialism. Looks good on paper, but can't last indefinitely. The one problem I see with all three is that they promote mediocrity. Why try to exel when even the laziest sloth gets what he needs? Why try to exel when any extra you gain will go to that sloth?
Again I would agree in broad terms but the dabate has moved on rather since then. Marxism/socialism don't appear in isolation but have their origins in earler arguements and about social reform of the previous century. communism is an elitist take on the arguement where a more enlightened minority tell everybody what to do.
Some of the ideals and solutions do have a lot of support. If the function of govt is to see to safeguard the citizens rights to life, then why not provide health care for all regardless of whether they are` rich or poor, liberty-well you have just tacitly allowed your government to hold people without trial on an offshore island where your courts can't reach and have an administration that thinks judicial torture of suspects is OK (terrorists win as soon as they get you to change the way you live) and the pursuit of happiness, well surely par of that is helping people out of poverty and ptoviding access to education and opportunity (at this point I shouild make clear i know nothing about the US education system except it teaches you all how to spell badly:sneaky: )
Forcing employers to provide healthcare benefits just gives them another hold over employees-or seems to, there have been several posts on this forum whre people are worried about affording medical benefits. Why do you put up with a situation where being poor means you can't afford medical care and you just die. Most people in this country would think that grossly unfair. Queue jumping to get medical treatment rpivately just because you can afford seemss to lack a sense of natural justice.
Also in the UK most people are within threemonths of not being able to pay their mortgage etc, nowadays it is not so much unemployment but illness resulting in loss of jobs etc. They might not get a lot of help financially and have to sell the house etc but the medical care would be free.
posted by open mind
An international body should be set up by the world’s communities to police relationships between communities.
There should be no national boundaries.
We already have such bodies but to work together nations need to actually have that intention and not just pursue what they see as their own interests.
posted by BTS
"I might be wrong but inthe US if you can't afford medical services they seem to leave you to die".
-------
My point is we are subidising illegals and STILL give health care to any PERSON in the US ...........
Your statement is all BS anti American probaganda. check these sites out that tell you how and what you must do to get medical treatment, food stamps, child care and on and on illegal or not:
I was the one who made the statement, you need to read posts properly. i was asking for clarification of the situation. Many of the posters bring the subject up and yes every american medical drama brings it up as if it is a major problem. You need to get over this childish delusion that every statement is anti-american, it doesn't do you justice. You are welcome to your medical care system.
Also posted by BTS
I believe that there are genuine problems with our health care system. Studies and anecdotal evidence suggest that the uninsured and the poor receive inferior care. But I do not believe that there are any easy answers. In particular, I fail to see how any fair-minded individual could conclude that we ought to increase government's role in health care finance. If the poor under Medicaid are not as well cared for as the rest of us under private systems, then government-funded health care would seem to be part of the problem, not the solution.
That is probably one of the biggest differences between the US and Europe, in the UK the prospect of the private sector getting more involved in the NHS is viewed with horror by most people. In 1997 surveys indicated that people would accepot hif]gher taxes so long as the money was spent on things like the NHS, instead we have higher taxes and the money spent on bureaucracy. The likes of drug companiess hit the headlines accused of evrcharging for thir drugs-make a profit yes rip people off no.
posted by BTS
Ya kinda like all the US car makers jobs going out the window partly because they can't pay for all the benifits that the Unions forced down their throats years ago........... Yet the Asian automakers with plants here have less extensive health plans, a younger work force and basically no health care obligations for retirees, meaning GM will probably still pay thousands more in health care costs per vehicle than Asian automakers.
But then that is part of the BIG plan huh?
Break the big dogs with absurd requirments and demands with any means possible.
General Motors Corp. said Monday it would cut 30,000 hourly jobs and close or scale back operations at about a dozen U.S. and Canadian locations in a bid to save $7 billion a year and halt huge losses in its core North American auto operations.
Now those are REAL JOBS that are gone........
The US`car industry seems rather like the British and european car industries of not so long ago the cars were crap and people are buying foreign because they were simply better. There was an expectation that people would buy crap simply because it was british. Nowadays we don't have a car industry-except we do nissan, toyota factories in the UK export most of their prodiction to europe. Our car industry lost because they forgot how to compete and thought the world owed them a living. The european car industry also had the same problem but fought back by changing work practices and going in to partnership with the japanese and korean amd malaysian car companies. Nowadays a General motors car in europe is either vauxhall, mitsibushi, chevrolet-but made in Korea starting from 800cc engined cars. American made cars like the chrysler neon and PT cruiser and cadillac are just not up to standard-at least not for the asking price.
You need to stop bleating about unfair foreign competition and face up to reality and change the way your car industry works, learning from competition is good business oractice, complaining about it is not.
We have walmart (asda-walmart) here but also a monopolies and mergers commission that stops them acquiring too big a market share, Tescos is the largest but the supermarkets here have a problem with an encreasingly informed shopping public that are used to comparing prices`and quality.Unemployment is not what it was so they can't screw the workers as much as they probably would given half a chance. It's bad management practice to try and expolit people, sooner or later it backfires.
posted by accountable
What I do care about is when Wal-mart or any other business gets in politicians' back pocket and steals private property in the name of imminent domain.
So, Does this mean you think govt should regulate on the way workers are treated and stop companies getting monopolies? Actually any good capitalist should be against monopolies as they work to the detriment of the marketplace.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
A political concensus
I have to break this up into manageable pieces.
gmc wrote: Essentially we are in agreement, except i would qualify it slightly in that it is a fuction of govt to prevenmt companies from exploiting it's workers or forcing them tp put up with dangerous work condiions. Good employers tend to have good labour relations bad ones copmp[lain about stroppy union activists or complain about and take sanctions agaianst those who stand up for themselves. Sweeping gemeralisation I now but it is hard not to generalise and being too specific ends up in talking about a particular situation. Ultimately all companies make a profit on the backs of those who work for them and the debate is about what is a fair return for their labour. If you accept that workers have a right to bargain and have a right to demand a bigger share of the profits how do you decide what is a fair wage? Sy is it someone going on strike is being unreasonable while an employer (maybe i should say company, employer makes it seem personal) is making a fair offer.you'll get no argument from me there. Sometime in our short history some rich guys pursuaded (paid) enough politicians & judges to proclaim that a corporation constituted an individual. This took all responsibility & accountability away from the owners and gave it to a nebulous idea. You can't send an idea to prison for abusing it's employees.
Putting that responsibility back where it belongs would ruin the concept of the stock market, because nobody would want to invest in a company if responsibility for the actions of that company's management came with it. So, unless someone wants to create a private corporation to police the actions of private corporations *snicker*, it fall to the gov't. to be the police.
gmc wrote: Essentially we are in agreement, except i would qualify it slightly in that it is a fuction of govt to prevenmt companies from exploiting it's workers or forcing them tp put up with dangerous work condiions. Good employers tend to have good labour relations bad ones copmp[lain about stroppy union activists or complain about and take sanctions agaianst those who stand up for themselves. Sweeping gemeralisation I now but it is hard not to generalise and being too specific ends up in talking about a particular situation. Ultimately all companies make a profit on the backs of those who work for them and the debate is about what is a fair return for their labour. If you accept that workers have a right to bargain and have a right to demand a bigger share of the profits how do you decide what is a fair wage? Sy is it someone going on strike is being unreasonable while an employer (maybe i should say company, employer makes it seem personal) is making a fair offer.you'll get no argument from me there. Sometime in our short history some rich guys pursuaded (paid) enough politicians & judges to proclaim that a corporation constituted an individual. This took all responsibility & accountability away from the owners and gave it to a nebulous idea.
You can't send an idea to prison for abusing it's employees. Putting that responsibility back where it belongs would ruin the concept of the stock market, because nobody would want to invest in a company if responsibility for the actions of that company's management came with it. So, unless someone wants to create a private corporation to police the actions of private corporations *snicker*, it fall to the gov't. to be the police.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
A political concensus
gmc wrote: Again I would agree in broad terms but the dabate has moved on rather since then. Marxism/socialism don't appear in isolation but have their origins in earler arguements and about social reform of the previous century. communism is an elitist take on the arguement where a more enlightened minority tell everybody what to do.
Some of the ideals and solutions do have a lot of support. If the function of govt is to see to safeguard the citizens rights to life, then why not provide health care for all regardless of whether they are` rich or poor, liberty-well you have just tacitly allowed your government to hold people without trial on an offshore island where your courts can't reach and have an administration that thinks judicial torture of suspects is OK (terrorists win as soon as they get you to change the way you live) and the pursuit of happiness, well surely par of that is helping people out of poverty and ptoviding access to education and opportunity (at this point I shouild make clear i know nothing about the US education system except it teaches you all how to spell badly:sneaky: )A right is something you deserve, free and clear. Health is not a right. It is the result of a lifestyle of clean living or luck, in the best cases, and of the skill of highly trained professionals, in worse cases. One cannot claim the labor of a highly skilled professional free and clear because requires the actions of another. We can claim the right to freedom of thought, speech, etc. because it costs no one anything. To receive the services of another, such as a doctor, without payment, is charity. The gov't is not - or rather should not be - a charity. That's what the church is for, and they should be separate.
As for the terrorists, My post referred specifically to citizens. If the US gov't is torturing US citizens, damn right I have a major problem with that.
*added* As for education, that is a responsibility of local and state governments, not federal, yet our federal gov't continually tries to control local education systems.
gmc wrote: Forcing employers to provide healthcare benefits just gives them another hold over employees-or seems to, there have been several posts on this forum whre people are worried about affording medical benefits. Why do you put up with a situation where being poor means you can't afford medical care and you just die. Most people in this country would think that grossly unfair. Queue jumping to get medical treatment rpivately just because you can afford seemss to lack a sense of natural justice.
Also in the UK most people are within threemonths of not being able to pay their mortgage etc, nowadays it is not so much unemployment but illness resulting in loss of jobs etc. They might not get a lot of help financially and have to sell the house etc but the medical care would be free.
Nobody forces employers to provide healthcare benefits. It is good business. I've already addressed your false statement about our letting the poor "just die." Your choice to ignore it is not within my control. Lastly, nobody gets free health care unless doctors work for nothing and use donated equipment built by volunteers.
Some of the ideals and solutions do have a lot of support. If the function of govt is to see to safeguard the citizens rights to life, then why not provide health care for all regardless of whether they are` rich or poor, liberty-well you have just tacitly allowed your government to hold people without trial on an offshore island where your courts can't reach and have an administration that thinks judicial torture of suspects is OK (terrorists win as soon as they get you to change the way you live) and the pursuit of happiness, well surely par of that is helping people out of poverty and ptoviding access to education and opportunity (at this point I shouild make clear i know nothing about the US education system except it teaches you all how to spell badly:sneaky: )A right is something you deserve, free and clear. Health is not a right. It is the result of a lifestyle of clean living or luck, in the best cases, and of the skill of highly trained professionals, in worse cases. One cannot claim the labor of a highly skilled professional free and clear because requires the actions of another. We can claim the right to freedom of thought, speech, etc. because it costs no one anything. To receive the services of another, such as a doctor, without payment, is charity. The gov't is not - or rather should not be - a charity. That's what the church is for, and they should be separate.
As for the terrorists, My post referred specifically to citizens. If the US gov't is torturing US citizens, damn right I have a major problem with that.
*added* As for education, that is a responsibility of local and state governments, not federal, yet our federal gov't continually tries to control local education systems.
gmc wrote: Forcing employers to provide healthcare benefits just gives them another hold over employees-or seems to, there have been several posts on this forum whre people are worried about affording medical benefits. Why do you put up with a situation where being poor means you can't afford medical care and you just die. Most people in this country would think that grossly unfair. Queue jumping to get medical treatment rpivately just because you can afford seemss to lack a sense of natural justice.
Also in the UK most people are within threemonths of not being able to pay their mortgage etc, nowadays it is not so much unemployment but illness resulting in loss of jobs etc. They might not get a lot of help financially and have to sell the house etc but the medical care would be free.
Nobody forces employers to provide healthcare benefits. It is good business. I've already addressed your false statement about our letting the poor "just die." Your choice to ignore it is not within my control. Lastly, nobody gets free health care unless doctors work for nothing and use donated equipment built by volunteers.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
A political concensus
gmc wrote: So, Does this mean you think govt should regulate on the way workers are treated and stop companies getting monopolies? Actually any good capitalist should be against monopolies as they work to the detriment of the marketplace.The government itself is being run by a monopoly. The Democratic-Republican Party split some years ago (a little help from an historian, please) to make the appearance of competition, then created rules making it excessively difficult, yet possible, for other political parties to compete. The subject of monopolies is a difficult one, but I trust the honest thievery of business more than the dishonest thievery of politics.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
A political concensus
ArnoldLayne wrote: The government isnt run as a monopoly otherwise there wouldnt be room for opposition parties, they would be excluded. Maybe in a dictatorship could you describe a government as being a monopoly. In a democracy , the people, the voters , are the monopolies commision,ensuring not a single party monopolises the political structureIn business, a monopoly is a company who uses unfair practices to prevent competition from offering alternative products or services to the public. If a single corporation owns two fast food restaurants in a town with no other fast food establishments, the town has variety, but no competition. The corporation is still a monopoly.
In the US, the political parties have similar views about how to control the freedom of the American people. They offer up two similar packages under different names, but make no mistake that they come from the same place. We do not have the wide variety of voices and ideas that other governments have because the top two parties have cooperatively enacted rules that effectively prevent competition.
Listen closely to the arguments. It is how we should provide healthcare, not whether it is a good idea. It is how to federalize government programs, not whether a particular one should be federalized at all. Even debates about budget cuts do not discuss actually cutting spending, but decreasing the rate at which we increase spending.
The Unites States government is absolutely being run by a monopoly.
In the US, the political parties have similar views about how to control the freedom of the American people. They offer up two similar packages under different names, but make no mistake that they come from the same place. We do not have the wide variety of voices and ideas that other governments have because the top two parties have cooperatively enacted rules that effectively prevent competition.
Listen closely to the arguments. It is how we should provide healthcare, not whether it is a good idea. It is how to federalize government programs, not whether a particular one should be federalized at all. Even debates about budget cuts do not discuss actually cutting spending, but decreasing the rate at which we increase spending.
The Unites States government is absolutely being run by a monopoly.
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
A political concensus
Accountable wrote: A right is something you deserve, free and clear. Health is not a right. It is the result of a lifestyle of clean living or luck, in the best cases, and of the skill of highly trained professionals, in worse cases. One cannot claim the labor of a highly skilled professional free and clear because requires the actions of another. We can claim the right to freedom of thought, speech, etc. because it costs no one anything. To receive the services of another, such as a doctor, without payment, is charity. The gov't is not - or rather should not be - a charity. That's what the church is for, and they should be separate.
As for the terrorists, My post referred specifically to citizens. If the US gov't is torturing US citizens, damn right I have a major problem with that.
*added* As for education, that is a responsibility of local and state governments, not federal, yet our federal gov't continually tries to control local education systems.
Nobody forces employers to provide healthcare benefits. It is good business. I've already addressed your false statement about our letting the poor "just die." Your choice to ignore it is not within my control. Lastly, nobody gets free health care unless doctors work for nothing and use donated equipment built by volunteers.
But they get Tax breaks and incentives . Take them away!
As for the terrorists, My post referred specifically to citizens. If the US gov't is torturing US citizens, damn right I have a major problem with that.
*added* As for education, that is a responsibility of local and state governments, not federal, yet our federal gov't continually tries to control local education systems.
Nobody forces employers to provide healthcare benefits. It is good business. I've already addressed your false statement about our letting the poor "just die." Your choice to ignore it is not within my control. Lastly, nobody gets free health care unless doctors work for nothing and use donated equipment built by volunteers.
But they get Tax breaks and incentives . Take them away!
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
A political concensus
sorry, posted twice
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
A political concensus
gmc wrote: posted by accountable
In the UK you can sue for corporate negligence. There` are also moves afoot to make directors liable personally liable if they have take decisions that have affecyed the sfety of their workers or others of the public. The idea being that it might mnake them a bit more careful of their duties as company officers.
posted by accountable
This is what I actually wrote
What do you think the role of govt should be ? There seems to be a considerable difference between europe & the US on the issue. Here most would accept the govt has a role in helping people out of poverty and making life better for the less fortunate and shou,d provide educaion, health services etc as a matter of right to the people electing them. I might be wrong but inthe US if you can't afford medical services they seem to leave you to die. At least every US medical drama seems to bring the ussie up.
That is pretty much the case.
No money no Honey:o
In the UK you can sue for corporate negligence. There` are also moves afoot to make directors liable personally liable if they have take decisions that have affecyed the sfety of their workers or others of the public. The idea being that it might mnake them a bit more careful of their duties as company officers.
posted by accountable
This is what I actually wrote
What do you think the role of govt should be ? There seems to be a considerable difference between europe & the US on the issue. Here most would accept the govt has a role in helping people out of poverty and making life better for the less fortunate and shou,d provide educaion, health services etc as a matter of right to the people electing them. I might be wrong but inthe US if you can't afford medical services they seem to leave you to die. At least every US medical drama seems to bring the ussie up.
That is pretty much the case.
No money no Honey:o
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
A political concensus
posted by accountable
you'll get no argument from me there. Sometime in our short history some rich guys pursuaded (paid) enough politicians & judges to proclaim that a corporation constituted an individual. This took all responsibility & accountability away from the owners and gave it to a nebulous idea. You can't send an idea to prison for abusing it's employees.
In the UK you can sue for corporate negligence a corporation is a legal entity. There` are also moves afoot to make directors liable personally liable if they have take decisions that have affecyed the sfety of their workers or others of the public. The idea being that it might make them a bit more careful of their duties as company officers if they thought they might go to proisopn.
posted by accountable
Nobody forces employers to provide healthcare benefits. It is good business. I've already addressed your false statement about our letting the poor "just die." Your choice to ignore it is not within my control. Lastly, nobody gets free health care unless doctors work for nothing and use donated equipment built by volunteers.
This is what I actually wrote
What do you think the role of govt should be ? There seems to be a considerable difference between europe & the US on the issue. Here most would accept the govt has a role in helping people out of poverty and making life better for the less fortunate and should provide educaion, health services etc as a matter of right to the people electing them. I might be wrong but inthe US if you can't afford medical services they seem to leave you to die. At least every US medical drama seems to bring the ussie up.
Just for clarifacation if I say "it is the case that you leave the poor to die" that is a statement made as if a thing is in fact the case. If on the other hand I start of with "I might be wrong" that is a statement where i am seeking clarification. I know nothing about your medical services except every US based medical drama I have ever seen brings up the issue off payment as if it is a major concern leaving the impression that if poor in america then you are left to your own devices` if you are ill.
posted by accountable
A right is something you deserve, free and clear. Health is not a right. It is the result of a lifestyle of clean living or luck, in the best cases, and of the skill of highly trained professionals, in worse cases. One cannot claim the labor of a highly skilled professional free and clear because requires the actions of another. We can claim the right to freedom of thought, speech, etc. because it costs no one anything. To receive the services of another, such as a doctor, without payment, is charity. The gov't is not - or rather should not be - a charity. That's what the church is for, and they should be separate.
To call our NHS free healthcare is a misnomer and rather misses the point. Our NHS is not free nor is it charity. We pay for it all through our lives but at the point where you need treatment it is free.
It is something we demand as of right and is not foisted on us. There is actually a great deal of hostility to allowing the private sector any say in the provision of medical care. The ethos is that everybody is entitled to the best of care as of right rather than because it makes a profit fo someone.
By the same token to be dependant on an employer providing benefits like healthcare smacks of paternalism, personally I would rather take it as of right from my government and pay for it through my taxes.
Incidentally the right to free speech is not yours by right it had to be fought for, taken, gradually extended to all and kept against those who would curb dissent by any means they can however subtle the method may be. Same with the right to liberty and a fair trial. As soon as you allow someone to have those rights taken away regardless of the circumstances then you open the door to your own being taken from you. It has to be an unqualified right or it is meaningless. The purpose of government is to guard and protect citizens' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Except for ---detracts from it somewhat don't you think?
posted by accountable
Listen closely to the arguments. It is how we should provide healthcare, not whether it is a good idea. It is how to federalize government programs, not whether a particular one should be federalized at all. Even debates about budget cuts do not discuss actually cutting spending, but decreasing the rate at which we increase spending.
How can you fedaralise it if each state is autonomous?
posted by snooze control
Just an aside here, but "(at this point I shouild make clear i know nothing about the US education system except it teaches you all how to spell badly)" would've had more punch without the typo.
I spell, I type, it's the two together that go wrong for me.
you'll get no argument from me there. Sometime in our short history some rich guys pursuaded (paid) enough politicians & judges to proclaim that a corporation constituted an individual. This took all responsibility & accountability away from the owners and gave it to a nebulous idea. You can't send an idea to prison for abusing it's employees.
In the UK you can sue for corporate negligence a corporation is a legal entity. There` are also moves afoot to make directors liable personally liable if they have take decisions that have affecyed the sfety of their workers or others of the public. The idea being that it might make them a bit more careful of their duties as company officers if they thought they might go to proisopn.
posted by accountable
Nobody forces employers to provide healthcare benefits. It is good business. I've already addressed your false statement about our letting the poor "just die." Your choice to ignore it is not within my control. Lastly, nobody gets free health care unless doctors work for nothing and use donated equipment built by volunteers.
This is what I actually wrote
What do you think the role of govt should be ? There seems to be a considerable difference between europe & the US on the issue. Here most would accept the govt has a role in helping people out of poverty and making life better for the less fortunate and should provide educaion, health services etc as a matter of right to the people electing them. I might be wrong but inthe US if you can't afford medical services they seem to leave you to die. At least every US medical drama seems to bring the ussie up.
Just for clarifacation if I say "it is the case that you leave the poor to die" that is a statement made as if a thing is in fact the case. If on the other hand I start of with "I might be wrong" that is a statement where i am seeking clarification. I know nothing about your medical services except every US based medical drama I have ever seen brings up the issue off payment as if it is a major concern leaving the impression that if poor in america then you are left to your own devices` if you are ill.
posted by accountable
A right is something you deserve, free and clear. Health is not a right. It is the result of a lifestyle of clean living or luck, in the best cases, and of the skill of highly trained professionals, in worse cases. One cannot claim the labor of a highly skilled professional free and clear because requires the actions of another. We can claim the right to freedom of thought, speech, etc. because it costs no one anything. To receive the services of another, such as a doctor, without payment, is charity. The gov't is not - or rather should not be - a charity. That's what the church is for, and they should be separate.
To call our NHS free healthcare is a misnomer and rather misses the point. Our NHS is not free nor is it charity. We pay for it all through our lives but at the point where you need treatment it is free.
It is something we demand as of right and is not foisted on us. There is actually a great deal of hostility to allowing the private sector any say in the provision of medical care. The ethos is that everybody is entitled to the best of care as of right rather than because it makes a profit fo someone.
By the same token to be dependant on an employer providing benefits like healthcare smacks of paternalism, personally I would rather take it as of right from my government and pay for it through my taxes.
Incidentally the right to free speech is not yours by right it had to be fought for, taken, gradually extended to all and kept against those who would curb dissent by any means they can however subtle the method may be. Same with the right to liberty and a fair trial. As soon as you allow someone to have those rights taken away regardless of the circumstances then you open the door to your own being taken from you. It has to be an unqualified right or it is meaningless. The purpose of government is to guard and protect citizens' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Except for ---detracts from it somewhat don't you think?
posted by accountable
Listen closely to the arguments. It is how we should provide healthcare, not whether it is a good idea. It is how to federalize government programs, not whether a particular one should be federalized at all. Even debates about budget cuts do not discuss actually cutting spending, but decreasing the rate at which we increase spending.
How can you fedaralise it if each state is autonomous?
posted by snooze control
Just an aside here, but "(at this point I shouild make clear i know nothing about the US education system except it teaches you all how to spell badly)" would've had more punch without the typo.
I spell, I type, it's the two together that go wrong for me.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
A political concensus
gmc wrote: How can you fedaralise it if each state is autonomous?That's a debate that hasn't been settled here yet, though many would say our civil war ended it.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
A political concensus
Accountable wrote: The purpose of government is to guard and protect citizens' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. gmc wrote: Except for ---detracts from it somewhat don't you think?Not sure I follow.
A political concensus
Accountable wrote: Not sure I follow.
rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without exception because of colour, creed, religon or anything else.
If you believe in the freedom of the individual then I happen to think you must extend it to all without exception and not allow any govt the right to take it away from anyone without due process, regardless of who they are or what you think they may have done. One of the most basic rights is freedom from arbitrary arrest by those in authority.
rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without exception because of colour, creed, religon or anything else.
If you believe in the freedom of the individual then I happen to think you must extend it to all without exception and not allow any govt the right to take it away from anyone without due process, regardless of who they are or what you think they may have done. One of the most basic rights is freedom from arbitrary arrest by those in authority.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
A political concensus
gmc wrote: In the UK you can sue for corporate negligence a corporation is a legal entity. There` are also moves afoot to make directors liable personally liable if they have take decisions that have affecyed the sfety of their workers or others of the public. The idea being that it might make them a bit more careful of their duties as company officers if they thought they might go to proisopn.Seems like a good idea, the boss being responsible for the actions of his subordinates.
gmc wrote:
Just for clarifacation if I say "it is the case that you leave the poor to die" that is a statement made as if a thing is in fact the case. If on the other hand I start of with "I might be wrong" that is a statement where i am seeking clarification. I know nothing about your medical services except every US based medical drama I have ever seen brings up the issue off payment as if it is a major concern leaving the impression that if poor in america then you are left to your own devices` if you are ill.You're right. You did use those qualifications. I had addressed the statement earlier, that's all. Stupid says you're right. I do not. Sorry for the pointed remark.
gmc wrote: To call our NHS free healthcare is a misnomer and rather misses the point. Our NHS is not free nor is it charity. We pay for it all through our lives but at the point where you need treatment it is free.
It is something we demand as of right and is not foisted on us. There is actually a great deal of hostility to allowing the private sector any say in the provision of medical care. The ethos is that everybody is entitled to the best of care as of right rather than because it makes a profit fo someone.I wonder what would happen if, for whatever reason, there were a shortage of doctors making the best of care impossible.
gmc wrote: By the same token to be dependant on an employer providing benefits like healthcare smacks of paternalism, personally I would rather take it as of right from my government and pay for it through my taxes.We'll just have to disagree on this, because I see gov't providing such benefits just as paternalistic.
gmc wrote: Incidentally the right to free speech is not yours by right it had to be fought for, taken, gradually extended to all and kept against those who would curb dissent by any means they can however subtle the method may be. Same with the right to liberty and a fair trial. As soon as you allow someone to have those rights taken away regardless of the circumstances then you open the door to your own being taken from you. It has to be an unqualified right or it is meaningless. By your definition, then, your right to medical care is meaningless. Sorry, I can't agree with you on that point. My contention is with people claiming as a "right" that which must be provided by someone else. If I am a doctor and you have a "right" to health care, does that not take away my "right" to refuse? Who is to say I have given you my best effort? Nope, you have no right to my skills or services. I give them or refuse them, which is my right.
gmc wrote:
Just for clarifacation if I say "it is the case that you leave the poor to die" that is a statement made as if a thing is in fact the case. If on the other hand I start of with "I might be wrong" that is a statement where i am seeking clarification. I know nothing about your medical services except every US based medical drama I have ever seen brings up the issue off payment as if it is a major concern leaving the impression that if poor in america then you are left to your own devices` if you are ill.You're right. You did use those qualifications. I had addressed the statement earlier, that's all. Stupid says you're right. I do not. Sorry for the pointed remark.
gmc wrote: To call our NHS free healthcare is a misnomer and rather misses the point. Our NHS is not free nor is it charity. We pay for it all through our lives but at the point where you need treatment it is free.
It is something we demand as of right and is not foisted on us. There is actually a great deal of hostility to allowing the private sector any say in the provision of medical care. The ethos is that everybody is entitled to the best of care as of right rather than because it makes a profit fo someone.I wonder what would happen if, for whatever reason, there were a shortage of doctors making the best of care impossible.
gmc wrote: By the same token to be dependant on an employer providing benefits like healthcare smacks of paternalism, personally I would rather take it as of right from my government and pay for it through my taxes.We'll just have to disagree on this, because I see gov't providing such benefits just as paternalistic.
gmc wrote: Incidentally the right to free speech is not yours by right it had to be fought for, taken, gradually extended to all and kept against those who would curb dissent by any means they can however subtle the method may be. Same with the right to liberty and a fair trial. As soon as you allow someone to have those rights taken away regardless of the circumstances then you open the door to your own being taken from you. It has to be an unqualified right or it is meaningless. By your definition, then, your right to medical care is meaningless. Sorry, I can't agree with you on that point. My contention is with people claiming as a "right" that which must be provided by someone else. If I am a doctor and you have a "right" to health care, does that not take away my "right" to refuse? Who is to say I have given you my best effort? Nope, you have no right to my skills or services. I give them or refuse them, which is my right.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
A political concensus
StupidCowboyTricks wrote: But they get Tax breaks and incentives . Take them away!The corporations, right? I'm all for that, but that's the only reason some areas have jobs: the local/state gov'ts offered incentives to bring businesses in.
A political concensus
Accountable wrote:
What I do care about is when Wal-mart or any other business gets in politicians' back pocket and steals private property in the name of imminent domain.
I agree 100% ACC.............
I am a property rights advacate also from the OLD school.
I have looked at Walmarts tactics in Denver and elsewhere and agree about that aspect. I also agree they do make local business's to either change or die, however that in my way of thinking is "Progress"
Your point was never brought up in the joust. I will be the FIRST to stand with you side by side and protect eminent domain.
SOOO many of the old ranching families in my home area have been thrashed by this land grab inteligence. Whether it be tree huggers or big business doing the taking.
Yes you are 100% correct saying:
"business gets in politicians' back pocket and steals private property in the name of imminent domain."
SHAME SHAME!!!!!!!!
A few links I use and cases I am involved in:
http://eco.freedom.org/el/20051201/
http://eco.freedom.org/ac92/
http://boortz.com/nuze/alabaster.html
http://www.rangemagazine.com/features/w ... deners.pdf
AND the best of ALL:
http://www.rangemagazine.com/
What I do care about is when Wal-mart or any other business gets in politicians' back pocket and steals private property in the name of imminent domain.
I agree 100% ACC.............
I am a property rights advacate also from the OLD school.
I have looked at Walmarts tactics in Denver and elsewhere and agree about that aspect. I also agree they do make local business's to either change or die, however that in my way of thinking is "Progress"
Your point was never brought up in the joust. I will be the FIRST to stand with you side by side and protect eminent domain.
SOOO many of the old ranching families in my home area have been thrashed by this land grab inteligence. Whether it be tree huggers or big business doing the taking.
Yes you are 100% correct saying:
"business gets in politicians' back pocket and steals private property in the name of imminent domain.
" SHAME SHAME!!!!!!!!
A few links I use and cases I am involved in:
http://eco.freedom.org/el/20051201/
http://eco.freedom.org/ac92/
http://boortz.com/nuze/alabaster.html
http://www.rangemagazine.com/features/w ... deners.pdf
AND the best of ALL:
http://www.rangemagazine.com/
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
A political concensus
Incidentally the right to free speech is not yours by right it had to be fought for, taken, gradually extended to all and kept against those who would curb dissent by any means they can however subtle the method may be. Same with the right to liberty
We had the right to free speech. It was taken away from us by rulers who sought to prevent the people from speaking against them. Free speech is a 'God-given' thing insofar as we are born with the ability to articulate and only those born with defects that impede this ability cannot exercise this ability.
Thus, I take my ability to say whatever I want to say as my 'God-given' right. Any restrictions to this are due to my inability to fully express myself. Otherwise, another person has to physically overpower me to stop me from saying what I want to say.
We had the right to free speech. It was taken away from us by rulers who sought to prevent the people from speaking against them. Free speech is a 'God-given' thing insofar as we are born with the ability to articulate and only those born with defects that impede this ability cannot exercise this ability.
Thus, I take my ability to say whatever I want to say as my 'God-given' right. Any restrictions to this are due to my inability to fully express myself. Otherwise, another person has to physically overpower me to stop me from saying what I want to say.
A political concensus
posted by accountable
Seems like a good idea, the boss being responsible for the actions of his subordinates.
Actually this is one areas where i would have thought the states was ahead of us in making companies accountable.
posted by accountable
I wonder what would happen if, for whatever reason, there were a shortage of doctors making the best of care impossible.
In effect GP's & the like contract their services`to the NHS, if they want they can do private work as well. It's like anything else if not paid enough we have a shortage so they can demand more. Same with nurses except successive govt's have taken advantage of their reluctance to strike so they are badly paid for what they do, so we have a shortage. dentists are going private wholesale so that in some areas you can't get an NHS dentist. The govt get the blame for not paying enough to make it economical for dentists-like the doctors they contract their servivces and provide their own surgery etc, it's a business just as in the states with one or two different twists.
posted by accountable
We'll just have to disagree on this, because I see gov't providing such benefits just as paternalistic.
Not when the govt is told do it or else, which is what happened in the UK post ww2. Paternalistic implies they are`giving it to us for our own good being given to us rather than doing what they are told by the electorate. Our social welfare came about because many resented being dependant on charity if impoverished when you had a state happy to take tax money when you were working expected you to go to war and came back to find things the same as before It just wasn't going to happen. Different world view-we see one of govt functions being to help people out of poverty and provide things like healthcare, it's not as if we give the govt a choice in the matter.
posed by accountable
By your definition, then, your right to medical care is meaningless. Sorry, I can't agree with you on that point. My contention is with people claiming as a "right" that which must be provided by someone else. If I am a doctor and you have a "right" to health care, does that not take away my "right" to refuse? Who is to say I have given you my best effort? Nope, you have no right to my skills or services. I give them or refuse them, which is my right.
You can choose to work in the private sector if you want-we wont even insist you pay back all the expensive training you had in NHS hospitals. You can also knock people off your GP list if you so choose, which does happen if a patient is stroppy or thanks to the Tory market economy view of the GP service, if your treatment is too expensive for the practice. But if you are working in a NHS hospital or a NHS GP surgery and refuse treatment you have a problem if it was only because you didn't like the patient. Our system is far from perfect but for doctors it's like any other occupation, you accept the job conditions or do something else. From my point of view as a potential user I don't mind paying for it because I will use it at some point, lucky not to so far.
posted by BTS
I have looked at Walmarts tactics in Denver and elsewhere and agree about that aspect. I also agree they do make local business's to either change or die, however that in my way of thinking is "Progress"
We have similar discussions about out of town shopping centres as well. I must admit to having little sympathy with some high street retailers as many seem to believe people should be forced to go to their shop. If you don't live in town having to go there is a real pain, at least on our traffic locked cities it is. If i get caught in traffic it can turn a 50 mile round trip into a four hour traffic jam.
Seems like a good idea, the boss being responsible for the actions of his subordinates.
Actually this is one areas where i would have thought the states was ahead of us in making companies accountable.
posted by accountable
I wonder what would happen if, for whatever reason, there were a shortage of doctors making the best of care impossible.
In effect GP's & the like contract their services`to the NHS, if they want they can do private work as well. It's like anything else if not paid enough we have a shortage so they can demand more. Same with nurses except successive govt's have taken advantage of their reluctance to strike so they are badly paid for what they do, so we have a shortage. dentists are going private wholesale so that in some areas you can't get an NHS dentist. The govt get the blame for not paying enough to make it economical for dentists-like the doctors they contract their servivces and provide their own surgery etc, it's a business just as in the states with one or two different twists.
posted by accountable
We'll just have to disagree on this, because I see gov't providing such benefits just as paternalistic.
Not when the govt is told do it or else, which is what happened in the UK post ww2. Paternalistic implies they are`giving it to us for our own good being given to us rather than doing what they are told by the electorate. Our social welfare came about because many resented being dependant on charity if impoverished when you had a state happy to take tax money when you were working expected you to go to war and came back to find things the same as before It just wasn't going to happen. Different world view-we see one of govt functions being to help people out of poverty and provide things like healthcare, it's not as if we give the govt a choice in the matter.
posed by accountable
By your definition, then, your right to medical care is meaningless. Sorry, I can't agree with you on that point. My contention is with people claiming as a "right" that which must be provided by someone else. If I am a doctor and you have a "right" to health care, does that not take away my "right" to refuse? Who is to say I have given you my best effort? Nope, you have no right to my skills or services. I give them or refuse them, which is my right.
You can choose to work in the private sector if you want-we wont even insist you pay back all the expensive training you had in NHS hospitals. You can also knock people off your GP list if you so choose, which does happen if a patient is stroppy or thanks to the Tory market economy view of the GP service, if your treatment is too expensive for the practice. But if you are working in a NHS hospital or a NHS GP surgery and refuse treatment you have a problem if it was only because you didn't like the patient. Our system is far from perfect but for doctors it's like any other occupation, you accept the job conditions or do something else. From my point of view as a potential user I don't mind paying for it because I will use it at some point, lucky not to so far.
posted by BTS
I have looked at Walmarts tactics in Denver and elsewhere and agree about that aspect. I also agree they do make local business's to either change or die, however that in my way of thinking is "Progress"
We have similar discussions about out of town shopping centres as well. I must admit to having little sympathy with some high street retailers as many seem to believe people should be forced to go to their shop. If you don't live in town having to go there is a real pain, at least on our traffic locked cities it is. If i get caught in traffic it can turn a 50 mile round trip into a four hour traffic jam.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
A political concensus
gmc wrote: Not when the govt is told do it or else, which is what happened in the UK post ww2. Paternalistic implies they are`giving it to us for our own good being given to us rather than doing what they are told by the electorate. Our social welfare came about because many resented being dependant on charity if impoverished when you had a state happy to take tax money when you were working expected you to go to war and came back to find things the same as before It just wasn't going to happen. Different world view-we see one of govt functions being to help people out of poverty and provide things like healthcare, it's not as if we give the govt a choice in the matter. Call it what you want; it's charity. The only way that doesn't become charity is if the gov't keep accounts on everyone and only allow each citizen that care he or she put enough money in to pay for. Give me my tax money back. I'll build it myself and stand or fall on my own, thanks.
Open Mind, the international body you suggest won't work. I think we'd be happier letting each area govern its own. I'm perfectly happy with gmc have his definition of rights and I having mine.
Open Mind, the international body you suggest won't work. I think we'd be happier letting each area govern its own. I'm perfectly happy with gmc have his definition of rights and I having mine.
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
A political concensus
Accountable wrote: Call it what you want; it's charity. The only way that doesn't become charity is if the gov't keep accounts on everyone and only allow each citizen that care he or she put enough money in to pay for. Give me my tax money back. I'll build it myself and stand or fall on my own, thanks.
Open Mind, the international body you suggest won't work. I think we'd be happier letting each area govern its own. I'm perfectly happy with gmc have his definition of rights and I having mine.
LOL what a hypocrite!:wah:
Open Mind, the international body you suggest won't work. I think we'd be happier letting each area govern its own. I'm perfectly happy with gmc have his definition of rights and I having mine.
LOL what a hypocrite!:wah:
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
A political concensus
StupidCowboyTricks wrote: LOL what a hypocrite!:wah:In what way? My employer offered me medical benefits. That's good business sense.
Oh you mean I'm a hypocrite because, as you said, I receive medical benefits and so I "don't get it"?
But you said the VA isn't giving us enough benefits. :-2
But then you called such benefits "military handouts."
But you also said people such as your brother were being left to die because they didn't have money for medical care.
But then you said he was terminal.
But you also had some twisted logic about Wal-mart's not giving enough benefits, the government needing to give free benefits a la Europe & Canada, and bragged that you didn't need benefits because you earn them from your employer!?! :-2
What was the point of you asking me if I hired day workers? You never replied.
Oh you mean I'm a hypocrite because, as you said, I receive medical benefits and so I "don't get it"?
But you said the VA isn't giving us enough benefits. :-2
But then you called such benefits "military handouts."
But you also said people such as your brother were being left to die because they didn't have money for medical care.
But then you said he was terminal.
But you also had some twisted logic about Wal-mart's not giving enough benefits, the government needing to give free benefits a la Europe & Canada, and bragged that you didn't need benefits because you earn them from your employer!?! :-2
What was the point of you asking me if I hired day workers? You never replied.
A political concensus
posted by open mind
Call it what you want; it's charity. The only way that doesn't become charity is if the gov't keep accounts on everyone and only allow each citizen that care he or she put enough money in to pay for. Give me my tax money back. I'll build it myself and stand or fall on my own, thanks.
It's not charity when you pay for it yourself. We pay for it all our lives and our parents before us.
What would you then say to the parent of a child with leukemia, they have money but when it runs out the child hasn't had time to pay any money in at all. Would you then let the child die because it has no money to pay for care? (chances are they will die anyway) Leave them to charity? Have a system in place so that the poorest are taken care of? Some people are never ill and just die, so I suppose they lose out but on the othr hand you never know. Actually i would allow those who think like you to opt out just so long as they are prepared to accept the reality that if they become ill and their private health care policy stops paying for care then they will die and if they have an accident they will have to pay for the ambulance and rescue services out of their own pocket.
posted by openmind
We had the right to free speech. It was taken away from us by rulers who sought to prevent the people from speaking against them. Free speech is a 'God-given' thing insofar as we are born with the ability to articulate and only those born with defects that impede this ability cannot exercise this ability.
Thus, I take my ability to say whatever I want to say as my 'God-given' right. Any restrictions to this are due to my inability to fully express myself. Otherwise, another person has to physically overpower me to stop me from saying what I want to say.
I would qualify in part what I said, free speech is a right we have to constntly watch to keep and preserve.
Call it what you want; it's charity. The only way that doesn't become charity is if the gov't keep accounts on everyone and only allow each citizen that care he or she put enough money in to pay for. Give me my tax money back. I'll build it myself and stand or fall on my own, thanks.
It's not charity when you pay for it yourself. We pay for it all our lives and our parents before us.
What would you then say to the parent of a child with leukemia, they have money but when it runs out the child hasn't had time to pay any money in at all. Would you then let the child die because it has no money to pay for care? (chances are they will die anyway) Leave them to charity? Have a system in place so that the poorest are taken care of? Some people are never ill and just die, so I suppose they lose out but on the othr hand you never know. Actually i would allow those who think like you to opt out just so long as they are prepared to accept the reality that if they become ill and their private health care policy stops paying for care then they will die and if they have an accident they will have to pay for the ambulance and rescue services out of their own pocket.
posted by openmind
We had the right to free speech. It was taken away from us by rulers who sought to prevent the people from speaking against them. Free speech is a 'God-given' thing insofar as we are born with the ability to articulate and only those born with defects that impede this ability cannot exercise this ability.
Thus, I take my ability to say whatever I want to say as my 'God-given' right. Any restrictions to this are due to my inability to fully express myself. Otherwise, another person has to physically overpower me to stop me from saying what I want to say.
I would qualify in part what I said, free speech is a right we have to constntly watch to keep and preserve.
A political concensus
Open Mind, the international body you suggest won't work. I think we'd be happier letting each area govern its own. I'm perfectly happy with gmc have his definition of rights and I having mine.
I agree that each area should be left to govern itself. However, it would be presumptious to imagine that intercommunal conflicts may escalate out of control. For this, an international body is needed to police the communities. Likewise, it would be necessary to provide to be able to reach into a community and 'pluck' out someone or group that may be suffering inhumanely because of the community.
GMC, I must correct you here' this was posted by Acc:
posted by open mind
Quote:
Call it what you want; it's charity. The only way that doesn't become charity is if the gov't keep accounts on everyone and only allow each citizen that care he or she put enough money in to pay for. Give me my tax money back. I'll build it myself and stand or fall on my own, thanks.
I would qualify in part what I said, free speech is a right we have to constntly watch to keep and preserve.
I agree with this.
A political concensus
posted by openmind
GMC, I must correct you here' this was posted by Acc:
oops! my apologies.
posted by openmind
I agree that each area should be left to govern itself. However, it would be presumptious to imagine that intercommunal conflicts may escalate out of control. For this, an international body is needed to police the communities. Likewise, it would be necessary to provide to be able to reach into a community and 'pluck' out someone or group that may be suffering inhumanely because of the community.
Then who would determine who gets to sit on that international body and determine waht level of coercion it would have to enforce it's wishes?
I think we are a long way from having any kind of world government. We already have international structires in place to moderate trade etc between nations, the EU GATT etc etc. At court at the hague was set up after ww2 but has no powers to impose its judgement and those powers are not likely to be granted it.
Problems are created when one nation or another decides unilaterally to abrogate treaties when it suits them. A short term tactic that will come back on them sooner or later. If you can't keep to agreements then sooner or later other nations get fed up. Actually the EU is every bit as good as the US in forcing trade agreements that suit a narrow range of powerful interests arguably detrimental to the rest of their society rather than taking a long term view. (Don't mention the common agricultural policy and french farmers)
At the risk of provoking controversy. Well actually I am curious what your take on this would be.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/globaljun1400.htm
June 14, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS
FROM: GARY SCHMITT
SUBJECT: International Criminal Court
Congressional Republican leaders yesterday announced their intention to introduce legislation to prohibit the United States from cooperating with a permanent international war crimes tribunal and requiring American troops to receive immunity from the court before participating in any UN peacekeeping mission. While the move to preempt the Clinton Administration’s attempts to fix an “unfixable†treaty deserve support, the immunity requirement would grant the International Criminal Court (ICC), established in Rome in 1998, a legitimacy it shouldn’t be accorded, and it and could serve as a roadblock to future U.S. foreign policy.
Two years ago, we predicted that the Clinton Administration would refuse to take “no†for an answer when it comes to the court. Instead, we suggested a policy of “three noes†toward the tribunal, then advanced by Project board member John Bolton in Senate testimony (a fuller version of that testimony is reproduced below):
• No financial support, directly or indirectly;
• No collaboration; and
• No further negotiations to “improve†the tribunal.
Yet this is exactly what the Clinton Administration proposes to do. The Washington Post today quotes David Scheffer, the U.S. ambassador at large for war crimes, who says, “If we can get this in the treaty…the United States will be a good neighbor to this treaty….We have many things to offer and will be in a position to offer those assets.â€
Is This John Bolton the same one now US UN ambassador?
http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/inde ... t_id=10145
I actually read war and anti war when it first came out. Personally I found it slightly disturbing. A tacit assumption that military power should be used just because it can.
GMC, I must correct you here' this was posted by Acc:
oops! my apologies.
posted by openmind
I agree that each area should be left to govern itself. However, it would be presumptious to imagine that intercommunal conflicts may escalate out of control. For this, an international body is needed to police the communities. Likewise, it would be necessary to provide to be able to reach into a community and 'pluck' out someone or group that may be suffering inhumanely because of the community.
Then who would determine who gets to sit on that international body and determine waht level of coercion it would have to enforce it's wishes?
I think we are a long way from having any kind of world government. We already have international structires in place to moderate trade etc between nations, the EU GATT etc etc. At court at the hague was set up after ww2 but has no powers to impose its judgement and those powers are not likely to be granted it.
Problems are created when one nation or another decides unilaterally to abrogate treaties when it suits them. A short term tactic that will come back on them sooner or later. If you can't keep to agreements then sooner or later other nations get fed up. Actually the EU is every bit as good as the US in forcing trade agreements that suit a narrow range of powerful interests arguably detrimental to the rest of their society rather than taking a long term view. (Don't mention the common agricultural policy and french farmers)
At the risk of provoking controversy. Well actually I am curious what your take on this would be.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/globaljun1400.htm
June 14, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS
FROM: GARY SCHMITT
SUBJECT: International Criminal Court
Congressional Republican leaders yesterday announced their intention to introduce legislation to prohibit the United States from cooperating with a permanent international war crimes tribunal and requiring American troops to receive immunity from the court before participating in any UN peacekeeping mission. While the move to preempt the Clinton Administration’s attempts to fix an “unfixable†treaty deserve support, the immunity requirement would grant the International Criminal Court (ICC), established in Rome in 1998, a legitimacy it shouldn’t be accorded, and it and could serve as a roadblock to future U.S. foreign policy.
Two years ago, we predicted that the Clinton Administration would refuse to take “no†for an answer when it comes to the court. Instead, we suggested a policy of “three noes†toward the tribunal, then advanced by Project board member John Bolton in Senate testimony (a fuller version of that testimony is reproduced below):
• No financial support, directly or indirectly;
• No collaboration; and
• No further negotiations to “improve†the tribunal.
Yet this is exactly what the Clinton Administration proposes to do. The Washington Post today quotes David Scheffer, the U.S. ambassador at large for war crimes, who says, “If we can get this in the treaty…the United States will be a good neighbor to this treaty….We have many things to offer and will be in a position to offer those assets.â€
Is This John Bolton the same one now US UN ambassador?
http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/inde ... t_id=10145
I actually read war and anti war when it first came out. Personally I found it slightly disturbing. A tacit assumption that military power should be used just because it can.
A political concensus
Then who would determine who gets to sit on that international body and determine waht level of coercion it would have to enforce it's wishes?
I think we are a long way from having any kind of world government.
Of course, at this stage, these things are all just opinions and ideas. The details have not been developed. However, the main idea in my thinking is that there would be no world government. All government would be conducted at a local level where individuals would be able to participate more fully in the politics that affects them directly.
The international body I visualize as a policing body on the one hand, and an arbitration service on the other. It would have no special powers except to prevent violent confrontations between communities and would be able to commandeer the resources of the communities in order to achieve this.
It would not make laws nor deal with individuals. This would come under the jurisdiction of the individual communities. If needs be, it can be called upon to assist communities deal with groups of people that are too big for a community to deal with.
It would require trained professionals. It would also need a system to prevent it from being used by people for their own ends.
Essentially, my ideas are about the devolution of political power. In my mind, people should have the power, not individuals. I believe that the current system that is operated is based upon a primitive animal urge for individual power.
I think we are a long way from having any kind of world government.
Of course, at this stage, these things are all just opinions and ideas. The details have not been developed. However, the main idea in my thinking is that there would be no world government. All government would be conducted at a local level where individuals would be able to participate more fully in the politics that affects them directly.
The international body I visualize as a policing body on the one hand, and an arbitration service on the other. It would have no special powers except to prevent violent confrontations between communities and would be able to commandeer the resources of the communities in order to achieve this.
It would not make laws nor deal with individuals. This would come under the jurisdiction of the individual communities. If needs be, it can be called upon to assist communities deal with groups of people that are too big for a community to deal with.
It would require trained professionals. It would also need a system to prevent it from being used by people for their own ends.
Essentially, my ideas are about the devolution of political power. In my mind, people should have the power, not individuals. I believe that the current system that is operated is based upon a primitive animal urge for individual power.