The banks and other bailed out companies seem to be realziing that too.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

Only thing is, when the carrot doesn't work they'll resort to the stick. We'll see how this goes.

Unemployment compensation, at-will, could provide a continual economic stimulus that could reduce the volatility of the business cycle, as we currently know it.

They will try the stick. But, remember the federal Real ID Act? The states pretty much denied that one because they stood together. Now with I think 35 states passing States Rights Resolutions telling the government to cease and desist their over reaching on to state territory, this may be a battle yet to be fought. And now several states have even passed a law that forbids the federal government to have any jurisdiction of firearms manufactured and sold within the respective state. A wall is going up at the state level and if the feds push too far the states can call upon the continental congress and pass amendments to the US Constitution without the say so of congress. States can do this. It has never been done yet, but I'm all for it. The federal government was formed by the states as an agent for the things states themselves could not do. The states are not subservient to the Feds unless they give power to them as stated in the constitutional amendments as enumerated powers. As the Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

__________________
You do realize you are arguing with a mindless vegetable, don't you?

Why do Right Wingers LIE about Canada's health care system? I know many Canadians and I texted qujite a few of them today asking them if they and the rest of CAnada enjoys their healthcare and they all responded with a resounding YES!

It would be interesting to see a video of a reporting travelling to CAnada and asking random Canadians on the street what they think of their healthcare system and how long they have to wait in lines and how satisfied they are and stand back and let them speak. I assure you it won't be the fucking LIES the Right Wing keeps feeind the public.

All this bullshit about Canadians have to wait forever to get healthcare and fleeing to America are nothing but LIES.

All you can do is laugh at these Right Wingers.

I was discussing this on another thread. I don't think that union members are going to be exempt. The five year, or three year contracts etc will usually have some sort of a ryder that allows the contract to be reopend in the event of an unforseen increase that is over and above the current contributions. This sets up a temporary assist by the bargaining unit. The reason that unions really squawk about this kind of thing, is that when contract time rolls around again, it's very hard to get the genie back in the bottle and it winds up turning into a loss.

I think that with the climate being what it is, a reasonable outcome might be for the unions proper to kick in for the tax and take it up with the membership in the way of a dues increase. I don't think that the unions will allow themselves to play into Republican hands over this.

Done - YouTube - Dead Meat

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

A federal research hospital in each state could be accomplished by the general government of the Union; and could become a form of economic stimulus while providing for the general welfare.

Youre welcome to pay for it yourself.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

It could be cheaper than truer forms of socialized health care, and provide economic stimulus and advances in technologies that could result in lower cost and better service to the individual consumer of statism; ostensibly for the general welfare.

The party of capitalism for the sake of Capitalism could not implement more market friendly financial tools for the health care sector. We still don't have an unfettered financial tool for the health care market, even with a health care "crisis".

If the Republicans could not accomplish such a simple task in eight years, what makes anyone think the Democrats can change course on their party platform, without a more well informed electorate?

Did you happen to ask them how they feel about how much they pay in taxes?

The care they like. Paying for it is something, however, they do not. I work with Canadians every single day, and I've had this conversation with them. The care they receive is, generally, very good. The problem, and they'll admit this if they're honest, is that they pay through the ass for it.

I can assure you, they're not happy about that...

No, they're not.

Here's an interesting piece written by a Canadian. I'm sure you'll dismiss it, but that's to be expected: Canadian Health Care

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

Does anyone believe that a single payer system is more market friendly than a mixed-market health care system in our political-economy?

A federal research hospital in each state could be accomplished by the general government of the Union; and could become a form of economic stimulus while providing for the general welfare. And, could be considered warranted by our current health care "crisis". The infra-structure is already in place.

I'm not sure that another private type of hospital will be forthcoming. What I can see however is perhaps new county hospitals and clinics who's purpose will be to serve those on the national insurance system. I don't see why a United States held system couldn't be another HMO like Kaiser Permanente. This would go a very long way toward relieving overcrowding at existing care facilities and also toward giving those who are laid off or enter the field better employment oppotunities. This would mean better care all the way around.

For those who would wish to insist that this would be some sort of welfare - go ahead indulge yourselves with useless labels: we have a health problem in this country and I can't think of a better way to address it.

If its cheaper, then you pay for it. You can reap all the benefit too. Ill take freedom.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson