Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you're wrong here. and inconsistent. In another thread you cite what a lousy record the government has protecting us, why trust them with the airlines? The only thing I've seen you consistent with is that corporate welfare is OK and people are on their own.
Then, you would be wrong in your analysis. I've never advocated corporate welfare, unless it would endanger the entire economy, which would affect the lives of nearly all citizens. In these cases, the government would have no hand in the protection, only providing the resources so that the airlines could protect themselves.
Quote:
The affect MIGHT be similar but you're missing the point. People can choose to maintain their car but we hear all too often of those who maintain a healthy lifestyle still coming down with horrid diseases. They have less chance avoiding that situation than the airlines did to prevent 9/11 yet you'd bail them out. Hi-jackings were a problem 30+ years ago and the airlines obviously did a poor job reacting to the problem yet you reward them.
As with a person's body, an individual can only do so much to prevent vehicle problems. Who knows when a transmission might go out or a timing belt break? So, the situations are more similar than you might think.
Since we've determined that personal health and personal transportation DO affect the economy equally, then you DO support a federal subsidy for everyone to own a new car?
No, but I certainly support federal subsidies for effective public transportation where it's needed.
In these cases, the government would have no hand in the protection, only providing the resources so that the airlines could protect themselves.
Okay, whatever, then let's have the government "provide the resources so that sick people can protect themselves," since then it would "have no hand in the protection..." you need to come up with better arguments.
Okay, whatever, then let's have the government "provide the resources so that sick people can protect themselves," since then it would "have no hand in the protection..." you need to come up with better arguments.
We've been over this, no need rehashing. Other people providing resources to individuals is not analagous to the effect the demise of the airline industry would have on the U.S. and world economy.
In a probably futile attempt to redirect the discussion away from airlines/corporations and back to the pros and cons of universal healthcare... I have a question.
From everything I've read, it seems that people are looking at the question of government sponsored health insurance as an "all or nothing" proposition. In other words, if such coverage were implemented it would cover everything (doctor visits, prescription drugs, hospitalizations, physical therapy, "the works") and this, I suspect, is what many people object to: The big government handout to all, whether or not they are working or "deserve" (quotes deliberate!) it.
Has the notion been floated that perhaps the coverage provided could be something other than comprehensive? In other words, why not have a system whereby only catastrophic health insurance is provided to people who otherwise would have NO insurance at all? In my opinion it is not the $125 doctor-visit bills or the $200 bottle of pills or the $100 physical therapy visit twice a week for 10 weeks that is likely to push someone into bankruptcy; it is the catastrophic illness resulting in tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of dollars that is what people are afraid of and what would likely destroy their lives. Why not have universal coverage for THAT only? Would that not be a reasonable compromise for the uninsured?
Totally against...and this from someone who is living this struggle. Why people continue to believe government is the solution rather than the problem when it is proven time and time again when it is outside the scope of the federal gov'ts role, they don't have the expertise nor the understanding how to create functional buraucracies. Holy John Edwards, functional bureaucracy? Did I just use those two words together, never mind the same sentence?!
Saying that government is the problem and not the solution, I'm not being cute with that slogan. Study what it costs and the avenues you must take to get a drug or new medicine patented. Look at the roadblocks created by insurance lobbyists. The huge profits by the pharmaceutical companies are nothing new. It is not about not having a libertine society void of some governing authority like the FDA. But if some of you understood the system to some degree, you may realize government is creating this mess and will only make it worse if they implement some grand old plan, particularly if affixed w/ price controls.
Quite baffling how some STILL will entrust their government to be the end-all and be so willing to also give up personal freedoms in the process.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
Then, you would be wrong in your analysis. I've never advocated corporate welfare, unless it would endanger the entire economy, which would affect the lives of nearly all citizens. In these cases, the government would have no hand in the protection, only providing the resources so that the airlines could protect themselves.
Well then it's conditional corporate welfare you support but corporate welfare none the less. I just think it's a shame you have more compassion for corporations than people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
So, now you're blaming the airlines for 9/11.
They certainly did a poor job of defending against a threat more than 30 years old.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
I'm not scared of the word, but of the negative impact on individual rights and freedoms that socialism causes. I'm glad you've admitted that National Health Care is a socialist agenda. It helps define the impact and the goal of those who advocate it.
And no matter how you try to cloak it as defending the national and/or world economy bailing out a private industry with government assistance IS corporate welfare
And no matter how you try to cloak it as defending the national and/or world economy bailing out a private industry with government assistance IS corporate welfare
I imagine that if Bush wouldn't let the chips fall on the airline industry you would've also been clamouring about how Bush is so heartless toward these airline employees, wondering why he didn't so something to stop it.
Well then it's conditional corporate welfare you support but corporate welfare none the less. I just think it's a shame you have more compassion for corporations than people
. Corporations ARE people. The demise of a large industry such as the airline industry would not only affect its employees, but many who have their pensions dependent upon the stocks of these companies. These are only the possible direct effects, not to mention the indirect effect, i.e. increased transportation costs and time for all individuals and the loss of productivity.
Quote:
They certainly did a poor job of defending against a threat more than 30 years old.
I'm not sure what you are referring to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
