BuffettNews.com

Brown Eyed Girl wrote:

sy wrote: and to anyone, isn't gringo a derogatory term for Mexican? Not sure, I just wanted to clarify.

Technically, it's a term for any English speaking foreigner.

I have always thought it was mainly directed toward caucasians.

I agree

Brown Eyed Girl wrote:

sy wrote: and to anyone, isn't gringo a derogatory term for Mexican? Not sure, I just wanted to clarify.

Technically, it's a term for any English speaking foreigner.

I have always thought it was mainly directed toward caucasians.

Gotcha, thank you!

sy wrote:
A company does not make money by paying salaries to those it does not need (at least by design). No one ever said business was a fair or kind world. It is cut throat, even as low as a minimum wage job to the highest executive. That's why it's called work. Even those who own businesses know that each day could mean the rise and fall of their livelihood.

I have owned several businesses. Some that did very, very well after a bit of struggle and re-tooling, and some that flopped for various reasons, including one where I tend to take sole responsibility because my business plan wasn't well thought out (which is about as frank as I can be).

With that said and done the US is becoming a hugely polarized society between the haves and have nots. Once again, to use the Mexican analogy (and, once again, I use that mostly because I know the practices, not to necessarily say that we should do everything 100% the way that they do things) their per capita income is actually about the same as the USA. However, they have tons of poor rural people and a handful of extremely wealthy folks. Their middle class is growing; ours is shrinking.

Bottom line, if you are so afraid of Mexico then you had better take a hard look, because they are doing better and we genuinely risk dropping to an economic and social level such as they had a few decades ago.

Let's face it. If Mexico can focus and improve dramatically in a few decades, then we can too.

To address the comments about people not having job security even if they have been on the job for 20 years, I disagree with that point. Other nations give those folks generous unemployment. I know (although I can not be specific at the moment and don't have the time to look it up) that Mexico does, indeed, offer increased security economically for workers who have been on the job longer.

IF THEY CAN DO IT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT TOO.

Does this mean that someone should be allowed to featherbed and not be productive? NO. What I have in mind is some sort of scheme that would allow an employee to move on to another job gracefully. Perhaps (and this is off the top of my head, so hold your flames unless they are constructive) employeers need to be required to help their surplus employees to move on to other positions, rather than suddenly turning them out onto the streets.

Utopian? Maybe, maybe not. We need to find a way to improve social services and life styles and at the same time remain productive.

Thoughts?

sy wrote:

PirateJohn wrote:Fair enough. Let's recap my comments from yesterday:

I wrote:

My apologies, but in all of that, I still didn't see anything on how to actually fix the problem other than we all need to get together to fix it, which isn't a solution in and of itself.

and to anyone, isn't gringo a derogatory term for Mexican? Not sure, I just wanted to clarify.

No, "gringo" is a term for a Norteamericano. In other words, me (and presumably you) when you are in Mexico.

It's like black folks calling each other the n-word. Or perhaps like good ol' boys calling someone Bubba. Said the wrong way by the wrong person it's an insult. Said among friends it's a good natured jab. Said by me in this context it's meant as a joke.

While the n-word is still highly insulting in some circles, gringo carries about as much punch as blonde jokes to most blondes. In other words, it's a term from the past and no one seriously takes it as an insult any more. Except tacos perhaps (Mexican rednecks; the ones that are so stupid that other Mexicans pick on 'em )

PirateJohn wrote: Does this mean that someone should be allowed to featherbed and not be productive? NO. What I have in mind is some sort of scheme that would allow an employee to move on to another job gracefully. Perhaps (and this is off the top of my head, so hold your flames unless they are constructive) employeers need to be required to help their surplus employees to move on to other positions, rather than suddenly turning them out onto the streets.

Move on to what? If a company is laying off 2500 factory workers, where would you have that company move them to? In having to move them, they will have to likely double the amount they need to lay off simply due to the cost in having to move them to other positions.

If you're referring to a white collar position such as a day to day administrative job, what if there are simply no other positions available that fit that persons skills? Then that person would be put in a position they are not capable of and potentially be a detriment to those around them they need to work with.

I may be unclear on the level of a company moving unneeded employees around, but it just doesn't seem very feasible in most senses.

sy wrote:

PirateJohn wrote: Does this mean that someone should be allowed to featherbed and not be productive? NO. What I have in mind is some sort of scheme that would allow an employee to move on to another job gracefully. Perhaps (and this is off the top of my head, so hold your flames unless they are constructive) employeers need to be required to help their surplus employees to move on to other positions, rather than suddenly turning them out onto the streets.

Move on to what? If a company is laying off 2500 factory workers, where would you have that company move them to? In having to move them, they will have to likely double the amount they need to lay off simply due to the cost in having to move them to other positions.

If you're referring to a white collar position such as a day to day administrative job, what if there are simply no other positions available that fit that persons skills? Then that person would be put in a position they are not capable of and potentially be a detriment to those around them they need to work with.

I may be unclear on the level of a company moving unneeded employees around, but it just doesn't seem very feasible in most senses.

Sounds more like corporate babysitting than business.

Just an observation, as I don't have much time (I am fully occupied with ethnographic research in a number of other threads).

It's nice that folks think they live in the Best Country in the World. It may even be true.

But there are things that other countries do better, especially with respect to the balance between employers/employees rights. Over the long term, these better ways of doing things perhaps give citizens of other countries a better quality of life.

Yeah, I suppose one could make the argument that things can't be that bad here, because lots of people want to come here. But I don't think that argument in and of itself gives much of a boost to the "Best Country in the World" idea. I don't think you see significant numbers of folks immigrating from Canada or Europe. Why would they? They've got it pretty good right where they are.

We think we have the "Best of Everything" here, and that limits how we look at the rest of the world and leaves us vulnerable to stereotyping other people in other countries as "starving masses yearning to be free" and willing to do anything to sneak into this country.

I don't think most Americans have a clue about the rest of the world, just the parts they see when they look over the fence of their all-inclusive vacation resort.

rednekkPH wrote:

sy wrote:

PirateJohn wrote: Does this mean that someone should be allowed to featherbed and not be productive? NO. What I have in mind is some sort of scheme that would allow an employee to move on to another job gracefully. Perhaps (and this is off the top of my head, so hold your flames unless they are constructive) employeers need to be required to help their surplus employees to move on to other positions, rather than suddenly turning them out onto the streets.

Move on to what? If a company is laying off 2500 factory workers, where would you have that company move them to? In having to move them, they will have to likely double the amount they need to lay off simply due to the cost in having to move them to other positions.

If you're referring to a white collar position such as a day to day administrative job, what if there are simply no other positions available that fit that persons skills? Then that person would be put in a position they are not capable of and potentially be a detriment to those around them they need to work with.

I may be unclear on the level of a company moving unneeded employees around, but it just doesn't seem very feasible in most senses.

Sounds more like corporate babysitting than business.

Think of things this way:

Forget having a bureaucracy that organizes the shuffling of people around. Too expensive and cumbersome in all but the most extreme cases.

Instead:

#1, give departing persons a decent severance package. A professional person cannot make it on the $250/week or so umemployment insurance that we have down here in Florida.

#2, discourage (see severance package above) an employer from arbitrarily firing someone just because they are looking for another job. We are having way too many layoffs in this country of hundreds of people that could have been looking to find another job

#3, personally, I would love to see job hunting employees being able to use their present employers facilities. Not everyone has access to computers, printers, faxes, and so forth.

#4, make health care benefits transportable. We have so many uninsured workers in this nation that many people go from job to job looking for health insurance. More fundamentally, people lose their benefits when they leave a job. We really need to have some basic level of national health care that would be uniform throughout the nation. Whether employers were required to fund it or it was coming out of other pockets, one way or the other we need to get the health care crisis under control.

How's that for a start.

Hey, I'm open to suggestions. Just remember that "nope, can't do it" ain't no suggestion

Moonie wrote:well why would someone from Europe come over here, now?...we rebuilt their country after WW11..

you do remember WW11, don't you?

plenty of them immigrated over here before then...wonder why that was?

Don't overlook the obvious fact that WW2 was 60 years ago. A lot can, and has, happened in 60 years.

Or to put it another way, both Porsche and Mercedes had farm equipment in production because they couldn't sell cars right after WW2. They have both come a long way. Have you noticed that neither Ford nor GM have changed much, and now it's fairly academic as to when they will go bust, not if?

The rest of the world thinks that we, as Americans, never look outside our own borders. Hard to believe that, eh?

Old British joke:

Last month, a worldwide survey was conducted by the UN. The only question asked was: "Would you please give your honest opinion about solutions to the food shortage in the rest of the world?".

The survey was a huge failure:

In Africa, they didn't know what "food" meant.

In Eastern Europe they didn't know what "honest" meant.

In Western Europe they didn't know what "shortage" meant.

In China they didn't know what "opinion" meant.

In the Middle East they didn't know what "solution" meant.

In South America they didn't know what "please" meant.

And in the US, they didn't know what "the rest of the world" meant.

PirateJohn wrote: . . .
Instead:

#1, give departing persons a decent severance package. A professional person cannot make it on the $250/week or so umemployment insurance that we have down here in Florida.

#2, discourage (see severance package above) an employer from arbitrarily firing someone just because they are looking for another job. We are having way too many layoffs in this country of hundreds of people that could have been looking to find another job

#3, personally, I would love to see job hunting employees being able to use their present employers facilities. Not everyone has access to computers, printers, faxes, and so forth.

#4, make health care benefits transportable. We have so many uninsured workers in this nation that many people go from job to job looking for health insurance. More fundamentally, people lose their benefits when they leave a job. We really need to have some basic level of national health care that would be uniform throughout the nation. Whether employers were required to fund it or it was coming out of other pockets, one way or the other we need to get the health care crisis under control.

How's that for a start.

Hey, I'm open to suggestions. Just remember that "nope, can't do it" ain't no suggestion

This would be a great start.

PirateJohn wrote: #1, give departing persons a decent severance package. A professional person cannot make it on the $250/week or so umemployment insurance that we have down here in Florida.

Not all companies can afford to do this. Especially if they're going out of business.

PirateJohn wrote: #2, discourage (see severance package above) an employer from arbitrarily firing someone just because they are looking for another job. We are having way too many layoffs in this country of hundreds of people that could have been looking to find another job

Seems to me that if an employee is looking for another job (whatever the reason) they proabably don't have their loyalties with their current employer, and probably not as productive.

PirateJohn wrote: #3, personally, I would love to see job hunting employees being able to use their present employers facilities. Not everyone has access to computers, printers, faxes, and so forth.

Most business I know of are there to make money for themselves or stockholders. Not cater to people who no longer want to work for them. There are Kinko's are places like that that are available to almost everyone at minimal costs.

PirateJohn wrote: #4, make health care benefits transportable. We have so many uninsured workers in this nation that many people go from job to job looking for health insurance. More fundamentally, people lose their benefits when they leave a job. We really need to have some basic level of national health care that would be uniform throughout the nation. Whether employers were required to fund it or it was coming out of other pockets, one way or the other we need to get the health care crisis under control.

Insurance is a BENEFIT, not something an employer is REQUIRED to offer. You want National Healthcare? Write your congressperson or senator.

PirateJohn wrote:

Moonie wrote:well why would someone from Europe come over here, now?...we rebuilt their country after WW11..

you do remember WW11, don't you?

plenty of them immigrated over here before then...wonder why that was?

Don't overlook the obvious fact that WW2 was 60 years ago. A lot can, and has, happened in 60 years.

Or to put it another way, both Porsche and Mercedes had farm equipment in production because they couldn't sell cars right after WW2. They have both come a long way. Have you noticed that neither Ford nor GM have changed much, and now it's fairly academic as to when they will go bust, not if?

The rest of the world thinks that we, as Americans, never look outside our own borders. Hard to believe that, eh?

Old British joke:

Last month, a worldwide survey was conducted by the UN. The only question asked was: "Would you please give your honest opinion about solutions to the food shortage in the rest of the world?".

The survey was a huge failure:

In Africa, they didn't know what "food" meant.

In Eastern Europe they didn't know what "honest" meant.

In Western Europe they didn't know what "shortage" meant.

In China they didn't know what "opinion" meant.

In the Middle East they didn't know what "solution" meant.

In South America they didn't know what "please" meant.

And in the US, they didn't know what "the rest of the world" meant.

The fact remains...we have more coming in..(or trying) than going out...that speaks for itself...

I have seen what a Mexican corporation did to a local large business here. They ran it into the ground and shut it down after purchasing it. almost 1,000 people without a job. People are being forced to sue to get what is owed to them.

Again, youhave not answered the question, IF it is so great in Mexico why do we have so many ILLEGAL imigrants from that particular country here?

It is not fear of Mexico or Mexicans that anyone has, it is about the LAW and what is Right. Letting Illegals in...what does that say to all of the Mexicans and others that have followed the RULES and the Laws and worked hard for American Citizenship and to be here?

What other laws will you have us ignore?

One thing that was mentioned before, that could be done is let companies get rid of the "deadwood" and not be forced by rules to keep them on. In Japan, when a company starts losing business , the People at the top take the cut first pay cuts. Then again, employees in Japan are dedicated to their company and work hard for them. The work/business ethic is different there.

Look at all of the golden parachutes handed out. No I am not saying these people do not deserve what they earned, but perhaps when ATT ( for example) says it cannot afford to pay employees and has to shut this or that down or whatever, and can afford to pay one person how much, plus how much a month? Perhaps things like that should be looked into and investigated. A change in business ethics, How can one tell someone how much he or she cannot earn?

Things are so great in Europe ? Look at the riots in France recently when they tried to reform the employment laws there. Look what has happened in Gemany. ( I know people thast live there.) It s not what it once was.

How many of the countries are trying to get away from socialized medicine? I don't see socialized medicine as any real answer. It is not free to anyone, it is paid for some how. I know people that experience it first hand....and the waiting and other things they go through within the system.

flyboy55 wrote:Just an observation, as I don't have much time (I am fully occupied with ethnographic research in a number of other threads).

It's nice that folks think they live in the Best Country in the World. It may even be true.

But there are things that other countries do better, especially with respect to the balance between employers/employees rights. Over the long term, these better ways of doing things perhaps give citizens of other countries a better quality of life.

Yeah, I suppose one could make the argument that things can't be that bad here, because lots of people want to come here. But I don't think that argument in and of itself gives much of a boost to the "Best Country in the World" idea. I don't think you see significant numbers of folks immigrating from Canada or Europe. Why would they? They've got it pretty good right where they are.

We think we have the "Best of Everything" here, and that limits how we look at the rest of the world and leaves us vulnerable to stereotyping other people in other countries as "starving masses yearning to be free" and willing to do anything to sneak into this country.

I don't think most Americans have a clue about the rest of the world, just the parts they see when they look over the fence of their all-inclusive vacation resort.

We do a lot of things very, very well.

Unfortunately, lately, we think that we are perfect. And we are not.

We dismiss the rest of the world as insignificant when, in fact, we are rapidly losing our superpower status. More fundementally, we are losing our lead technologically and economically.

China will be much larger than the USA in an economic sense in about 20 years. India is also likely to give us a run for our money.

The jury is still out on Europe but they are going in the right directions with the European Union. If they can pull that together they will also be a trading block that is bigger than the USA, all the while offering their citizens better health care and retirement. Are their taxes higher? Yeah ... a bit ... but Europeans don't seem to worry about Social Security going broke or having the sort of illness that causes them to lose their houses.

The (dreaded in US conservative circles) UN did a survey a year or so ago and rated not just standards of living, but people's happiness with their lifestyles. Did you realize that American's are less contented than the average Mexican national? And trust me, it's not because Mexican folks don't know what's on this side of the border -- they know us much better than the average gringo knows them.

PirateJohn wrote:

rednekkPH wrote:

sy wrote:

PirateJohn wrote: Does this mean that someone should be allowed to featherbed and not be productive? NO. What I have in mind is some sort of scheme that would allow an employee to move on to another job gracefully. Perhaps (and this is off the top of my head, so hold your flames unless they are constructive) employeers need to be required to help their surplus employees to move on to other positions, rather than suddenly turning them out onto the streets.

Move on to what? If a company is laying off 2500 factory workers, where would you have that company move them to? In having to move them, they will have to likely double the amount they need to lay off simply due to the cost in having to move them to other positions.

If you're referring to a white collar position such as a day to day administrative job, what if there are simply no other positions available that fit that persons skills? Then that person would be put in a position they are not capable of and potentially be a detriment to those around them they need to work with.

I may be unclear on the level of a company moving unneeded employees around, but it just doesn't seem very feasible in most senses.

Sounds more like corporate babysitting than business.

Think of things this way:

Forget having a bureaucracy that organizes the shuffling of people around. Too expensive and cumbersome in all but the most extreme cases.

Instead:

#1, give departing persons a decent severance package. A professional person cannot make it on the $250/week or so umemployment insurance that we have down here in Florida.

#2, discourage (see severance package above) an employer from arbitrarily firing someone just because they are looking for another job. We are having way too many layoffs in this country of hundreds of people that could have been looking to find another job

#3, personally, I would love to see job hunting employees being able to use their present employers facilities. Not everyone has access to computers, printers, faxes, and so forth.

#4, make health care benefits transportable. We have so many uninsured workers in this nation that many people go from job to job looking for health insurance. More fundamentally, people lose their benefits when they leave a job. We really need to have some basic level of national health care that would be uniform throughout the nation. Whether employers were required to fund it or it was coming out of other pockets, one way or the other we need to get the health care crisis under control.

How's that for a start.

Hey, I'm open to suggestions. Just remember that "nope, can't do it" ain't no suggestion

While I appreciate your thoughts, as an employer I find them troublesome. Although health insurance transportability ought to be do-able, a national health care program is NOT the way to get it done. The only part of government that is truly effective is the military - they're supposed to kill bad people and break things and they get it done - but even the military is not "efficient" in terms of dollars.

Again as an employer, if your suggestions were implemented, I would be truly reluctant to hire someone. When it gets expensive to get rid of bad employees, you avoid the whole situation by not adding the position in the first place. Businesses don't expand, new jobs aren't created, gets harder to find work, even for the good ones. Puts a clamp on the whole economic picture. Not good.

The solution... work hard, be loyal to your employer, keep improving your skills. Does that ensure job security? No. Does it give you the best possible opportunity at such? Yes.

PirateJohn wrote:#1, give departing persons a decent severance package. A professional person cannot make it on the $250/week or so umemployment insurance that we have down here in Florida.

Depends on why they are being laid off. A severance package in most of the places I've ever worked (I can only speak for those, since I have no experience anywhere else) is at least 2-4 weeks, and the health benefits carry through as well.

PirateJohn wrote:#2, discourage (see severance package above) an employer from arbitrarily firing someone just because they are looking for another job. We are having way too many layoffs in this country of hundreds of people that could have been looking to find another job

I'm not sure I understand that one. Are you referring to employers firing people because they are looking to hire for a different position and don't need the current one or firing/laying off someone because it's become known that that person is actively looking for a different job?

PirateJohn wrote:#3, personally, I would love to see job hunting employees being able to use their present employers facilities. Not everyone has access to computers, printers, faxes, and so forth.

In all honesty, I as an employee would be kind of peeved to know that my fellow co-worked is being paid to look for a different job while I am actively working. Computers, printers, etc. are available at libraries and other public facilities free of use. I have also had many employers who, when they were eliminating a position or two, have allowed them work time to send out resumes, etc., and offered ample references, both written and verbal. In a mass layoff, it wouldn't be productive to fellow employees, or the company itself to facilitate such a grand job hunt on company time.

PirateJohn wrote:#4, make health care benefits transportable. We have so many uninsured workers in this nation that many people go from job to job looking for health insurance. More fundamentally, people lose their benefits when they leave a job. We really need to have some basic level of national health care that would be uniform throughout the nation. Whether employers were required to fund it or it was coming out of other pockets, one way or the other we need to get the health care crisis under control.

I can't argue that one. I think you are absolutely correct in that there is a health care crisis that is out of control. Unfortunately, it's a catch 22 since forcing smaller employers to fund health care can effectively put them out of business in some cases.

SMLCHNG wrote: Most business I know of are there to make money for themselves or stockholders. Not cater to people who no longer want to work for them.

Or in some cases, just make money for the SMART, PSEUDO-RANDITE, RUGGEDLY INDIVIDUALISTIC INDUSTRIALISTS who run them, like those uber-wealthy guys over at Enron.

The stockholders (read "employees") didn't make much with that company.

SMLCHNG wrote: Insurance is a BENEFIT, not something an employer is REQUIRED to offer. You want National Healthcare? Write your congressperson or senator.

Won't work, unless we can all afford to enclose a big fat cheque with our letters. They've already been bought off by the big healthcare insurance providers.

PirateJohn wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:Just an observation, as I don't have much time (I am fully occupied with ethnographic research in a number of other threads).

It's nice that folks think they live in the Best Country in the World. It may even be true.

But there are things that other countries do better, especially with respect to the balance between employers/employees rights. Over the long term, these better ways of doing things perhaps give citizens of other countries a better quality of life.

Yeah, I suppose one could make the argument that things can't be that bad here, because lots of people want to come here. But I don't think that argument in and of itself gives much of a boost to the "Best Country in the World" idea. I don't think you see significant numbers of folks immigrating from Canada or Europe. Why would they? They've got it pretty good right where they are.

We think we have the "Best of Everything" here, and that limits how we look at the rest of the world and leaves us vulnerable to stereotyping other people in other countries as "starving masses yearning to be free" and willing to do anything to sneak into this country.

I don't think most Americans have a clue about the rest of the world, just the parts they see when they look over the fence of their all-inclusive vacation resort.

We do a lot of things very, very well.

Unfortunately, lately, we think that we are perfect. And we are not.

We dismiss the rest of the world as insignificant when, in fact, we are rapidly losing our superpower status. More fundementally, we are losing our lead technologically and economically.

China will be much larger than the USA in an economic sense in about 20 years. India is also likely to give us a run for our money.

The jury is still out on Europe but they are going in the right directions with the European Union. If they can pull that together they will also be a trading block that is bigger than the USA, all the while offering their citizens better health care and retirement. Are their taxes higher? Yeah ... a bit ... but Europeans don't seem to worry about Social Security going broke or having the sort of illness that causes them to lose their houses.

The (dreaded in US conservative circles) UN did a survey a year or so ago and rated not just standards of living, but people's happiness with their lifestyles. Did you realize that American's are less contented than the average Mexican national? And trust me, it's not because Mexican folks don't know what's on this side of the border -- they know us much better than the average gringo knows them.

No offense, but I've been hearing that same prediction about the U.S. being overtaken by (fill in the name of Country X here) for the last thirty years. Hasn't happened. Why not? IMHO because we don't go over-regulate (strangle) businesses like many, many other countries do.

Will the U.S. get overtaken economically by China or India or ?? Maybe. Again, depends greatly on how government treats the people and businesses that keep the economy rolling.

Want examples of how government affects businesses? Check out a lot of eastern states... lots of regulation, hard to get businesses to move there. Other states with more pro-business stances = more jobs, more growth. It works the same way on a global scale.

One additional note... if the business/employer/government/ thing truly interests you, it's worth your time to check out "Atlas Shrugged," by Ayn Rand. She's a little extreme, but it's informative and thought-provoking.

SMLCHNG wrote:

PirateJohn wrote: #1, give departing persons a decent severance package. A professional person cannot make it on the $250/week or so umemployment insurance that we have down here in Florida.

Not all companies can afford to do this. Especially if they're going out of business.

When you talk about someone discontinuing their pension plans, like the airlines are trying to do, that usually doesn't mean that their employees get zip. In many (hopefully most) they have insurance with the quasi-governmental Pension Benefit Guarantee Board. And the Board winds up stuck paying those pensions.

Employers are already paying into an unemployment insurance fund. I say that we change the stakes and change the rules a bit. The hit wouldn't be that amazing, and if a developing nation such as Mexico can do it then we need to set our sights higher.

PirateJohn wrote: #2, discourage (see severance package above) an employer from arbitrarily firing someone just because they are looking for another job. We are having way too many layoffs in this country of hundreds of people that could have been looking to find another job

SMLCHNG wrote:

Seems to me that if an employee is looking for another job (whatever the reason) they proabably don't have their loyalties with their current employer, and probably not as productive.

And how loyal is that employer who is planning to lay off, en masse, hundreds or thousands of employees?

Personally, in instances like this, I tend to side with the employers and their familes rather than with the stockholder (singular, since such a small number of people in this nation control so many of the assets).

PirateJohn wrote: #3, personally, I would love to see job hunting employees being able to use their present employers facilities. Not everyone has access to computers, printers, faxes, and so forth

SMLCHNG wrote:

Most business I know of are there to make money for themselves or stockholders. Not cater to people who no longer want to work for them. There are Kinko's are places like that that are available to almost everyone at minimal costs. .

PirateJohn wrote: #4, make health care benefits transportable. We have so many uninsured workers in this nation that many people go from job to job looking for health insurance. More fundamentally, people lose their benefits when they leave a job. We really need to have some basic level of national health care that would be uniform throughout the nation. Whether employers were required to fund it or it was coming out of other pockets, one way or the other we need to get the health care crisis under control.


SMLCHNG wrote:

Insurance is a BENEFIT, not something an employer is REQUIRED to offer. You want National Healthcare? Write your congressperson or senator.

I am indeed writing my Congressman and Senator. And anyone else that can read. We need to change the system. And just as freedom of speech should be a right, we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the USA.

I certainly take that to mean that we have as much of a right to basic health care as we have a right to fire services and other government services.