BuffettNews.com

Posted: **December 20, 2007 2:01 pm**

AlbatrossFlyer wrote:
ConchRepublican wrote: How many people actually pay more for something they could get for less because they like the company, people, or think they are nice or deserving of help?
Actually I do quite often.....

I shop locally at stores that are not chains and I realize that sometimes I do pay more for items then I would at another place. Just like I buy American made products whenever I can because when you get right down to it, it is the only way to help my fellow Americans stay employed.

Posted: **December 20, 2007 2:06 pm**

jonesbeach10 wrote:Interesting topic. 7 pages into what can be considered a political issue, and it hasn't turned nasty yet (knock on wood).

I think we're mostly at the consensus that something needs to be done, whether it be something as simple as eliminating drug ads to all-out UHS.

And just for the record, the communism that Marx saw when he wrote his Manifesto in the mid-1800s (1848?) was definitely not the same communism that developed under Lenin or Stalin or Mao or Castro or any of the other communist leaders of the 20th century. 20th century communist leaders ruled their country in an authoritarian dictatorship under the disguise of communism because in a dictatorship, the government tends to own a lot of things. My knowledge of 19th century European History might be a little fuzzy, but I don't think Karl Marx ever envisioned communism becoming another form of authoritarianism.

He and Engels actually envisioned a society like the one that was created in 1847 in Utah. The Mormon pioneers worked together and to the best of their abilities and shared the fruits of their labor based on the needs of each person. This was pure communism as defined by Marx and Engels. It last until the 1890's in some parts of Utah.

Posted: **December 20, 2007 2:09 pm**

The Lost Manatee wrote:
jonesbeach10 wrote:Interesting topic. 7 pages into what can be considered a political issue, and it hasn't turned nasty yet (knock on wood).

I think we're mostly at the consensus that something needs to be done, whether it be something as simple as eliminating drug ads to all-out UHS.

And just for the record, the communism that Marx saw when he wrote his Manifesto in the mid-1800s (1848?) was definitely not the same communism that developed under Lenin or Stalin or Mao or Castro or any of the other communist leaders of the 20th century. 20th century communist leaders ruled their country in an authoritarian dictatorship under the disguise of communism because in a dictatorship, the government tends to own a lot of things. My knowledge of 19th century European History might be a little fuzzy, but I don't think Karl Marx ever envisioned communism becoming another form of authoritarianism.
He and Engels actually envisioned a society like the one that was created in 1847 in Utah. The Mormon pioneers worked together and to the best of their abilities and shared the fruits of their labor based on the needs of each person. This was pure communism as defined by Marx and Engels. It last until the 1890's in some parts of Utah.

It lasts until one person wants more and does less (or overvalues their contributions to the community as a whole).

Posted: **December 20, 2007 2:13 pm**

ConchRepublican wrote:
mjeischen wrote:
ConchRepublican wrote:
flyboy55 wrote:Huh?

Universal health care = communism???

Very funny. These discussions about access to health care usually go nowhere because folks go off on a tangent about communism, dictatorship, etc.
You don't think that Universal Healthcare would give the government massive control over just about everything in your life? Think about the services which they could withhold if they don't like what you put in your body. If you don't do what they say, they can control whether or not you live or die. Literally.
Thats an extreme point of view to take don't you think . . .
Not really. Look at how people view smokers. If there's UHC, don't you think smokers would be put to the back of the line? Once it becomes "managed" then bean counters will control all that, not doctors.

I see it now -

At your height weight and age, have you had your fruit for the week? No? tsk, tsk. No wonder you are sick.

But I broke my leg

Sit down and we'll get to you when we can.

While this is a scary possibility, companies are already telling their employees, "If you smoke on or off the job, you can't work here". Their justification is that smokers add to health care costs, even if they decline the company's health insurance.

Posted: **December 20, 2007 2:17 pm**

The Lost Manatee wrote:
While this is a scary possibility, companies are already telling their employees, "If you smoke on or off the job, you can't work here". Their justification is that smokers add to health care costs, even if they decline the company's health insurance.

FWIW...statistics have proven that smoker's take more time off..(sick days, that is) than non-smokers ......

Posted: **December 20, 2007 2:27 pm**

Moonie wrote:
The Lost Manatee wrote:
While this is a scary possibility, companies are already telling their employees, "If you smoke on or off the job, you can't work here". Their justification is that smokers add to health care costs, even if they decline the company's health insurance.

FWIW...statistics have proven that smoker's take more time off..(sick days, that is) than non-smokers ......

Where are these statistics?

I no longer smoke, but I've heard people say this but I've never actually seen that. Mostly I'm curious because either way come December 31st of any year, whether when I smoked or not, I've used up all the time off I'm entitled every year (I have flex time so a sick day is the same as a vacation).

Many, many companies use flex time instead of separate vacation/sick accruals so what does it matter in terms of days off if I'm home sick or on vacation?

And sure smokers are probably a burden on a company's health care expenses, but so are people who use tanning beds or lay in the sun (or simply don't use sunscreen), the fatasses who eat fast food every day, the lazy people who don't go to the doctor for regular checkups and annual exams, or the closet alcoholics/drug addicts. Smokers carry the brunt of blame for health care expenses, but I bet I could come up with some statistics or studies that say my fat, tan, lazy, junkie coworkers are just as expensive, if not more, than a smoker.

It's one thing to say secondhand smoke is dangerous to non-smokers. I can concede there, but to tell people that smoking on their own time is a detriment to the workplace is simply retarded.

Posted: **December 20, 2007 2:36 pm**

12vmanRick wrote:
The Lost Manatee wrote:Something that a friend of mine forwarded to me as a reminder that many things happen because of the government that wouldn't happen otherwise.

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare
his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some
tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.
With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His
medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal
fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical
plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for
paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is
safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to
regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is
properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total
contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know
what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he
breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought
for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for
his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable
money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants
liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives
everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay,
medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some
lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working
standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's
employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker
compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't
think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay
some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because
some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous
bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his
below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal
decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was
educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets
that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he
attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at
his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His
car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating
liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the
tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live
in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers
didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal
stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural
electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives
on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking,
cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe
wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio
talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and
conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved
Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe
enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees:
"We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives!
After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care
of themselves, just like I have."
lol what a great story, load of crap but great story

I'm curious Rick, what part of this do you think is crap? Do you think that it is crap that the government did these things, as opposed to allowing the free market forces to work?

Posted: **December 20, 2007 2:47 pm**

The Lost Manatee wrote:
12vmanRick wrote:
The Lost Manatee wrote:Something that a friend of mine forwarded to me as a reminder that many things happen because of the government that wouldn't happen otherwise.

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare
his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some
tree-hugging liberal

~snip~

After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care
of themselves, just like I have."
lol what a great story, load of crap but great story
I'm curious Rick, what part of this do you think is crap? Do you think that it is crap that the government did these things, as opposed to allowing the free market forces to work?

Don't mean to speak for Rick, but...

IMHO, I don't think he (or I) buy the premise that we wouldn't have clean water, clean air, etc. etc. etc. except for the efforts of the selfless, pure-hearted, peace/love/sunshine liberals.

I'm a rock-ribbed conservative, but if I was faced with the prospect of drinking nasty water, you can bet I'd get the problem solved, too.

Posted: **December 20, 2007 2:51 pm**

The Lost Manatee wrote:
12vmanRick wrote:
The Lost Manatee wrote:Something that a friend of mine forwarded to me as a reminder that many things happen because of the government that wouldn't happen otherwise.

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare
his morning coffee.

~snip~

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal
stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural
electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives
on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking,
cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe
wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio
talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and
conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved
Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe
enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees:
"We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives!
After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care
of themselves, just like I have."
lol what a great story, load of crap but great story
I'm curious Rick, what part of this do you think is crap? Do you think that it is crap that the government did these things, as opposed to allowing the free market forces to work?

And by the way... rural electrification did NOT happen as a result of the government. Groups of farmers got together and formed cooperatives that brought electricity to rural America. The government only helped by staying the heck out of the way.

Posted: **December 20, 2007 2:53 pm**

The Lost Manatee wrote:
12vmanRick wrote:
The Lost Manatee wrote:Something that a friend of mine forwarded to me as a reminder that many things happen because of the government that wouldn't happen otherwise.

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare
his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some
tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.
With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His
medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal
fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical
plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for
paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is
safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to
regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is
properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total
contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know
what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he
breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought
for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for
his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable
money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants
liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives
everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay,
medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some
lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working
standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's
employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker
compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't
think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay
some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because
some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous
bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his
below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal
decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was
educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets
that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he
attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at
his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His
car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating
liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the
tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live
in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers
didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal
stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural
electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives
on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking,
cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe
wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio
talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and
conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved
Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe
enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees:
"We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives!
After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care
of themselves, just like I have."
lol what a great story, load of crap but great story
I'm curious Rick, what part of this do you think is crap? Do you think that it is crap that the government did these things, as opposed to allowing the free market forces to work?

I think it's crap that it says the liberal side did it all. That's all, not that it may not be a reality that those things are there. In as much as someone could peg me as a conservative, I actually am neither. As a matter of fact I take so much from both sides that not one candidate has enough of my views for me to want to support.

Posted: **December 20, 2007 2:57 pm**

krusin1 wrote:[

Don't mean to speak for Rick, but...

IMHO, I don't think he (or I) buy the premise that we wouldn't have clean water, clean air, etc. etc. etc. except for the efforts of the selfless, pure-hearted, peace/love/sunshine liberals.

you are pretty much right. Both liberals and conservatives s u c k though and both are to blame for the demise we are currently facing. IMO I think we are headed straight to a path of the downfall of this country with a socialism agenda on the horizon.

Posted: **December 20, 2007 3:00 pm**

krusin1 wrote:
The Lost Manatee wrote:
12vmanRick wrote:
The Lost Manatee wrote:Something that a friend of mine forwarded to me as a reminder that many things happen because of the government that wouldn't happen otherwise.

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare
his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some
tree-hugging liberal

~snip~

After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care
of themselves, just like I have."
lol what a great story, load of crap but great story
I'm curious Rick, what part of this do you think is crap? Do you think that it is crap that the government did these things, as opposed to allowing the free market forces to work?

Don't mean to speak for Rick, but...

IMHO, I don't think he (or I) buy the premise that we wouldn't have clean water, clean air, etc. etc. etc. except for the efforts of the selfless, pure-hearted, peace/love/sunshine liberals.

I'm a rock-ribbed conservative, but if I was faced with the prospect of drinking nasty water, you can bet I'd get the problem solved, too.

Exactly . . . the parks system and pretty much modern conservation was started under Teddy Roosevelt, not your garden variety liberal at at all.

Posted: **December 20, 2007 3:03 pm**

12vmanRick wrote:
krusin1 wrote:[

Don't mean to speak for Rick, but...

IMHO, I don't think he (or I) buy the premise that we wouldn't have clean water, clean air, etc. etc. etc. except for the efforts of the selfless, pure-hearted, peace/love/sunshine liberals.

you are pretty much right. Both liberals and conservatives s u c k though and both are to blame for the demise we are currently facing. IMO I think we are headed straight to a path of the downfall of this country with a socialism agenda on the horizon.

True. Pretty much everybody in Washington D.C. has contributed mightily to our current situation... although as a conservative (with libertarian tendencies) I'm not convinced that we've had true conservatives in charge since Mr. Reagan left office.

Posted: **December 20, 2007 3:07 pm**

krusin1 wrote:
12vmanRick wrote:
krusin1 wrote:[

Don't mean to speak for Rick, but...

IMHO, I don't think he (or I) buy the premise that we wouldn't have clean water, clean air, etc. etc. etc. except for the efforts of the selfless, pure-hearted, peace/love/sunshine liberals.

you are pretty much right. Both liberals and conservatives s u c k though and both are to blame for the demise we are currently facing. IMO I think we are headed straight to a path of the downfall of this country with a socialism agenda on the horizon.
True. Pretty much everybody in Washington D.C. has contributed mightily to our current situation... although as a conservative (with libertarian tendencies) I'm not convinced that we've had true conservatives in charge since Mr. Reagan left office.

2nd the motion . . .

Posted: **December 20, 2007 3:09 pm**

12vmanRick wrote:
krusin1 wrote:[

Don't mean to speak for Rick, but...

IMHO, I don't think he (or I) buy the premise that we wouldn't have clean water, clean air, etc. etc. etc. except for the efforts of the selfless, pure-hearted, peace/love/sunshine liberals.

you are pretty much right. Both liberals and conservatives s u c k though and both are to blame for the demise we are currently facing. IMO I think we are headed straight to a path of the downfall of this country with a socialism agenda on the horizon.

While I will agree that the liberals cannot truthfully claim credit for all of those things since they all required bi-partisan support. I do think it is important to recognize that the government should be given credit for doing somethings successfully (at least to some extent). I also think from a historical perspective that it is accurate to say that the free market forces were not delivering clean air and clean water in this country. If you aren't old enough to remember the late 50's and early 60's, let me suggest you do some reading and see just how bad things had gotten in terms of the environment.

Posted: **December 20, 2007 3:11 pm**

The Lost Manatee wrote:
12vmanRick wrote:
krusin1 wrote:[

Don't mean to speak for Rick, but...

IMHO, I don't think he (or I) buy the premise that we wouldn't have clean water, clean air, etc. etc. etc. except for the efforts of the selfless, pure-hearted, peace/love/sunshine liberals.

you are pretty much right. Both liberals and conservatives s u c k though and both are to blame for the demise we are currently facing. IMO I think we are headed straight to a path of the downfall of this country with a socialism agenda on the horizon.
While I will agree that the liberals cannot truthfully claim credit for all of those things since they all required bi-partisan support. I do think it is important to recognize that the government should be given credit for doing somethings successfully (at least to some extent). I also think from a historical perspective that it is accurate to say that the free market forces were not delivering clean air and clean water in this country. If you aren't old enough to remember the late 50's and early 60's, let me suggest you do some reading and see just how bad things had gotten in terms of the environment.

want some real interesting reading read about Joe McCarthy aka McCarthyism

Posted: **December 20, 2007 3:13 pm**

12vmanRick wrote:
The Lost Manatee wrote:
12vmanRick wrote:
krusin1 wrote:[

Don't mean to speak for Rick, but...

IMHO, I don't think he (or I) buy the premise that we wouldn't have clean water, clean air, etc. etc. etc. except for the efforts of the selfless, pure-hearted, peace/love/sunshine liberals.

you are pretty much right. Both liberals and conservatives s u c k though and both are to blame for the demise we are currently facing. IMO I think we are headed straight to a path of the downfall of this country with a socialism agenda on the horizon.
While I will agree that the liberals cannot truthfully claim credit for all of those things since they all required bi-partisan support. I do think it is important to recognize that the government should be given credit for doing somethings successfully (at least to some extent). I also think from a historical perspective that it is accurate to say that the free market forces were not delivering clean air and clean water in this country. If you aren't old enough to remember the late 50's and early 60's, let me suggest you do some reading and see just how bad things had gotten in terms of the environment.
want some real interesting reading read about Joe McCarthy aka McCarthyism

I always thought he was unfairly branded . . .

Posted: **December 20, 2007 3:30 pm**

the politician point of view for the government

What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable.

Posted: **December 20, 2007 3:31 pm**

ConchRepublican wrote:
12vmanRick wrote:
The Lost Manatee wrote:
12vmanRick wrote:
krusin1 wrote:[

Don't mean to speak for Rick, but...

IMHO, I don't think he (or I) buy the premise that we wouldn't have clean water, clean air, etc. etc. etc. except for the efforts of the selfless, pure-hearted, peace/love/sunshine liberals.

you are pretty much right. Both liberals and conservatives s u c k though and both are to blame for the demise we are currently facing. IMO I think we are headed straight to a path of the downfall of this country with a socialism agenda on the horizon.
While I will agree that the liberals cannot truthfully claim credit for all of those things since they all required bi-partisan support. I do think it is important to recognize that the government should be given credit for doing somethings successfully (at least to some extent). I also think from a historical perspective that it is accurate to say that the free market forces were not delivering clean air and clean water in this country. If you aren't old enough to remember the late 50's and early 60's, let me suggest you do some reading and see just how bad things had gotten in terms of the environment.
want some real interesting reading read about Joe McCarthy aka McCarthyism
I always thought he was unfairly branded . . .

Honestly it's kinda boring reading but damn what they did to him

Posted: **December 20, 2007 3:46 pm**

buffettbride wrote:
Moonie wrote:
The Lost Manatee wrote:
While this is a scary possibility, companies are already telling their employees, "If you smoke on or off the job, you can't work here". Their justification is that smokers add to health care costs, even if they decline the company's health insurance.

FWIW...statistics have proven that smoker's take more time off..(sick days, that is) than non-smokers ......
Where are these statistics?

I no longer smoke, but I've heard people say this but I've never actually seen that. Mostly I'm curious because either way come December 31st of any year, whether when I smoked or not, I've used up all the time off I'm entitled every year (I have flex time so a sick day is the same as a vacation).

Many, many companies use flex time instead of separate vacation/sick accruals so what does it matter in terms of days off if I'm home sick or on vacation?

And sure smokers are probably a burden on a company's health care expenses, but so are people who use tanning beds or lay in the sun (or simply don't use sunscreen), the fatasses who eat fast food every day, the lazy people who don't go to the doctor for regular checkups and annual exams, or the closet alcoholics/drug addicts. Smokers carry the brunt of blame for health care expenses, but I bet I could come up with some statistics or studies that say my fat, tan, lazy, junkie coworkers are just as expensive, if not more, than a smoker.

It's one thing to say secondhand smoke is dangerous to non-smokers. I can concede there, but to tell people that smoking on their own time is a detriment to the workplace is simply retarded.

this is a very detailed study of smokers vs non smokers...you'll have to take the link...I'm not going to copy and paste, it's too long

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k7/workMissed/workMissed.htm

drop down to the graph titled

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Days of Work Missed among Past Month Cigarette Smokers

also here's a study reported by your own ABC Ch. 7 News/Denver..

it appears to be a reputable study...

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/health/ ... re=sidebar

Life insurance and my health insurance, both are less expensive because I don't smoke.

there are rates listed for smokers and non -smokers...

is there not a possibility that a lot of your missed days/flextime are children related rather than your being ill yourself? I have no idea, that being based on my own experience and my daughters, with a 7 yo and almost 3 yo...

BuffettNews.com

Universal Healthcare . . .