Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by angryssg

They provide jobs to continue making more money and because the daily tasks within their corporations are too large for them to handle themselves.

They provide health care because it is a Federal Law to provide benefits to full time employees.

They donate just enough money to be a beneficial tax write off.

Bill Gates is the most noble of these gentlemen because yes he has used alot of money for good, donating billions to charity over the years, but in the end he is still a MULTI-BILLIONAIRE. It is easy for me to donate $6,000.00 when I am bringing in 60k after taxes and I have half a years salary saved. These guys are in a much better position than that.

What can 1 person do with 3 billion dollars that they cannot do with 2 or even 1? I know that it is a rhetorical question, but think about it. How much money is too much money for one person? Once again, I am not saying it is a crime to be rich, but how rich is too rich. At what limit does one have too much money and power over the rest of man?

Yes, they do pay up to 50% of their yearly income in taxes, but that doesn't affect the money they already have. However I am glad that you brought that up because that is exactly why I posted this here. With all of that money collected in taxes why are we still complaining about poor heath care, poor education, homless people, and hungry children. Because the government is misusing money that is collected. That has created a need for more money to correct these problems that always seem to get overlooked. Yet politicians will always talk the talk about fixing a problem until they are elected. Once they are elected, they forget about their promises or they are in someone elses pocket. Either way the issues remain and no one ever does any thing about it. The truth is once you have the power and ability to make a difference, you do not care anymore. You do not care because you get consumed with your own greed. Hey, what do you care as long as the problems don't affect you right?

First off can you post the law that states that an empolyer has to provide benefits to employees. No because there is no such law. The reason we have the problems is because the goverment cannot fix problems with money. They have tried and tried but money does not solve the problems. Not everyone is complaining about health care. The federal goverment needs to get out of education and give back the money to the states so the local comunities can run education. Homeless are homeless because they do not want to work. OK, most homeless are homeless by their own actions and a small % have had some bad luck. We allready provide breakfest and lunch to school children, we have food stamps, and local churches and organizations have food banks and food lines. If you are hungry in the US its your fault and/or your parents fault.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by firstdown

First off can you post the law that states that an empolyer has to provide benefits to employees. No because there is no such law. The reason we have the problems is because the goverment cannot fix problems with money. They have tried and tried but money does not solve the problems. Not everyone is complaining about health care. The federal goverment needs to get out of education and give back the money to the states so the local comunities can run education. Homeless are homeless because they do not want to work. OK, most homeless are homeless by their own actions and a small % have had some bad luck. We allready provide breakfest and lunch to school children, we have food stamps, and local churches and organizations have food banks and food lines. If you are hungry in the US its your fault and/or your parents fault.

They do not have to, but once a company provides it for one class of employee, then they must provide for all. With that being said, once That multibillionaire offered medical insurance to the company president or any other full time employee, he must provide it to all employees within that class. (Usually full time employees).

Employer: Workplace Benefits FAQs

So, to say it correctly they are not required by Federal Law to provide benefits until they have provided for at least one class of person. Once they have done that then yes, they are bound by Federal Law. Sorry that I didn't break it down for you the first time.

As far as the homless issue goes, I want more money for prisons to put the homless in jail (not give them handouts). They can either become a contributing, working, member of society or rot in jail. Either way they are off of the streets. Money doesn't always have to go to a person, it can fund the cause in other ways as well. I refer to it as helping man with a little "tough love", otherwise known as motivation provided by negative reinforcement.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by angryssg

They do not have to, but once a company provides it for one class of employee, then they must provide for all. With that being said, once That multibillionaire offered medical insurance to the company president or any other full time employee, he must provide it to all employees within that class. (Usually full time employees).

Employer: Workplace Benefits FAQs

So, to say it correctly they are not required by Federal Law to provide benefits until they have provided for at least one class of person. Once they have done that then yes, they are bound by Federal Law. Sorry that I didn't break it down for you the first time.

As far as the homless issue goes, I want more money for prisons to put the homless in jail (not give them handouts). They can either become a contributing, working, member of society or rot in jail. Either way they are off of the streets. Money doesn't always have to go to a person, it can fund the cause in other ways as well. I refer to it as helping man with a little "tough love", otherwise known as motivation provided by negative reinforcement.

This is a great document I studied in school. Have you heard of it?

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

This is a great document I studied in school. Have you heard of it?

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Are you assuming that I would lock them up without due process? They have rights until they break the Law. I am not saying haul them off immediately, but give them a reasonable deadline in which to accomplish the objective. If they fail to achieve desired results within the alloted time, then they broke the Law. That is of course assuming that a Law that will never get passed becomes effective.

This entire conversation is hypothetical. It is because of arguements like this that nothing ever gets accomplished the way it should. We spend years talking about the issues without ever fixing them. I am laughing uncontrollably as I write this.

Keep in mind that ideas are just that, ideas. Nothing in life is black or white with a definate answer unless you are refering to math. I find it funny that we will beat our heads against a wall trying to change a persons mind instead of comming to a compromise to most effectivley solve or minimize the problem.

You so quickly pointed out that my ideas go against the constitution, which can be changed. What is your solution? Can you think of one that would work best for all of those involved? I would love to hear it. (Not sarcasim)

I do not mind supported evidence being used to disprove my ideas and theories. That is what a good productive argument is all about. But, you cant just say that I am wrong and leave it at that. Provide your own insight and ideas so that the conversation stays open and a cooperative conclusion can be reached.


EDIT: I could have been a smartass and said that when I enlisted I had no idea what the constitution which I was supporting and defending actually read. DEE DEE DEE! Then where would the conversation have gone?

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by angryssg

Are you assuming that I would lock them up without due process? They have rights until they break the Law. I am not saying haul them off immediately, but give them a reasonable deadline in which to accomplish the objective. If they fail to achieve desired results within the alloted time, then they broke the Law. That is of course assuming that a Law that will never get passed becomes effective.

This entire conversation is hypothetical. It is because of arguements like this that nothing ever gets accomplished the way it should. We spend years talking about the issues without ever fixing them. I am laughing uncontrollably as I write this.

Keep in mind that ideas are just that, ideas. Nothing in life is black or white with a definate answer unless you are refering to math. I find it funny that we will beat our heads against a wall trying to change a persons mind instead of comming to a compromise to most effectivley solve or minimize the problem.

You so quickly pointed out that my ideas go against the constitution, which can be changed. What is your solution? Can you think of one that would work best for all of those involved? I would love to hear it. (Not sarcasim)

I do not mind supported evidence being used to disprove my ideas and theories. That is what a good productive argument is all about. But, you cant just say that I am wrong and leave it at that. Provide your own insight and ideas so that the conversation stays open and a cooperative conclusion can be reached.


EDIT: I could have been a smartass and said that when I enlisted I had no idea what the constitution which I was supporting and defending actually read. DEE DEE DEE! Then where would the conversation have gone?

I don't understand most of your post Angry but if you are arguing that indefinitely detaining people for being homeless is within the bounds of the constitution I would disagree. If you are arguing that the constitution should be changed to allow for the indefinite detention of people for not having a home then I would disagree with that too. It is one thing to argue that homeless people shouldn't be given governmental handouts, or even that you should not personally give them spare change so as not to support their lifestyle. It is quite another to suggest that they should be denied rights intrinsic to American citizenship. Yours is a version of America quite different from what our founders envisioned in my opinion.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

I don't understand most of your post Angry but if you are arguing that indefinitely detaining people for being homeless is within the bounds of the constitution I would disagree. If you are arguing that the constitution should be changed to allow for the indefinite detention of people for not having a home then I would disagree with that too. It is one thing to argue that homeless people shouldn't be given governmental handouts, or even that you should not personally give them spare change so as not to support their lifestyle. It is quite another to suggest that they should be denied rights intrinsic to American citizenship. Yours is a version of America quite different from what our founders envisioned in my opinion.

The founders also probably didn't envision any man willingly living on the streets with so many opportunities available to him. Tell me why it is that an immigrant can come into this country and begin making a life for himself almost immediately. Meanwhile, you have a homeless man on the corner, who is a citizen and has had most of the same opportunities available to him as the majority of the population.

1. He either makes a great living being homeless. (There are a lot of professional bums around here.)
Or
2. He is so used to society handing him everything that he does not have the intestinal fortitude to make something of himself. Essentially he is lazy.

Either way it is pitiful, yet we tolerate it.

To clarify something else: I am not referring to the guy who is trying and just down on his luck. If he lost his job and lost his house and still making an asserted effort, then he is not who I am talking about.

After the Immigration Act of 1917, customs began to filter out peoples with undesirable traits. Being a career beggar or homeless person was considered an undesirable trait; in which case they were not allowed into the country.
1917 Immigration Act

Why was it OK then and not OK now? I believe that 100 years ago lawmakers were better able to determine what the vision of our forefathers was.

Even during the Great Depression, FDR wanted people to work their way out of depression as opposed to accepting handouts from the government. I happen to agree with him.

A man who is too lazy to get out and make something of himself would be better off in prison. He would eat 3 meals a day, be provided adequate shelter, clothing, and healthcare. He would have no choice but to sober up and perform some type of job within the prison walls. Hell, he might just get rehabilitated.

I understand that some Vagrancy Laws are considered Unconstitutional because in certain circumstances they were abused. However, they are necessary to some extent and they should be revised. As long as the end result is the same, which is the removal of bums from the streets; it doesn't matter how we accomplish it. It just needs to be done for the betterment of man and society.

My ideas might get frowned upon, but they would work. I see no one else making an asserted effort to actually make changes. All we do is sit back and argue political ideas without actually compromising and making something happen. Most of the time both sides become close minded to each other. I have an idea. Why don't we just make a immediate decision that works and implement it? Once we later come to a compromise of what should stay and what should be thrown out, revisions could be made to the law. Any decision, regardless of varying opinions of it, is better than no decision.

I do not understand why you have a hard time following my discussions as I write them in plain, modern day, Americanized English.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by angryssg

The founders also probably didn't envision any man willingly living on the streets with so many opportunities available to him. Tell me why it is that an immigrant can come into this country and begin making a life for himself almost immediately. Meanwhile, you have a homeless man on the corner, who is a citizen and has had most of the same opportunities available to him as the majority of the population.

1. He either makes a great living being homeless. (There are a lot of professional bums around here.)
Or
2. He is so used to society handing him everything that he does not have the intestinal fortitude to make something of himself. Essentially he is lazy.

Either way it is pitiful, yet we tolerate it.

To clarify something else: I am not referring to the guy who is trying and just down on his luck. If he lost his job and lost his house and still making an asserted effort, then he is not who I am talking about.

After the Immigration Act of 1917, customs began to filter out peoples with undesirable traits. Being a career beggar or homeless person was considered an undesirable trait; in which case they were not allowed into the country.
1917 Immigration Act

Why was it OK then and not OK now? I believe that 100 years ago lawmakers were better able to determine what the vision of our forefathers was.

Even during the Great Depression, FDR wanted people to work their way out of depression as opposed to accepting handouts from the government. I happen to agree with him.

A man who is too lazy to get out and make something of himself would be better off in prison. He would eat 3 meals a day, be provided adequate shelter, clothing, and healthcare. He would have no choice but to sober up and perform some type of job within the prison walls. Hell, he might just get rehabilitated.

I understand that some Vagrancy Laws are considered Unconstitutional because in certain circumstances they were abused. However, they are necessary to some extent and they should be revised. As long as the end result is the same, which is the removal of bums from the streets; it doesn't matter how we accomplish it. It just needs to be done for the betterment of man and society.

My ideas might get frowned upon, but they would work. I see no one else making an asserted effort to actually make changes. All we do is sit back and argue political ideas without actually compromising and making something happen. Most of the time both sides become close minded to each other. I have an idea. Why don't we just make a immediate decision that works and implement it? Once we later come to a compromise of what should stay and what should be thrown out, revisions could be made to the law. Any decision, regardless of varying opinions of it, is better than no decision.

I do not understand why you have a hard time following my discussions as I write them in plain, modern day, Americanized English.

Maybe it is pitiful but it's not illegal. The punishment for being homeless is that you don't get to live in a house. I don't think we need indefinite jailing as an additional punishment!! Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness includes the right to be a loser, as pathetic as that choice might seem to someone like yourself.

It's not your English that I have trouble following Angry, it's your loopy logic. It reminds me of when I used to take acid in high school and write in my diary. I'm still not really sure what your point is, but evidently locking up bums is the solution. Anyway, good luck with all that. See you!

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by angryssg

As far as the homless issue goes, I want more money for prisons to put the homless in jail (not give them handouts). They can either become a contributing, working, member of society or rot in jail. Either way they are off of the streets. Money doesn't always have to go to a person, it can fund the cause in other ways as well. I refer to it as helping man with a little "tough love", otherwise known as motivation provided by negative reinforcement.

Let's just kill them, and be done with it.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Let's just kill them, and be done with it.

That's not fair. You do not have to agree with me, but to allude to something that drastic, even though it is sarcasim, is harsh. I know that what I am saying seems cruel, but the lockup that I am refering to is not as cruel as you guys may think. Think of it as more of a minimum security place or a guarded homless shelter.

The only difference is that we are essentially forcing them to make something of themselves. IMO that is alot better than letting them suffer with a needle in their arms, a bottle in their hands, and a newspaper on their backs as we walk by them on a daily basis without even acknowledging their existance.

Call it intervention, call it whatever you want to, but do not just assume that I want the homeless all dead. I want them all helped. You do not agree with my methods. OK, my feeling are not hurt. But, never assume that I think that certain people are not worthy of existence.

Maybe it is the former military in me. We do not let our people fail, we force them to suceed.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by angryssg

Maybe it is the former military in me. We do not let our people fail, we force them to suceed.

Or we shoot them for failing to obey a direct order. So, I say we order the homeless people to build homes and, if they don't, we shoot them for disobeying a direct order.

Just kidding, I couldn't resist.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Or we shoot them for failing to obey a direct order. So, I say we order the homeless people to build homes and, if they don't, we shoot them for disobeying a direct order.

Just kidding, I couldn't resist.

Smart ass! LOL

No we wouldn't shoot them, just detain, thats all.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by angryssg

That's not fair. You do not have to agree with me, but to allude to something that drastic, even though it is sarcasim, is harsh. I know that what I am saying seems cruel, but the lockup that I am refering to is not as cruel as you guys may think. Think of it as more of a minimum security place or a guarded homless shelter.

The only difference is that we are essentially forcing them to make something of themselves. IMO that is alot better than letting them suffer with a needle in their arms, a bottle in their hands, and a newspaper on their backs as we walk by them on a daily basis without even acknowledging their existance.

Call it intervention, call it whatever you want to, but do not just assume that I want the homeless all dead. I want them all helped. You do not agree with my methods. OK, my feeling are not hurt. But, never assume that I think that certain people are not worthy of existence.

Maybe it is the former military in me. We do not let our people fail, we force them to suceed.

You're right. That was unfair, and harsh. I am sorry. Some of my frustration with the Belichick thread made it's way here.

It would be nice to force the homeless to succeed, but it's their prerogative to be homeless, IMO. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are happy being homeless.