billvon 3,116 #126 November 21, 2006 >Its amazing how honorable actions can be put in a smarmy context. No honor or smarminess intended or implied. Someone asked a question; I answered it. Abandoning your kids, whether it's because you are working 3 jobs, you have a new mistress, you have a job that requires you to never be home, or because you don't like them, is still abandonment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #127 November 21, 2006 Quote>Its amazing how honorable actions can be put in a smarmy context. No honor or smarminess intended or implied. Someone asked a question; I answered it. Abandoning your kids, whether it's because you are working 3 jobs, you have a new mistress, you have a job that requires you to never be home, or because you don't like them, is still abandonment. I find it amazing that you only see these as the alternatives. How about working 3 jobs so your wife can stay home with the kids. I think that's the situation the Steveorino was describing. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #128 November 21, 2006 Since I'm the one to said I worked 2-3 jobs (and still do) let me explain. My lack of income is not because I'm stupid, it is because I intentially chose careers that have rewards that are not financial. I pastor a small congregation, I teach, and I'm a videographer & tandem master. As well, I illustrate for major magazines (Sat Eve Post, BH&G, GH, Ebony, to name some of the 100s) and books. Had I simply wanted to draw, or pastor, I'd never been able to support my family. I got creative rather than dependent. I never abandoned my kids. I was home around 3PM every day. Yes, I drew and built websites after they went to bed, but I proved I didn't have to rely on a hand-out. It is not always either/or when it comes to second jobs and raising a family. Too many take the easy street. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #129 November 21, 2006 QuoteI would rather have a well-paying job and spend time with my kids That was not an option listed. Pick one of the two please. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #130 November 21, 2006 QuoteQuote>Its amazing how honorable actions can be put in a smarmy context. No honor or smarminess intended or implied. Someone asked a question; I answered it. Abandoning your kids, whether it's because you are working 3 jobs, you have a new mistress, you have a job that requires you to never be home, or because you don't like them, is still abandonment. I find it amazing that you only see these as the alternatives. How about working 3 jobs so your wife can stay home with the kids. I think that's the situation the Steveorino was describing. He sounds like a real deadbeat. Abandonment? Right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #131 November 21, 2006 QuoteQuoteI would rather have a well-paying job and spend time with my kids That was not an option listed. Pick one of the two please. Geezus!!! Talk about major thread drift. I wonder if Rangel would support abandoning kids to serve our country? - - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #132 November 21, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote>Its amazing how honorable actions can be put in a smarmy context. No honor or smarminess intended or implied. Someone asked a question; I answered it. Abandoning your kids, whether it's because you are working 3 jobs, you have a new mistress, you have a job that requires you to never be home, or because you don't like them, is still abandonment. I find it amazing that you only see these as the alternatives. How about working 3 jobs so your wife can stay home with the kids. I think that's the situation the Steveorino was describing. He sounds like a real deadbeat. Abandonment? Right. Pretty shmarmy, eh? - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #133 November 21, 2006 >He sounds like a real deadbeat. >Abandonment? Right. What are you talking about? He didn't abandon his kids. Have you been reading this thread at all? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #134 November 21, 2006 I hope we have some comments going on or else we have a major failure to communicate. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #135 November 21, 2006 >I hope we have some comments going on or else >we have a major failure to communicate. I think we have a major failure to communicate; two people here are dead-set on misunderstanding the issue. Abandoning your kids for ANY reason - job, mistress, you don't like em, whatever - is abandonment. That's not just an opinion, it's the definition of the word. You can have no job and abandon them; you can have four jobs and be a great parent. The issue is abandonment - claiming that more money makes up for the lack of parenting is a non-starter in my book. (Needless to say, you do not fit into the category of people who abandon their kids.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #136 November 21, 2006 This whole issue of abandonment went off track when: QuoteSupport your family even though you don't get as much quality time with them. and:QuoteI choose #1. By showing children that you have to be responsible and productive you are doing more for them than letting them think that it is OK for the Gov to take care of you. got labelled as: Quoteemotional abandonment of children Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #137 November 21, 2006 You're probably right. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #138 November 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteIn the most affluent society in the world, it's no more or less a right as police and fire protection, military protection, public school education and publicly-funded and maintained roads and highways which we take for granted as part of the social compact: citizens pay taxes, in exchange for which the government provides certain services. Every other industrialized nation on the planet offers its citizens some manner of guaranteed health care, except the US. To me, that speaks volumes. So, we have the US that is the most affluent, and all the others that provide health care and are not as rich? In per capita terms the US is not the top of the heap. Some of those pesky countries that provide health care for all their citizens are doing better: www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htm for just one example (there are others).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #139 November 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteIn the most affluent society in the world, it's no more or less a right as police and fire protection, military protection, public school education and publicly-funded and maintained roads and highways which we take for granted as part of the social compact: citizens pay taxes, in exchange for which the government provides certain services. Every other industrialized nation on the planet offers its citizens some manner of guaranteed health care, except the US. To me, that speaks volumes. So, we have the US that is the most affluent, and all the others that provide health care and are not as rich? In per capita terms the US is not the top of the heap. Some of those pesky countries that provide health care for all their citizens are doing better: www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htm for just one example (there are others). That particular study seems to track global competitiveness, not necessarily per capita GDP. I'm no economist, but you got me curious(er), so I did a quick search, and came up with this, which puts the US 3rd in per capita GDP, after Luxembourg and Norway. (See the chart labeled "Countries with Highest Per Capita GDP, 2005"). http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Econ/2006_data.htm#table3 Anyhow, with the possible exception of Quatar, I'm fairly sure that all the others on this top-20 list – aside from the U.S., of course - provide their citizens with some form of guaranteed universal health care. There's no non-mythical reason why the US can't do this as well, without going Commie, and without gutting the overall quality of medicine in the US, as the doomsayers predict. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #140 November 22, 2006 QuoteI'm fairly sure that all the others on this top-20 list – aside from the U.S., of course - provide their citizens with some form of guaranteed universal health care. There's no non-mythical reason why the US can't do this as well, without going Commie, and without gutting the overall quality of medicine in the US, as the doomsayers predict. There are number of justifiable reasons for not converting to Universal Healthcare. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #141 November 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteI'm fairly sure that all the others on this top-20 list – aside from the U.S., of course - provide their citizens with some form of guaranteed universal health care. There's no non-mythical reason why the US can't do this as well, without going Commie, and without gutting the overall quality of medicine in the US, as the doomsayers predict. There are number of justifiable reasons for not converting to Universal Healthcare. No doubt. That's why there's no universal health care in Luxembourg, Norway, Ireland, Iceland, Denmark, Canada, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Finland, Australia, Netherlands, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden, France, or Italy, either. Oh, wait – there is. Anyhow, the US is way smarter than they are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #142 November 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI'm fairly sure that all the others on this top-20 list – aside from the U.S., of course - provide their citizens with some form of guaranteed universal health care. There's no non-mythical reason why the US can't do this as well, without going Commie, and without gutting the overall quality of medicine in the US, as the doomsayers predict. There are number of justifiable reasons for not converting to Universal Healthcare. No doubt. That's why there's no universal health care in Luxembourg, Norway, Ireland, Iceland, Denmark, Canada, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Finland, Australia, Netherlands, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden, France, or Italy, either. Oh, wait – there is. Anyhow, the US is way smarter than they are. Oh great. The "everybody else is doing it" justification. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #143 November 22, 2006 >There are number of justifiable reasons for not converting to Universal Healthcare. The biggest one is probably laziness. We effectively have it now (guaranteed ER coverage) so why change? Sure, it drives hospitals out of business, but who cares? They can always open new ones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #144 November 22, 2006 I was thinking along the lines of the history of federally run programs, especially open ended ones. Throughout the life of medicare and medicaid, actual costs have consistently and dramatically outpaced forecasted costs. And then there's the quality of service the federal government is known for. If the US goes the universal healthcare route, we can say good bye to the kinds of technological and pharmacutical advances we've enjoyed on a regular basis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #145 November 22, 2006 QuoteIf the US goes the universal healthcare route, we can say good bye to the kinds of technological and pharmacutical advances we've enjoyed on a regular basis. Doubtful. Once they get UHC, they will want all research funded by the govt. too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #146 November 22, 2006 With MDs graduating with $300,000+ in student debt, what is their incentive to work in a socialist medical system? THey'd never pay off their debts, pay their malpractice insurance premiums, etc...Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #147 November 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteIf the US goes the universal healthcare route, we can say good bye to the kinds of technological and pharmacutical advances we've enjoyed on a regular basis. Doubtful. Once they get UHC, they will want all research funded by the govt. too. True, but the government will be overwhelmed with just providing healthcare. Regarding biomedical research, funding in all of Europe is 1/10th of funding in the US. All those universal healthcare programs everyone like to spew about.... they don't spend squat on research. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #148 November 22, 2006 QuoteWith MDs graduating with $300,000+ in student debt, what is their incentive to work in a socialist medical system? THey'd never pay off their debts, pay their malpractice insurance premiums, etc... No prob. the Govt. will take care of all that. Free education and you won't be able to easily sue the govt. so no need to pay those high insurance premiums. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #149 November 22, 2006 >If the US goes the universal healthcare route, we can say good bye > to the kinds of technological and pharmacutical advances we've > enjoyed on a regular basis. I know several skydivers who go to Sweden for orthopedic surgery because the care is better, the techniques more advanced and the cost is less. Would suck to have that happen here, eh? But fear not. In a decade or so, we'll all be traveling to China for stem cell therapies that are illegal here, so it won't matter much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #150 November 22, 2006 Quote>If the US goes the universal healthcare route, we can say good bye > to the kinds of technological and pharmacutical advances we've > enjoyed on a regular basis. I know several skydivers who go to Sweden for orthopedic surgery because the care is better, the techniques more advanced and the cost is less. Would suck to have that happen here, eh? But fear not. In a decade or so, we'll all be traveling to China for stem cell therapies that are illegal here, so it won't matter much. Offering the exception to obscure the norm. SSDD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
