Posted by me on October 11, 2009, 1:38 pm
>You are childlike in your political naiveté.
And you are blind to the big picture of the universe in
that you have created or "own" anything in your
pathetic self centered life
You don't even "own" your kids
All is on loan from God..... you will leave this earth
with nothing and not owning anything cause you neither
created it nor put any value into it
Posted by me on October 11, 2009, 2:05 pm
>Free-market zealots think the market is a one-size-fits-all solution
>to everything - it's not. It works for commerce, only, and then only
>for things that aren't vital to life.
Yep agree
Posted by Rod Speed on October 11, 2009, 4:09 pm
me@privacy.net wrote
>> You are childlike in your political naiveté.
> And you are blind to the big picture of the universe in
> that you have created or "own" anything in your
> pathetic self centered life
> You don't even "own" your kids
> All is on loan from God.....
There is no god. Just an endless collection of crutches for pathetically
inadequate 'minds'
> you will leave this earth with nothing and not owning anything
You will too.
> cause you neither created it nor put any value into it
You god botherers in spades.
Posted by JohnDoe on October 11, 2009, 11:42 pm
>Geopinion wrote:
>>> Marsha wrote:
>> There will always be leeches and there's nothing that can be done
>> about that, no matter how much you or anyone else try to weed them
>> out. And would you prefer not to treat that woman's children at all,
>> just because of HER behavior?
>I didn't say not to treat her children. I said she needs to make an
>appointment with a doctor at the clinic, just like everyone else does.
>She's not special just because her and her brood's care is free, but
>costs every taxpayer an arm and a leg. Why should she get better
>treatment than some poor working person who doesn't quality for welfare,
>but their insurance wouldn't cover ER visits every time their kid gets a
>snotty nose?
So? The fact remains that you have to treat HER kids no matter what
HER faults. Of course you could beat the living crap out of her when
she refuses to make that appointment <g>.
> I feel the same about food stamp recipients who buy junk
>food and expensive convenience foods. If they're getting free food with
>my taxes, there should be a separate store where they can buy only the
>basic necessities of healthy food and no convenience foods. Make them
>take classes on how to purchase the best healthy foods with their
>monthly allotment and make them take cooking classes. If they can't deal
>with that, too effing bad.
Food stamps exist to benefit agribusiness, not provide luxury for the
recipient. However we do have a program you'd like: WIC. What you
wouldn't like is to be behind someone paying with WIC checks.
Everything has to be sorted out and paid for specifically such as a
check just for one gallon of milk.
Separate store? That's a joke. Firstly it would cost a fortune and
secondly just how do you think the supermarkets would react?
Make them take cooking classes? You're really practical. Who's going
to pay to take care of the kids while she's at those cooking classes?
And who's going to pay for the classes? And what sanctions if she
doesn't pass/attend. Prison? Remember those kids!
>> And how do you judge whether someone's heart attack is directly a
>> result of, say, smoking or drinking, and not other things like stress
>> or genetics. Sure, there's a correlation between things like smoking
>> and heart disease, but no one can determine whether any particular
>> instance of heart disease is a direct consequence of an individual's
>> smoking/drinking habits. Many people smoke and drink heavily and live
>> to ripe old ages without experiencing any serious medical
>> consequences. Many people who don't have any discernible bad habits
>> have heart attacks or develop other diseases but may not be entirely
>> blameless because they work in high-stress or high-toxin-exposure jobs
>> or are extremeType A personalities, or maybe they live in areas with
>> high levels of air or water pollution or are downwind from historical
>> nuclear blasts; and those are situations that are within their power
>> to correct. Shall we blame them for their illnesses, too?
>> You think it's clear cut who deserves help and who doesn't - but that
>> isn't really true.
Absolutely!
>I cited clear-cut cases of who any sensible person wouldn't believe
>deserves help. Stupid and stubbornness can't be fixed, no matter how
>much you try to educate idiots. If you had ever worked in the health
>care field, you would know that I wasn't talking about stress, such as
>Takotsubo syndrome, or familial hyperlipidemia, both of which affect a
>very minute portion of heart attacks. Almost everyone who is admitted
>to the hospital with heart disease, or a lot of other problems for that
>matter, can be traced to self-inflicted behavior (smoking, uncontrolled
>hypertension, uncontrolled diabetes, obesity, uncontrolled
>hyperlipidemia, etc.)
No they can't be traced to the "self-inflicted behavior." You can only
"trace" (if that's the right word) on the average. Read Geopinion's
comment again about many people smok...etc without having serious
medical consequences. Let's convict everyone of speeding because the
average was over 55mph.
> What about those who are non-compliant with
>doctor's orders?
Doubtless you consider "doctor's orders" as an edict from god. I
suggest you read some of the Cochrane reports as to how reliable
"doctor's orders" are.
> A patient who comes back in with a heart attack, after
>having a stent, because he "couldn't afford the medication"?
So, maybe he's telling the truth?
I think you're just another "we only help the deserving poor"
right-winger with slightly different criteria for deciding
"deserving".
Posted by friesian@zoocrewphoto.com on October 12, 2009, 9:27 pm
> Food stamps (Ohio Directional Cards as they are called, a feel-good
> name)are used to buy what a lot of people who can't afford it themselves
> would consider luxury food. If tax dollars are being used to buy
> someone food, there should be stricter guidelines on what they can buy.
Very true. Here in Washington state, food stamps may be used to
purchase pop, candy, deli party trays, bakery cakes (including large
special order cakes), lobster, jumbo prawns, expensive steak, etc. I
know of one lady who buys 2 deli sandwiches every day of the week ($10
a day). Clearly, she could pay a lot less to buy the supplies and make
them at home. And since she eats sandwiches every day, the supplies
would not go to waste. Yet there she is every day, buying sandwiches.
I see a lot of expensive orders going to people who complain of being
poor. I have never bought a deli party tray. The largest cake I have
bought is an 8 inch cake, on sale. And I rarely buy any meat or
seafood above $6 per pound, and even that is rare. I try stock up when
it is on sale.
So, yes, I would consider these foods to be luxury foods, not
necessities.
I do believe that pop and candy should be removed from the list. And
that there should be a price limit per pound on meats and seafood.
Even $5 a pound. There are a LOT of meats available below that price.
And even rib eye goes on sale for $4.99 a pound (I should know, as
that is the only time I will buy it). That would allow people to get
the special meats when they are on sale, but not when they are at very
high prices.
XML site map