"Ignoramus31606" wrote in message
...
On 2010-04-24, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Apr 24, 6:54 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
....The fact is, though, that there are much
larger elements of luck in most people's lives than we recognize. They
can
make the difference between rich and poor, healthy and sick, happy and
sad.
Ed Huntress

I don't disagree, after the war my father almost became a Louisiana
shrimp boat and oil rig outfitter.

The problem here is twisting the meaning of "lucky" to imply
successful people don't really deserve their money as much as some
envious politician does.

jsw

Right. It can be used to mislead both ways.

Not to speak for Iggy, but I think his point is that some people have had
a
hard run and that a safety net for such people is the mark of a civilized
society. We've buggered it up in the past -- it was welfare abuse that
turned me into a Republican g -- but the idea is valid, IMO.

Well, imagine a hard working, self reliant guy who works hard, saves
money, has a little nest egg saved. Then in his middle age, he has a
car accident that exceeds his insurance and has all the money taken
from him. Then a year later, he gets sick and is unable to work.

I do think that he fully deserves a social safety net.

Furthermore, something that was mentioned before, but if set up
properly, a minimal social safety net can encourage risk taking and
entrepreneurship. I am sure that for many, going off the employer's
health insurance policy is a effective barrier to becoming self
employed.

There is some evidence that the lousy individual health insurance situation
in this country has been a barrier for MANY potential startups.

I had to think hard about the risk when I left the Fortune 500 nest back in
the early '80s. It was scary. Then I couldn't get insurance at *any* price,
but it's not much better today.


A point that too much safety net can be a disincentive to work, is
well taken, but it is an argument over the emount of it that should be
given.

i