Hey, Daneliuk and Jack-ass Stein,

I'm still waiting for a lucid explanation as to why it's cheaper for
me to be sitting around, receiving health care and collecting social
assistance instead of working and paying taxes.

Either of you two have enough balls between the two of you to give a
sensible answer to that question?

Upscale wrote:
Hey, Daneliuk and Jack-ass Stein,

I'm still waiting for a lucid explanation as to why it's cheaper for
me to be sitting around, receiving health care and collecting social
assistance instead of working and paying taxes.

Either of you two have enough balls between the two of you to give a
sensible answer to that question?

It's possible to do both...

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:07:27 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

You are not entitled to the hard work of other people just because you
really need something. You are entitled to ask for their voluntary

I'm entitled, just like all Canadians are to the health insurance plan
we've paid into all our lives. I'm entitled to the health insurance
that I paid into for the thirty years I was completely healthy. And,
I'm still entitled to all the health insurance I've paid into since I
lost much of my good health. In other words, I'm entitled to the
health insurance I've paid into all of my working life.

In your delusions you see this health insurance as stolen money. I see
it as getting the insurance support I paid for as long as I need it.

Got that you ignorant asshole?

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:56:14 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

It's possible to do both...

In the Canadian system, not with any real benefit. Once one reaches a
basic level of taxation by working, social assistance evaporates. In
other words, social assistance is supposed to help you until you get
back on your feet and then you're on your own.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:56:14 -0500, "HeyBub"

wrote:

It's possible to do both...

In the Canadian system, not with any real benefit. Once one
reaches a
basic level of taxation by working, social assistance
evaporates. In
other words, social assistance is supposed to help you until you
get
back on your feet and then you're on your own.

We have 3-5 generations now living on that.

--
Nonny
Suppose you were an idiot.
And suppose you were a member
of Congress.... But then I repeat myself.'

-Mark Twain
..

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:51:44 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

You continue to avoid the issue entirely. It's not your actions that
are in question, its your principles in defending the system as a whole.
I too have had to pay into a vile public system and I too shall try ti
extract what I can from it, but that doesn't make the system right, nor
am I morally permitted to valiantly defend such a system when it is built
fundamentally on theft.

Then that makes you a hypocrite of the worst sort. All your
pontificating on the evil morals of the "vile public system", but
you'd take what you can from it should the opportunity arise.

You're not man enough to stand up and follow through on your ideals,
you're just a mouthpiece who has turned whining into an art form while
lacking the balls to back up your big mouth.

You really are a coward. You'd set others on some supposed path of
righteousness which you yourself are not willing to follow.

Amazing.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:05:32 -0700, "Nonny" wrote:

We have 3-5 generations now living on that.

Ok, but consider the limitations of such a life. Maybe because of
apathy, sheer laziness, or even medical difficulties, someone is
living such a life. No future, never having any real discretionary
income, nothing ever to look forward to except for more of the same.
It's debilitating, depressing and a really difficult existence to
follow. Not at all attractive. I don't consider that living.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:16:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

But there is no "health insurance plan" in Canada.

I'm self employed and run my own business. *Whatever* you want to call
it, I pay a substantial amount of it every month. Tax, insurance
whatever, it's all the same to me.

Nonny wrote:
"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:56:14 -0500, "HeyBub"

wrote:

It's possible to do both...

In the Canadian system, not with any real benefit. Once one
reaches a
basic level of taxation by working, social assistance
evaporates. In
other words, social assistance is supposed to help you until you
get
back on your feet and then you're on your own.

We have 3-5 generations now living on that.

Some of the evacuees from Katrina ended up in places like Salt Lake City,
Billings, Omaha, and were amazed. A common refrain was "You means all I has
to do is stand behind the counter and make Slurpees? And I gets PAID for
that? Damn, that's cool!"

And the chain linking five generations of poverty was broken.

For many of the others, who landed in Houston for example, the refrain was:
"Whatchew mean I can't be moseyin' thru my 'hood with a malt and a toke? I
could back home!"

Welcome to the Grey Bar Hotel.

On Mar 26, 12:43*am, Upscale wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:05:32 -0700, "Nonny" wrote:
We have 3-5 generations now living on that.

Ok, but consider the limitations of such a life. Maybe because of
apathy, sheer laziness, or even medical difficulties, someone is
living such a life. No future, never having any real discretionary
income, nothing ever to look forward to except for more of the same.
It's debilitating, depressing and a really difficult existence to
follow. Not at all attractive. I don't consider that living.


That's is exactly the point: these people who were supposed to use the
system to get back on their feet have instead decided to live off of
it for literally generations. There is no incentive to get off.

True, they know no better. And maybe THAT is the real problem. We
keep on giving these people fish whenever they are hungry and never
teach them how to fish nor do we make an environment in which they
even WANT to fish. They have become a group of circus seals who bark
and get a fish tossed their way. Not enough to live off of, so they
bark some more, but enough that they don't have any reason to go out
and fend for themselves.

There is a lot of bashing going on in here and, quite frankly, all
around the country. It is really disheartening. People who disagree
with what is happening politically are being slammed, from Obama
himself on down the line. We are all called extremists because we
have the audacity to think differently and to speak up. We are
labeled as racists because we disagree with a President who happens to
have darker skin than any past President. Heck, we have even been
labeled as terrorists because we dare to push back and speak up. I
thought that was why Freedom Of Speech was in the very first section
of The Bill Of Rights? I guess not....

I have posed this sort of question many times over the past week or so
and I have not gotten any response from the progressives in here. Why
did we have to scrap everything that was already in place and replace
it with a new, EXPENSIVE bill? (Oh, and why was the student loan
program bundled in a freaking health care bill? But that is a wholly
different topic!) We had the safety nets in place and have had them
in place for 40+ years now. Medicare and Medicaid were supposed to
fix these sorts of problems but they haven't. If government could not
afford those be-all and end-all programs, how the heck can it afford
this one? (Answer: eventually they can't. There is only so much
blood in the host and whenever the parasites have drained it all, they
kill the host and the parasites go hungry.)

Here is my question: Why not fix what is there already? Seriously.
And by fixing, I mean do not change any laws, do not increase taxes,
do not decrease taxes (yet), and take a serious look at what we
already have to clean out all of the bullcrap. The reason is that
government is not in the business of business. And they SHOULDN'T be--
that is not its role, at least not in America. The only thing they
know to do is to increase taxes to pay for an ever increasing deficit.

I have suggested it befo Hire a bunch of Wal-Mart and/or/ Home
Depot and/or Lowes and/or any number of people who have run businesses
and have them come in to clean house. I am 100% sure they will find
tremendous inefficiencies in every government run program. And I am
also sure that they can define processes and procedures that will
drastically reduce the waste and inefficiencies and the nest result
will be a huge amount of money that can actually be given back to the
citizens of this country. That way, the programs that are already in
place will do what they were intended to do, the liberals get what
they want, and everybody will get a little bit of money back into
their pockets.

On Mar 26, 12:43*am, Upscale wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:05:32 -0700, "Nonny" wrote:
We have 3-5 generations now living on that.

Ok, but consider the limitations of such a life. Maybe because of
apathy, sheer laziness, or even medical difficulties, someone is
living such a life. No future, never having any real discretionary
income, nothing ever to look forward to except for more of the same.
It's debilitating, depressing and a really difficult existence to
follow. Not at all attractive. I don't consider that living.


That's is exactly the point: these people who were supposed to use the
system to get back on their feet have instead decided to live off of
it for literally generations. There is no incentive to get off.

True, they know no better. And maybe THAT is the real problem. We
keep on giving these people fish whenever they are hungry and never
teach them how to fish nor do we make an environment in which they
even WANT to fish. They have become a group of circus seals who bark
and get a fish tossed their way. Not enough to live off of, so they
bark some more, but enough that they don't have any reason to go out
and fend for themselves.

There is a lot of bashing going on in here and, quite frankly, all
around the country. It is really disheartening. People who disagree
with what is happening politically are being slammed, from Obama
himself on down the line. We are all called extremists because we
have the audacity to think differently and to speak up. We are
labeled as racists because we disagree with a President who happens to
have darker skin than any past President. Heck, we have even been
labeled as terrorists because we dare to push back and speak up. I
thought that was why Freedom Of Speech was in the very first section
of The Bill Of Rights? I guess not....

I have posed this sort of question many times over the past week or so
and I have not gotten any response from the progressives in here. Why
did we have to scrap everything that was already in place and replace
it with a new, EXPENSIVE bill? (Oh, and why was the student loan
program bundled in a freaking health care bill? But that is a wholly
different topic!) We had the safety nets in place and have had them
in place for 40+ years now. Medicare and Medicaid were supposed to
fix these sorts of problems but they haven't. If government could not
afford those be-all and end-all programs, how the heck can it afford
this one? (Answer: eventually they can't. There is only so much
blood in the host and whenever the parasites have drained it all, they
kill the host and the parasites go hungry.)

Here is my question: Why not fix what is there already? Seriously.
And by fixing, I mean do not change any laws, do not increase taxes,
do not decrease taxes (yet), and take a serious look at what we
already have to clean out all of the bullcrap. The reason is that
government is not in the business of business. And they SHOULDN'T be--
that is not its role, at least not in America. The only thing they
know to do is to increase taxes to pay for an ever increasing deficit.

I have suggested it befo Hire a bunch of Wal-Mart and/or/ Home
Depot and/or Lowes and/or any number of people who have run businesses
and have them come in to clean house. I am 100% sure they will find
tremendous inefficiencies in every government run program. And I am
also sure that they can define processes and procedures that will
drastically reduce the waste and inefficiencies and the nest result
will be a huge amount of money that can actually be given back to the
citizens of this country. That way, the programs that are already in
place will do what they were intended to do, the liberals get what
they want, and everybody will get a little bit of money back into
their pockets.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:05:32 -0700, "Nonny" wrote:

We have 3-5 generations now living on that.

Ok, but consider the limitations of such a life. Maybe because of
apathy, sheer laziness, or even medical difficulties, someone is
living such a life. No future, never having any real discretionary
income, nothing ever to look forward to except for more of the same.
It's debilitating, depressing and a really difficult existence to
follow. Not at all attractive. I don't consider that living.

Nonny makes a good point, it isn't hard in the US to find
large numbers of people that they or anyone in their family
has not worked or done anything of even minor importance to
contribute to the system for generations.

I'm not speaking of the disabled or unhealthy, these are
people that are healthy and able to work, but lack desire
and motivation. They were not taught to work, they were
taught to game the system.
And yes, they live a minimal life, one that no one here
could tolerate.

How do you break this cycle of dependancy without
destroying the disabled and ones that only need a hand up.
I don't know, it is more of a moral/ethical issue of the people
than a broken welfare system.

It isn't hard to understand why some rage against what is billed
as yet another freebie, it is an affront to all that have worked
all their life without asking anything from the government.

I have mixed feelings about the health care issue, on one hand
me and my wife both have preexisting conditions extensive enough
that they could be tied to almost any health issue, any insurance
company would be glad to be rid of us, on the other hand we
have excellant health care and insurance. We never pay
any amount for anything and only pay a small portion of the premiums.
It is part of my pay, no union lobbied for me, I earned these benefits
by hard work and careful selection of who I was willing to work for.
I expect to be heavily taxed in the future, for the being in this position.

One thing I know for certain, whether you are politically right, left,
center, or space alien, the government can be lots of things, but it is
never your friend.

basilisk

On Mar 26, 6:00*am, busbus wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:43*am, Upscale wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:05:32 -0700, "Nonny" wrote:
We have 3-5 generations now living on that.

Ok, but consider the limitations of such a life. Maybe because of
apathy, sheer laziness, or even medical difficulties, someone is
living such a life. No future, never having any real discretionary
income, nothing ever to look forward to except for more of the same.
It's debilitating, depressing and a really difficult existence to
follow. Not at all attractive. I don't consider that living.

That's is exactly the point: these people who were supposed to use the
system to get back on their feet have instead decided to live off of
it for literally generations. *There is no incentive to get off.

That's an oft-made argument, but ... out of curiosity ... what % meet
that description, and ... how do you know??

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 05:00:54 -0700, busbus wrote:

I have posed this sort of question many times over the past week or so
and I have not gotten any response from the progressives in here. Why
did we have to scrap everything that was already in place and replace it
with a new, EXPENSIVE bill?

Because the simple solution couldn't make it past the lobbyists and those
who finance election campaigns.

What's that solution? Expand Medicare to everyone.

All the bureaucracy is in place - some staffing up would be required, but
no new agency.

Adding the rest of the population expands the base to cover many more
healthy people thus solving the financial problems that Medicare has now.

Costs would be further controlled because Medicare decides what to pay
for a procedure, not a for profit hospital or medical group. With this
healthier membership it might even be possible to increase those payments
somewhat, especially to primary care physician's.

Even more cost control would be achieved because all Medicare supplement
policies must offer the same benefits in one of several categories.
Insurance companies compete on the basis of price. With those healthier
members, costs of supplement policies would go down.

Yes, there's fraud in the Medicare program and it needs to be controlled
better. But people have been defrauding insurance companies and
governments for a very long time - it's not a problem confined to
Medicare.

But as I said, it upsets too many rice bowls.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Mar 26, 12:43*pm, Neil Brooks wrote:
On Mar 26, 6:00*am, busbus wrote:

On Mar 26, 12:43*am, Upscale wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:05:32 -0700, "Nonny" wrote:
We have 3-5 generations now living on that.

Ok, but consider the limitations of such a life. Maybe because of
apathy, sheer laziness, or even medical difficulties, someone is
living such a life. No future, never having any real discretionary
income, nothing ever to look forward to except for more of the same.
It's debilitating, depressing and a really difficult existence to
follow. Not at all attractive. I don't consider that living.

That's is exactly the point: these people who were supposed to use the
system to get back on their feet have instead decided to live off of
it for literally generations. *There is no incentive to get off.

That's an oft-made argument, but ... out of curiosity ... what % meet
that description, and ... how do you know??


I do not have those numbers but I do live in Pittsburgh and there are
quite a number of people that meet this description who have lived in
public housing for generations.

I wrote in another thread about a guy I worked with who lived in
public housing for a while way back when (in the late 50s or early
60s) and he was the first person who really described this to me. He
said way back then, the prevailing attitude of those in public housing
was that it would be temporary and did their best to get out. There
were families who didn't try all that hard to get out and those people
were shunned to a point by the others in the housing project.

He still lives in the North Side, a community within the Pittsburgh
city limits. He has lived in that area all his life and he is in his
60's now. The public housing complex he lived in is fairly close to
where he lives now and he is very familiar with the area. Since he
retired, he has been working in a non-profit agency smack dab in the
middle of public housing and he can give insight that is a far cry
from what you see on television or hear on the radio.

How many people? Sheer numbers? And the percentage of the whole? No
real clue but this guy says there are thousands and thousands of
people living this way and have been for three, four, five-plus
generations. It IS true. And the biggest problem is APATHY both from
within these communities as well as without.

This is a brief synopsis that he gave me whenever we met for lunch
this past Christmas:

His true work now is with the young people and he is trying to reach
out to the kids that are stuck in the middle of childhood and
adulthood. From what he sees, the vast, vast majority of the kids in
these areas come either from one parent families (mom only) or NO-
PARENT families (grandma or aunt) are raising these kids. He gets
really ****ed off because the males walk away from any and all
responsibility...they just don't care. When the kids are small, they
really get excited about going to school and learning and going to
church and have grand illusions of getting out of the place.

The problem is when these same kids get to be a little older. Ten,
eleven, twelve, maybe thirteen. This is when boys start to get caught
up in the glory of the streets and are used as drug runners and see
all sorts of terrible things. They think it is fabulous and say "to
hell with school--this is where it's at!" To make matters worse, you
may have a mother who is trying her hardest to do what is right, is
holding down a job of some sort, so she only gets *some* public
assistance (good for her!!!!) and she is sitting at the kitchen table
worrying about the next time she can feed the kids and have heat at
the same time when, all of a sudden, her 12-year-old tosses $200 in
front of her. What the hell is she supposed to do? It's money from
heaven. Talk about being torn!

Girls at these ages are starting to want a baby or two. It becomes a
status symbol and if one has a baby, she makes all the girls around
her jealous and they start pushing boys to have sex so they can have
one, too. Of course, these girls figure out way early that if they
have a baby that they start getting paid. They have no clue how to
manage their money nor do they understand that what they get paid is
not necessarily enough to live on and spend money that should be used
on the kids for themselves or their extended family or friends.

Marty said this money they receive both helps the family and also
keeps them in poverty. The money the boy brings home enables his
mother (or grandmother or aunt) to make ends meet but he is destined
to move up the drug ladder and either become a drug addict himself and/
or become a pusher and have his life cut short either because of drugs
or guns or the law. The money the young girl-turned-mother receives
also helps but since neither she nor her family know how to manage
money (not do they want to learn), the money is wasted and they find
themselves needing more, so she goes out and has another kid and the
cycle starts all over again.

Like I said, he works in a non-profit where they promote after-school
and weekend activities to keep the younger kids off the streets and
to, hopefully, get them educated enough to not take to the streets but
it is a long, hard row to hoe. The successes are very, very few and
this job has certainly taken its toll on him. He has aged more in the
past five or six years than I saw him age the 15 years before that.

Finally, I asked him if the welfare checks and public housing and food
stamps and what have you has a positive or negative affect on these
people. Not surprisingly, he said it was both. It was helping them
because they NEED it for without, they would starve or freeze to death
or a host of other bad things. It was bad because they knew this
money and benefits will just keep coming their way and all they need
to do is have a good, old time. He said he sees the money coming in
to feed the people but there is no incentive for these people to
better themselves.

He is looking for the big, overall plan that will get these people to
turn their lives around and the government is not implementing any
plans; they are just throwing money at it and turning their backs on
these people. Thus the apathy from the people who are receiving aid,
from the people paying for the aid, and (worse of all, maybe) the
government. Apathy all around.

I do not know what it is like outside of Pittsburgh but I do know that
there are far less people in this situation than there are in
Cleveland or Baltimore or Detroit or Miami or Chicago or New York or
Los Angeles...the list can go on and on. I heard on the radio that
the math competency for fourth-graders in Detroit was something like
8%...EIGHT PERCENT and the math competency for eighth-graders there
was FOUR PERCENT.

It isn't the amount of money you throw at a situation; it is how you
handle the situation that counts. This health care bill is another
example of an entitlement program that will be used and abused and
will not have the desired affect. It will become bloated and
extremely cost ineffective within twenty years. I mean, wasn't SSI
supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread? It is more-or-less
broke now. Then Medicare and Medicaid was going to save the people
who couldn't afford health care...and they are broke now. What kind
of faith do you have that this health care program will not be broke
within a generation?

Quit throwing money at something and start devising plans to make
things better.

On Mar 26, 1:31*pm, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 05:00:54 -0700, busbus wrote:
I have posed this sort of question many times over the past week or so
and I have not gotten any response from the progressives in here. *Why
did we have to scrap everything that was already in place and replace it
with a new, EXPENSIVE bill?

Because the simple solution couldn't make it past the lobbyists and those
who finance election campaigns.

What's that solution? *Expand Medicare to everyone. *

All the bureaucracy is in place - some staffing up would be required, but
no new agency.

Adding the rest of the population expands the base to cover many more
healthy people thus solving the financial problems that Medicare has now.

Costs would be further controlled because Medicare decides what to pay
for a procedure, not a for profit hospital or medical group. *With this
healthier membership it might even be possible to increase those payments
somewhat, especially to primary care physician's.

Even more cost control would be achieved because all Medicare supplement
policies must offer the same benefits in one of several categories. *
Insurance companies compete on the basis of price. *With those healthier
members, costs of supplement policies would go down.

Yes, there's fraud in the Medicare program and it needs to be controlled
better. *But people have been defrauding insurance companies and
governments for a very long time - it's not a problem confined to
Medicare.

But as I said, it upsets too many rice bowls.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw


Yep, I agree. And this bill was also a sweet thing to slip 100% of
student loans to the federal government. Under what premise? So the
evil banks and other lending institutions could not profit off these
loans and so the profit goes to help pay for a bloated mistake.

busbus wrote:


That's is exactly the point: these people who were supposed to use the
system to get back on their feet have instead decided to live off of
it for literally generations. There is no incentive to get off.


Correct. The last sentence is the most accurate.

True, they know no better. And maybe THAT is the real problem. We
keep on giving these people fish whenever they are hungry and never
teach them how to fish nor do we make an environment in which they
even WANT to fish. They have become a group of circus seals who bark
and get a fish tossed their way. Not enough to live off of, so they
bark some more, but enough that they don't have any reason to go out
and fend for themselves.

Bull. They do know better. You can't exist in the US today without being
exposed to a better way. The real issue is that there is a class of people
who figure out how to do as little as possible, and to milk systems that
will accomodate their laziness. That we perpetuate such systems is a big
part of the problem. It is politcally incorrect to suggest, let alone
legislate incentive to move off of programs.


There is a lot of bashing going on in here and, quite frankly, all
around the country. It is really disheartening. People who disagree
with what is happening politically are being slammed, from Obama
himself on down the line. We are all called extremists because we
have the audacity to think differently and to speak up. We are
labeled as racists because we disagree with a President who happens to
have darker skin than any past President. Heck, we have even been
labeled as terrorists because we dare to push back and speak up. I
thought that was why Freedom Of Speech was in the very first section
of The Bill Of Rights? I guess not....

The tactics of those who babble about choice, beliefs, tolerance and all
that crap, but have none of the same for thoughts that are contrary to their
own.


I have suggested it befo Hire a bunch of Wal-Mart and/or/ Home
Depot and/or Lowes and/or any number of people who have run businesses
and have them come in to clean house. I am 100% sure they will find
tremendous inefficiencies in every government run program. And I am
also sure that they can define processes and procedures that will
drastically reduce the waste and inefficiencies and the nest result
will be a huge amount of money that can actually be given back to the
citizens of this country. That way, the programs that are already in
place will do what they were intended to do, the liberals get what
they want, and everybody will get a little bit of money back into
their pockets.

Be careful what you wish for. Not all of those are as efficiency minded as
you may believe. Take Home Depot for example. They are so focused on
customer satisfaction right now that they will and are, giving away the ship
to gain those customer satisfaction scores. Sure - there is a profit to be
gained in that, but no efficiency expert would recommend the imbalance
they're pursuing. When imbalanced ideals become part of the strategy,
private enterprise does not look a lot different than government practices.
Lowes has done a marvelous job of deferring costs - in typical governement
ways, so they're not much better than the government. At least to Home
Depot's credit, they operate on cash. They do not have inventory lines of
credit, etc. Maybe there is a lesson that can be learned there...

--

-Mike-

Neil Brooks wrote:

That's an oft-made argument, but ... out of curiosity ... what % meet
that description, and ... how do you know??

Neil - I do not know the percentage. What I do know is that the majority of
subsitance subcribers fall into this category. Do the research - it's not a
lot of research, and look at how many welfare families came from that
background, and look at how long they are or have been on it. You ask a
fair question in a sense, but only in the sense of distracting from the
point. Sure - it may serve some academic purpose to ask what the percentage
is, but it does not serve the conversation in any other way. It will take
you about 10 minutes to find the answer to your question. If you can spend
that 10 minutes and pose any kind of statistics that suggest that welfare is
a short term venture, exercised mostly by people who just need a short time
to get a leg up, then I'll listen. Otherwise, your question does not
entertain reality.

--

-Mike-

I have suggested it befo Hire a bunch of Wal-Mart and/or/ Home
Depot and/or Lowes and/or any number of people who have run businesses
and have them come in to clean house. *I am 100% sure they will find
tremendous inefficiencies in every government run program. *And I am
also sure that they can define processes and procedures that will
drastically reduce the waste and inefficiencies and the nest result
will be a huge amount of money that can actually be given back to the
citizens of this country. *That way, the programs that are already in
place will do what they were intended to do, the liberals get what
they want, and everybody will get a little bit of money back into
their pockets.

Be careful what you wish for. *Not all of those are as efficiency minded as
you may believe. *Take Home Depot for example. *They are so focused on
customer satisfaction right now that they will and are, giving away the ship
to gain those customer satisfaction scores. *Sure - there is a profit to be
gained in that, but no efficiency expert would recommend the imbalance
they're pursuing. *When imbalanced ideals become part of the strategy,
private enterprise does not look a lot different than government practices.
Lowes has done a marvelous job of deferring costs - in typical governement
ways, so they're not much better than the government. *At least to Home
Depot's credit, they operate on cash. *They do not have inventory lines of
credit, etc. *Maybe there is a lesson that can be learned there...

--

-Mike-



Wal-Mart then? LOL!

What I am trying to convey is to clean up what is there. Let the
things that are already there operate the way they are supposed to;
don't add another piece of entitlement that is a major drain on the
finances of the citizens of this country.

I am absolutely sure that we can find the money and solutions already
in laws that already exist--the trick is to go back and get rid of all
the BS. Sure, some of the recipients will bark but too many people
think if even one person is inconvenience, then you cannot do what you
want to do. Well, um, unless that inconvenience is paying taxes.

What is being side-stepped in all these strings is the fact that
personal responsibility is out the door. Entitlement is the name of
the game. And a government who can increase the number of tax
recipients who are funded by the backs and money of the remaining tax
payers will be totally in control. Both the tax recipients and the
tax payers will become slaves and we are back in the middle ages or
living in the U.S.S.R.

You know, there is a guy here who was born and raised in the U.S.S.R.
and lived there both before and after the Berlin Wall fell. He got
the heck out of there because he was sick of the lack of liberty for
the people and because there was no way for him to get out of the
poverty he was mired in (because he happened to be born on the wrong
side of the tracks) and came over here the first chance he got. He
has been here for years now and he shakes his head and said the exact
reasons he left Russia to escape are being implemented here. Now
Dymitri is a left-leaning individual (gee, I wonder why?) but even he
says we are quickly becoming a socialist society and he is not a happy
pup.

On Mar 26, 12:21*pm, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
busbus wrote:

That's is exactly the point: these people who were supposed to use the
system to get back on their feet have instead decided to live off of
it for literally generations. *There is no incentive to get off.

Correct. *The last sentence is the most accurate.

True, they know no better. *And maybe THAT is the real problem. *We
keep on giving these people fish whenever they are hungry and never
teach them how to fish nor do we make an environment in which they
even WANT to fish. *They have become a group of circus seals who bark
and get a fish tossed their way. *Not enough to live off of, so they
bark some more, but enough that they don't have any reason to go out
and fend for themselves.

Bull. *They do know better. *You can't exist in the US today without being
exposed to a better way. *The real issue is that there is a class of people
who figure out how to do as little as possible, and to milk systems that
will accomodate their laziness. *That we perpetuate such systems is a big
part of the problem. *It is politcally incorrect to suggest, let alone
legislate incentive to move off of programs.

I'll just ask the question, again:

How many -- as a % -- comprise this "class of people?"

The incentive? They don't make squat.

If the majority of these people -- for argument's sake (since I don't
know) live in urban areas -- then ... what opportunities should they,
instead, take?

For generations, the opportunity available to those without a trade, a
skill, or a college education was always ... a factory job.

That allowed ... potentially ... millions of people to move into
middle class status.

But ... how's the state of those jobs, these days -- say, over the
last decade?

My understanding is that they are all but totally gone -- the victims
of offshoring virtually our entire manufacturing sector.

So ... what *should* these people do? Is it reasonable to expect that
-- without a serious, well-funded, focused, and "industry-aware"
training program -- these very people are going to buy Mary Kay
franchises? Start the next Intel? Become e-commerce entrepreneurs??

These people -- based on my theory (largely urban) are beset by the
worst public education infrastructure in our country.

What *should* they do??

I've met LOTS of people, in my lifetime, who have been on Welfare, at
some point. While I don't claim to have known anything NEAR a
representative sample size, I've NEVER met even ONE who espoused
contentment with this situation, or who actions indicated that they
were interested in continuing to be recipients of government
subsidies, or that they wished to raise their children to do so.

I think it's simply a convenient and self-serving argument to talk
about the inter-generational welfare notion, the apocryphal story of
the "welfare queen in her new Cadillac and fur coat, with the acrylic
nails," etc., etc.

What I DO see is articles about industries that move into blighted
areas, and are BESIEGED by eager applicants, desperate to get jobs.

Neil Brooks wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:21 pm, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
busbus wrote:

That's is exactly the point: these people who were supposed to use
the system to get back on their feet have instead decided to live
off of it for literally generations. There is no incentive to get
off.

Correct. The last sentence is the most accurate.

True, they know no better. And maybe THAT is the real problem. We
keep on giving these people fish whenever they are hungry and never
teach them how to fish nor do we make an environment in which they
even WANT to fish. They have become a group of circus seals who bark
and get a fish tossed their way. Not enough to live off of, so they
bark some more, but enough that they don't have any reason to go out
and fend for themselves.

Bull. They do know better. You can't exist in the US today without
being exposed to a better way. The real issue is that there is a
class of people who figure out how to do as little as possible, and
to milk systems that will accomodate their laziness. That we
perpetuate such systems is a big part of the problem. It is
politcally incorrect to suggest, let alone legislate incentive to
move off of programs.

I'll just ask the question, again:

How many -- as a % -- comprise this "class of people?"

The incentive? They don't make squat.

If the majority of these people -- for argument's sake (since I don't
know) live in urban areas -- then ... what opportunities should they,
instead, take?

For generations, the opportunity available to those without a trade, a
skill, or a college education was always ... a factory job.

That allowed ... potentially ... millions of people to move into
middle class status.

But ... how's the state of those jobs, these days -- say, over the
last decade?

My understanding is that they are all but totally gone -- the victims
of offshoring virtually our entire manufacturing sector.

So ... what *should* these people do? Is it reasonable to expect that
-- without a serious, well-funded, focused, and "industry-aware"
training program -- these very people are going to buy Mary Kay
franchises? Start the next Intel? Become e-commerce entrepreneurs??

These people -- based on my theory (largely urban) are beset by the
worst public education infrastructure in our country.

What *should* they do??

I've met LOTS of people, in my lifetime, who have been on Welfare, at
some point. While I don't claim to have known anything NEAR a
representative sample size, I've NEVER met even ONE who espoused
contentment with this situation, or who actions indicated that they
were interested in continuing to be recipients of government
subsidies, or that they wished to raise their children to do so.

you personally never met any, so they don't exist? you've asked everyone
you've met this? you might be surprised to find that a lot of people in the
grocery store line with you are.

you had counter examples given to you by someone who has direct knowledge.

it shouldn't be that hard to find statistics on this. perhaps you might tell
us where you've looked.

I think it's simply a convenient and self-serving argument to talk
about the inter-generational welfare notion, the apocryphal story of
the "welfare queen in her new Cadillac and fur coat, with the acrylic
nails," etc., etc.

What I DO see is articles about industries that move into blighted
areas, and are BESIEGED by eager applicants, desperate to get jobs.

On Mar 26, 1:28*pm, "chaniarts"
wrote:
Neil Brooks wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:21 pm, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
busbus wrote:

That's is exactly the point: these people who were supposed to use
the system to get back on their feet have instead decided to live
off of it for literally generations. There is no incentive to get
off.

Correct. The last sentence is the most accurate.

True, they know no better. And maybe THAT is the real problem. We
keep on giving these people fish whenever they are hungry and never
teach them how to fish nor do we make an environment in which they
even WANT to fish. They have become a group of circus seals who bark
and get a fish tossed their way. Not enough to live off of, so they
bark some more, but enough that they don't have any reason to go out
and fend for themselves.

Bull. They do know better. You can't exist in the US today without
being exposed to a better way. The real issue is that there is a
class of people who figure out how to do as little as possible, and
to milk systems that will accomodate their laziness. That we
perpetuate such systems is a big part of the problem. It is
politcally incorrect to suggest, let alone legislate incentive to
move off of programs.

I'll just ask the question, again:

How many -- as a % -- comprise this "class of people?"

The incentive? *They don't make squat.

If the majority of these people -- for argument's sake (since I don't
know) live in urban areas -- then ... what opportunities should they,
instead, take?

For generations, the opportunity available to those without a trade, a
skill, or a college education was always ... a factory job.

That allowed ... potentially ... millions of people to move into
middle class status.

But ... how's the state of those jobs, these days -- say, over the
last decade?

My understanding is that they are all but totally gone -- the victims
of offshoring virtually our entire manufacturing sector.

So ... what *should* these people do? *Is it reasonable to expect that
-- without a serious, well-funded, focused, and "industry-aware"
training program -- these very people are going to buy Mary Kay
franchises? *Start the next Intel? *Become e-commerce entrepreneurs??

These people -- based on my theory (largely urban) are beset by the
worst public education infrastructure in our country.

What *should* they do??

I've met LOTS of people, in my lifetime, who have been on Welfare, at
some point. *While I don't claim to have known anything NEAR a
representative sample size, I've NEVER met even ONE who espoused
contentment with this situation, or who actions indicated that they
were interested in continuing to be recipients of government
subsidies, or that they wished to raise their children to do so.

you personally never met any, so they don't exist? you've asked everyone
you've met this? you might be surprised to find that a lot of people in the
grocery store line with you are.


Not only is that NOT what I said, I pretty much said the opposite OF
that.



you had counter examples given to you by someone who has direct knowledge..

it shouldn't be that hard to find statistics on this. perhaps you might tell
us where you've looked.



I think it's simply a convenient and self-serving argument to talk
about the inter-generational welfare notion, the apocryphal story of
the "welfare queen in her new Cadillac and fur coat, with the acrylic
nails," etc., etc.

What I DO see is articles about industries that move into blighted
areas, and are BESIEGED by eager applicants, desperate to get jobs.

On Mar 26, 3:21*pm, Neil Brooks wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:21*pm, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:







busbus wrote:

That's is exactly the point: these people who were supposed to use the
system to get back on their feet have instead decided to live off of
it for literally generations. *There is no incentive to get off.

Correct. *The last sentence is the most accurate.

True, they know no better. *And maybe THAT is the real problem. *We
keep on giving these people fish whenever they are hungry and never
teach them how to fish nor do we make an environment in which they
even WANT to fish. *They have become a group of circus seals who bark
and get a fish tossed their way. *Not enough to live off of, so they
bark some more, but enough that they don't have any reason to go out
and fend for themselves.

Bull. *They do know better. *You can't exist in the US today without being
exposed to a better way. *The real issue is that there is a class of people
who figure out how to do as little as possible, and to milk systems that
will accomodate their laziness. *That we perpetuate such systems is a big
part of the problem. *It is politcally incorrect to suggest, let alone
legislate incentive to move off of programs.

I'll just ask the question, again:

How many -- as a % -- comprise this "class of people?"

The incentive? *They don't make squat.

If the majority of these people -- for argument's sake (since I don't
know) live in urban areas -- then ... what opportunities should they,
instead, take?

For generations, the opportunity available to those without a trade, a
skill, or a college education was always ... a factory job.

That allowed ... potentially ... millions of people to move into
middle class status.

But ... how's the state of those jobs, these days -- say, over the
last decade?

My understanding is that they are all but totally gone -- the victims
of offshoring virtually our entire manufacturing sector.

So ... what *should* these people do? *Is it reasonable to expect that
-- without a serious, well-funded, focused, and "industry-aware"
training program -- these very people are going to buy Mary Kay
franchises? *Start the next Intel? *Become e-commerce entrepreneurs??

These people -- based on my theory (largely urban) are beset by the
worst public education infrastructure in our country.

What *should* they do??

I've met LOTS of people, in my lifetime, who have been on Welfare, at
some point. *While I don't claim to have known anything NEAR a
representative sample size, I've NEVER met even ONE who espoused
contentment with this situation, or who actions indicated that they
were interested in continuing to be recipients of government
subsidies, or that they wished to raise their children to do so.

I think it's simply a convenient and self-serving argument to talk
about the inter-generational welfare notion, the apocryphal story of
the "welfare queen in her new Cadillac and fur coat, with the acrylic
nails," etc., etc.

What I DO see is articles about industries that move into blighted
areas, and are BESIEGED by eager applicants, desperate to get jobs.


It isn't only manufacturing. Ever try to get or keep a job in IT
these days? How about customer service? How about accounting,
even?

You are making a good point BUT by handing government they keys to
everything and give them the power to suck more and more money out of
the hands of the people who happen to be making money is making it
even worse because it is getting harder and harder to own a small
business and as those small businesses fold because of costs (which
includes this new law), you will have more unemployment.

I know of a heck of a lot of people who have lost jobs for many, many
months. They have been able to scrap by only by taking temporary and
part-time jobs and tightening their belts and whatnot. But there IS a
difference: EDUCATION. The people I speak of have at least their high
school diploma and, usually, a BS. In a couple instances, they have a
Masters. They have invested into their education.

That is something that is not done in your inner city neighborhoods
you speak of. And, to be quite frank, I gave you a person's thoughts
who works in such neighborhoods and those kids and young adults view
the streets as exciting and have given up on education. Those who
happen to live long enough and have half a brain left realize whenever
it is too late that they have screwed up.

I think you and I are talking about a whole different type of people.

Now answer me another thing: Are there more people on government
assisted programs now or, say, forty years ago? I do not have number
but my guess is more--a lot more. And not just sheer numbers because
the population has grown in the past forty years; I am saying that the
percentage has been steadily increasing and the ones who STAY on it
have been increasing, too.

In other words, what we are doing IS NOT WORKING. And throwing more
money at it is like ****ing in the ocean. You need to change the
attitude of the people who are in these positions.

You also need to change the mindset of the rest of the people in this
country. Too much of this population have fallen for the Wal-Mart and
Home Depot lies that the cheaper a product or service is, the better
for you, the consumer. All Wal-Mart wants is to drag this country
down to the point that the only place you can shop at is Wal-Mart.
They would like nothing more than to have a country-wide company
store.

Whenever you buy something at Wal-Mart, a vast majority of your dollar
spills into Arkansas and, eventually, over to China. Home Depot is
the same way. Ditto Lowes and Target and all of those big box stores.

in fact, I just brought my mother to a doctor's appointment this
morning and we passed by a local grocery chain called Giant Eagle.
She started to rant that she never shops there because they are so
much more expensive than Wal-Mart and you would be silly to shop
there. My response was that I always go to Giant Eagle. I know I pay
more but I also know a number of people who work there. They all own
decent homes--no McMansions but not bad--some in my neighborhood.
They pay taxes on that house and they contribute to my local community
by paying those taxes and shopping there and using services from
there, etc. They are being paid just enough to do that, not minimum
wage/minimum hour jobs that cannot sustain an individual let alone a
family.

As far as people on welfare flocking for jobs whenever a company moves
into a neighborhood, that is not totally correct. The people who
flock there are those who know how to work and want to work and have a
sense of responsibility. Case in point: I have a very good friend who
owns an insulating company that specializes in insulating existing
structures--and there are a lot of older homes in my area that have
zero insulation. He has historically had three crews of four guys and
five or six in the office but things have been bad for a while now, so
he is down to two crews. He pays decent, around $14/hour for a job
that requires no education or special training, really. Now I am not
saying you can live high on the hog for $14/hour but that is a lot
more than a person at Wal-Mart makes.

He has a hell of a job holding on to the guys he hires. They are more-
or-less lazy and do as little as possible and then get ****ed off at
stupid little things and quit, right in the middle of a job in the
middle of a day many times.

So...we need to do something to change the attitudes of a lot of
people. You don't do that by throwing money at something and turning
your back.

I seriously think about this at times: If this generation of Americans
was faced with what our fathers and grandfathers faced in World War
II, would we be able to prevail? Would we have the wherewithal to
defeat a foe? Would we be able to overcome and work together? I am
more in doubt of that every single day. There is absolutely no unity
in this country and "The Great Uniter" has made the country more
polarized than it has ever been. He is proposed to be this
generation's Lincoln but if Abe acted like this guy back in the 1860s,
there would be no United States left--and it may be gone in a
generation or two at this rate.

Neil Brooks wrote:


I'll just ask the question, again:

How many -- as a % -- comprise this "class of people?"

I'm not going to entertain your repetitions of the same questions over and
over again Neil. Asking a question does not pose a valid point. What does
it matter the percentage? Did you do the 10 minute research I suggest in a
previous post? Have you ever looked at what the social experts who deal
with this class of people have acknowledged for a long time? I'm sorry, but
your question is completely irrelevant.


The incentive? They don't make squat.

No - the incentive is that they can live off the programs and do nothing
else. They may make squat, but their ambition is for nothing more than that
squat.


If the majority of these people -- for argument's sake (since I don't
know) live in urban areas -- then ... what opportunities should they,
instead, take?

The majority do live in urban areas and in depressed counties across the
United States. How about if they take the same opportunities that the
people around them have taken? Get off your butt, learn something, put your
nose to the grindstone a bit, and become a productive member of society.


For generations, the opportunity available to those without a trade, a
skill, or a college education was always ... a factory job.

So? That was true of a large percentage of America. People did that.
There are people all over this country that are working every day. Not all
of them - in fact most of them were not born with silver spoons in their
mouths. They carried and paid off the debt of getting an education, working
their way up, and becoming something. It took work, but they did it.


That allowed ... potentially ... millions of people to move into
middle class status.

But ... how's the state of those jobs, these days -- say, over the
last decade?

Things have changed. Big deal. It will take more of an education to get a
decent job today than it did back in the day of abundant factory jobs - oh
well. The opportunities are abundant for those in need, to get that
education. Not a Masters, but certainly a basic education to be marketable
in a trade that is the equivelent of the factory job of years ago.


My understanding is that they are all but totally gone -- the victims
of offshoring virtually our entire manufacturing sector.

Sure - they indeed are gone, but we are not wired to be able to do only
factory work. There is retain (admitedly not a great career path, but
better than welfare), there are technical positions, and more - all of which
pay better than flipping burgers at McDonalds, and contribute to society.


So ... what *should* these people do? Is it reasonable to expect that
-- without a serious, well-funded, focused, and "industry-aware"
training program -- these very people are going to buy Mary Kay
franchises? Start the next Intel? Become e-commerce entrepreneurs??

They should do the same thing that millions of middle class people around
them do. Get off their butt, get a job, pursue whatever education they
wish, or simply work at their job for their entire working life (nothing
wrong with that). Note the difference between that which contributes and
simply remaining on social programs.


These people -- based on my theory (largely urban) are beset by the
worst public education infrastructure in our country.

Urban areas certainly suffer the worst of the education system (at least
here in NY), but even at that, it's not a bad education. What is bad is the
behavior. The information offered in the schools is the same as that
offered in affluent areas (except for extra programs). So the kids don't
want to go to school and would rather deal dope and do knife fights. Oh
well. It's not for lack of available education - it's right there in front
of them. Instead, they know they can live off the system and don't need
that education, so they don't care. They know they can deal dope and become
financial kingpins in the hood. That too is not a failing of the education
system. It's there. They just don't want it.


What *should* they do??

Don't know. They don't want to work for the sake of becoming a contributing
member of society. They don't need to since they been raised in a way that
they were taken care of without working. They know the system and how to
work it. A well intended system has become unmanageable and now creates its
own monsters.


I've met LOTS of people, in my lifetime, who have been on Welfare, at
some point. While I don't claim to have known anything NEAR a
representative sample size, I've NEVER met even ONE who espoused
contentment with this situation, or who actions indicated that they
were interested in continuing to be recipients of government
subsidies, or that they wished to raise their children to do so.

I think we all probably know or know of someone who was on a welfare system
of some sort at a time, and moved past it. That's not what we are talking
about though. Read anything you want on the welfare system and the
generations that have perfected the role of welfare recipient, passing this
knowledge along to their kids. This is so well acknowledged that it's hard
to believe it has to be mentioned.


I think it's simply a convenient and self-serving argument to talk
about the inter-generational welfare notion, the apocryphal story of
the "welfare queen in her new Cadillac and fur coat, with the acrylic
nails," etc., etc.


I think you need to do that 10 minutes of research I suggested Neil.

What I DO see is articles about industries that move into blighted
areas, and are BESIEGED by eager applicants, desperate to get jobs.

Not sure what you're making reference to here.

--

-Mike-

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 23:43:26 -0500, the infamous Upscale
scrawled the following:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:05:32 -0700, "Nonny" wrote:

We have 3-5 generations now living on that.

Ok, but consider the limitations of such a life. Maybe because of
apathy, sheer laziness, or even medical difficulties, someone is
living such a life. No future, never having any real discretionary
income, nothing ever to look forward to except for more of the same.
It's debilitating, depressing and a really difficult existence to
follow. Not at all attractive. I don't consider that living.

Far, far too many people DO consider that living, Uppy. I've read
stats that say up to 90% of people in the Philly (ditto the whole
eastern USA) grow up, live, and die within 10 miles of their birth
city. I'd guess that a whole bunch of them would not have a problem
with it. If people don't have any creativity, they have no need to do
things, to move around, and to switch jobs for fun like the rest of
us. Others are just lazy and don't care at all. shrug

--
Challenges are gifts that force us to search for a new center of gravity.
Don't fight them. Just find a different way to stand.
-- Oprah Winfrey

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 05:00:54 -0700, busbus wrote:

I have posed this sort of question many times over the past week or so
and I have not gotten any response from the progressives in here. Why
did we have to scrap everything that was already in place and replace it
with a new, EXPENSIVE bill?

Because the simple solution couldn't make it past the lobbyists and those
who finance election campaigns.

Which is why we have a bill that enriches the insurance industry.


What's that solution? Expand Medicare to everyone.

Even more simple: Treat the insurance industry as a Public Utility and let
those who can't afford it join Medicaid.

busbus wrote:


I have posed this sort of question many times over the past week or so
and I have not gotten any response from the progressives in here. Why
did we have to scrap everything that was already in place and replace
it with a new, EXPENSIVE bill? (Oh, and why was the student loan
program bundled in a freaking health care bill? But that is a wholly
different topic!)

The takeover of the Student Loan program allows the government to make the
profit instead of the existing lenders. That profit can be included in the
health bill thereby lowering its overall cost to meet targets.

Here is my question: Why not fix what is there already? Seriously.
And by fixing, I mean do not change any laws, do not increase taxes,
do not decrease taxes (yet), and take a serious look at what we
already have to clean out all of the bullcrap. The reason is that
government is not in the business of business. And they SHOULDN'T
be-- that is not its role, at least not in America. The only thing
they know to do is to increase taxes to pay for an ever increasing
deficit.

There is nothing in the recent health care legislation that addresses costs.
Cost containment was not the goal, nor was it seriously considered. No tort
reform, no nation-wide competition, no medical savings accounts, nothing.


I have suggested it befo Hire a bunch of Wal-Mart and/or/ Home
Depot and/or Lowes and/or any number of people who have run businesses
and have them come in to clean house. I am 100% sure they will find
tremendous inefficiencies in every government run program. And I am
also sure that they can define processes and procedures that will
drastically reduce the waste and inefficiencies and the nest result
will be a huge amount of money that can actually be given back to the
citizens of this country. That way, the programs that are already in
place will do what they were intended to do, the liberals get what
they want, and everybody will get a little bit of money back into
their pockets.

It is generally bad practice to apply commercial solutions to government
programs (think bonuses for the number of traffic tickets written). The
bigger problem is moving a commercial endeavor to within the government.
Interestingly, moving government functions to the commercial realm often
works quite well (i.e., janitorial services for government buildings).

Further, you misunderstand what liberals want. The Health Care legislation
is but a means to an end, not the end itself. The biggest disaster in the
recent legislation is not the legislation itself, it is the hubris
engendered in the progressive mindset. Now there is nothing they will not
consider feasible.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
busbus wrote:


I have posed this sort of question many times over the past week or so
and I have not gotten any response from the progressives in here. Why
did we have to scrap everything that was already in place and replace
it with a new, EXPENSIVE bill? (Oh, and why was the student loan
program bundled in a freaking health care bill? But that is a wholly
different topic!)

The takeover of the Student Loan program allows the government to make the
profit instead of the existing lenders. That profit can be included in the
health bill thereby lowering its overall cost to meet targets.

Makes sense, but would it not work better if they took over Exxon-Mobile?
They need computers to run the systems so t hey could take over IBM too.
I'm just thinking cost savings here, of course.



There is nothing in the recent health care legislation that addresses
costs. Cost containment was not the goal, nor was it seriously considered.
No tort reform, no nation-wide competition, no medical savings accounts,
nothing.

Cost containment should have been the first place to start. Then again,
the people that passed the bill have no idea what that means.