#3
Most states should have in their Constitutions a cap on any and all state funded retirements to the level of the average tax payer of the state. Want to raise your retirement - then raise the productivity and income of the average taxpayer. That's motivation.
#4
This is what you get in a fragmented disorganised system where employers (corporations, government, even small business) are responsible for the healthcare and retirement costs of former employees.
what a stupid system
why don't you take a leaf out of Britain/Australia's book and have the government pay for pensions/healthcare through taxes.
You get a set pension, quite low, after retirement age of 65. Paid for by taxes.
You get free basic healthcare if you are poor through public hospitals.
If you want cosmetic surgery or the best surgeons you then can pay for private health insurance yourself. Not your employer.
I never understood the US system or why people who bail out banks to the tune of a billion would think that providing basic health and social safety nets is a socialist bogeyman! Our system just works better in that respect.
#6
It's daily stories like this coming out of Britain that decide us against the British health care system, anon1 dear. Or you can read it on Page 3: Non-WoT (Britain) here at Rantburg.
Er, no, the story was dropped by me -- way away from the WoT. But you can hit the link. AoS
The key is that we're hearing stories daily of the hospitalized dying in their own filth from neglect, calling the police on their cell phones because the nurses withhold food and water... as a matter of NHS policy for those deemed untreatable. Or the devoted NHS oncologist now in end-stage cancer because her hospital refused to run tests that the next hospital over would have done -- but one isn't allowed to go to another hospital for tests without permission from the authorities... Muslim staff not required to adhere to the same sanitation regimes as non-Muslims to accommodate their modesty concerns... and massive waste at every level -- as a matter of policy. Britain's National Health Service is an organization designed to spread disease and death among the susceptible, and to provide a facsimile of employment for petty bureaucrats and Third World-trained immigrants, who have been replacing the British-trained emigrants. We here in America would like to take the opportunity to thank you for sending us so many well-trained doctors and nurses.
As for the bank bailout, a huge chunk of our money went to bail out British and European banks who'd bought into the wrong side of the credit default swaps. However, if you'd be good enough to give our money back, we'd be happy to use it to capitalize our pre-existing government retirement and health care plans.
As for why employers are paying for health insurance, it goes back to a time when the US government, in its wisdom, decided to control wages. A way around that wage control was to provide a benefit, such as health insurance premiums paid for by the company. In the decades since, such benefits have come to be Expected.
Me? I'd rather pay cash for basic check-ups and meds and leave the catastrophic stuff to an insurer of my choosing.
Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats ||
05/19/2010 14:02 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Ouch, tw.
Indeed, Ebbang Uluque6305. And so we learn that even the gift of a cluebat with periwinkle ribbons is no guarantee that one's decisions will not be overruled. Was it Ogden Nash who wrote,
Even fleas have little fleas
Upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have littler fleas
And so on, ad infinitum.
Thank goodness I gave the direct link to the article, so y'all didn't have basis to conclude I was utterly, barking mad. ;-)
Some Palestinians, Israelis and Americans are demanding that President Barack Obama impose a "solution" in the Middle East should the latest round of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian fail.
But a forced solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict would only aggravate tensions between Israel and the Palestinians and harm US interests in the region.
Those who support the idea are hoping that the Obama Administration would force Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 lines, including east Jerusalem, to pave the way for the creation of an independent and viable Palestinian state in these territories.
Under the current circumstances, however, this scenario is completely unrealistic. A majority of Israelis is staunchly opposed to ceding control over the entire territories and redividing Jerusalem. Further, Israeli Arabs feel comfortable living in Israel: public opinion polls have shown that a majority of them do not want to move to a Palestinian state.
The mere talk about imposing a solution is already damaging any chance that the "proximity talks" could lead to agreement.
If the Palestinians are convinced that the Obama Administration is planning, at the end of the day, to impose a solution, why should they bother to show any flexibility? As far as they are concerned, it might even be better to deliberately foil the peace talks with the hope that Washington would force Israel to make far-reaching concessions.
As for the Israelis, the present government coalition is not in a position to make far-reaching concessions to the Palestinians. Imposing a solution on Binyamin Netanyahu would undoubtedly lead to the collapse of his coalition. There is no guarantee that if the Netanyahu government collapses, Israelis will vote for a more moderate candidate, such as Tzipi Livni. On the contrary, Obama's pressure would most likely alienate many Israelis and drive them toward even more right-wing parties and candidates.
At best, the Israelis are ready to give up large parts of the West Bank -- after already having pulled out from the Gaza Strip. Those who think that Jerusalem can be physically redivided are living under an illusion. Jerusalem can only be shared, not divided.
Even the Palestinian Authority leadership appears to have come to terms with the fact that Israel is not going to give the Palestinians 100% of the land. That is why an increasing number of Palestinian officials are now talking about "border adjustments" or "land swap" with Israel.
The West Bank and Gaza Strip are not holy lands and there is no reason why any Palestinian should be afraid to make compromises there. If Israel wishes to retain control over 15% of the West Bank in a final peace agreement, then it could always compensate the Palestinians with a similar -- or even bigger -- amount of land from Israel proper.
Ironically, the talk about a US-imposed solution comes at a time when both Israelis and Palestinians seem to acknowledge the fact that each side needs to make concessions to achieve a breakthrough.
Even if the two sides fail to reach agreement during the "proximity talks" that are about to be launched under the auspices of the Obama Administration, the option of a forced solution, should not be a possibility in the future.
The Obama Administration also needs to take into consideration that forcing Israel to pull back to the pre-1967 lines at a time when the Palestinian Authority is still weak and lacking credibility among its people would be a very dangerous move.
The last time Mahmoud Abbas was given land, it was in 2005, when Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip. Abbas later ran away from the Gaza Strip, handing it over to Hamas.
The same scenario is likely to repeat itself in the West Bank since Abbas and Salaam Fayyad don't seem to be in full control. Even worse, the two men are regarded by many Palestinians as "puppets" in the hands of the Israelis and Americans - a perception that plays into the hands of Hamas and its supporters in Damascus and Tehran.
The only way to achieve peace in the Middle East is through mutual agreement between Israelis and Arabs.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/19/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The only way to achieve peace in the Middle East is cutting all internataional aid to the Palestinians plus ask for refunding of what has been diverted into terrorism and making well clear that every missille fired means a million dollars (Eisenhower dollars) fine and that in case Israel retaliates tehre would be no aid for rebuilding infrastructure.
That would mean that Palestinians would have to work for feeding themselves, that at the end of the day they would be far too tired to plot mischief and taht they could no longer continue to make war for free (ie spending our money on weapons). Plus it would place the burden of supporting them on Arab states. With all of its complaints of poooooor Palestinians not being aided by the Arab states the fact is that the fabled Arab street only loves them when it doesn't have to pay for them.
#2
good call JFM it's time we cut all foreign aid
time to spend our taxes on... US.
Radical thought, yeah? No taxation without representation? when was i last represented in the Palestinian territories? or indonesia? or anywhere else our governments care to throw our hard earned taxes?
...What is common to all these disillusionments the intolerance and dishonesty of environmental extremism, the European Union crackup, and Barack Obama's renewal of Jimmy Carter's failed foreign policy? They all can be traced to a global Western elite that in its intellectual arrogance confused late-20th-century technological progress with a supposed evolution in human nature itself. Heaven on earth was to be ushered in by those who deemed themselves so wise and so moral that they could remake civilization in their own image even if that sometimes meant the end of disinterested research, basic arithmetic, and simple common sense.
Posted by: Mike ||
05/19/2010 11:23 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Before the secular version, the idealists clamored to the idea of "New Jerusalem" in America. The last vestige of that was JFKs "Camelot".
It has now been replaced in the minds of people like Al Gore, who think, "God is dead, therefore we are like unto gods."
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
