RadioBanter - View Single Post - Beware of hams planting dis-information...

June 13th 05, 03:52 PM

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:08:32 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
For
example, take the layoffs GM just announced. Many are single parents
with school age children who can not go back to school AND support a
family.

Why are they single parents in the first place?

Such has nothing to do with the layoffs, but death is one reason why
many are single parents.

Yes, but it's a small minority.

Divorce is another reason and thsoe folks are "no small minority". There
are tons of reasons that single parents exist. In fact, if you check the
stats, I believe half the children in the country are from homes where
both nuclear parents are not present.
What should they do, Dave? They lost their well paying jobs and medical
insurance for themselves and their children.

Job retraining is usually available for people

displaced by layoffs.

You're way off. Job training is NOT usually avaliable for those laid
off. In fact, job retraining availability is available to only an
extremely small percentage of laid off workers.

You need to realize many can't move away for myriad of reasons, such as
caring for an infirm parent nearby in a care facility for but a single
example.

Most people have large extended families.

Most? How you figure that?

Uh, probably because of genetics and

reproduction.
=A0

So genetics and reproduction is your reasoning for claiming most people
have large families. Odd, the US census says otherwise.

=A0I know the concept of family has become

somewhat foreign with today's younger

generation.

Why eliminate your chosen term "large" now, when applying to families?
It changes not only the subject, but the entire point you were
attempting.

No one branch of a family should be made to

bear the burden of such hardships

themselves.

Where should these folks turn, then Dave? AS I said, the US census does
not support your claim. Perhaps you can point to a single example to
support your claim that most have "large extended families".
You are assuiming all families share your core beliefs. They do not.

No, you are right. Many don't. But that's part of
the problem.

Only for you.
That others do not share your core beliefs is
not part of the problem, Dave.

Families used to take care of each other.

There was no need for the government.

There was always a need for government.
This country is a melting pot of so many value
systems and beliefs that you will never have families all sharing the
same.

Especially when you start emphasizing

diversity instead of encouraging assimilation

into the melting pot of American culture.
=A0

Diversity is what America is and has always strived for.

=A0People lean on the internal support of the

family for temporary hardships.

We're not talking emotional or physical, we are talking financial.

So am I. Most families can assume some

hardship (such as elderly member care).

Again, you miss the boat. Most families are
middle class and can NOT bear the burden of additional extended family
health care costs. In fact, the opposie is true, the MAJORITY of
Americans struggle with affordable health care costs for themselves and
immediate family members, and you are claiming they have the means to
take on additional cost. That simply isn't so.

The care of an elderly family member should

not have to fall squarely on the shoulders of

one (or two) people.

The cost of a family member's care should not have to fall on ANY family
members, especially when the US is giving away free medical care to the
Iraqis.

A strong family negates the need for the

government to stick its nose into it (At other

people's expense).

I know many strong family units who would die for each other.

Yes! And that's how it should be.

That
doesn't mean one has the financial means to provide a solution for
another's misfortunes, especially when catastrophic health issues arise.

.But a strong large family has more resources

than a single person.

Yes, but you are again basing sucha claim on your false and unsupported
notion that most families are large. This is not the case.
More children are now caring for parents than in any other time in our
history. Many have taken out home equity loans to pay for health care
and prescription coverage that they lost through no fault of their own.

Yes, and those who are ambitious will pay it

all back when they adjust to their situation and
find a new vocation.

Many are disabled or seniors and can't work. MANY.

There is a big difference between those who

can't work, and those who chose not to, or

who are underemployed due to lack of

motivation.

The senior market, especially with boomers retiring, makes up the
majority, not the minority.
Surely you aren't
presenting the idea that all those without health care can simply
"adjust". You are assuming these people can all work when a great number
of them, esecially in Florida are seniors with a host of health
problems.

What did these people do 50 years ago, when

health insurance was still in its infancy and

few people had it?
=A0

Argung past history is irrelevant to the current health care situation
and crisis.
=A0What is your solution to this very large group? There is an entire
contingency in many demographical areas of the US in which many are
trapped in a sort of financial snare.

Subsidizing health care costs is what put us in
this mess to begin with. Private insurance

subsidies have enabled the healthcare field to

sharply increase costs. If the government got

involved, it would only get worse.

The government DID get involved, Dave, and is VERY involved. They
regulate and permit the actions of the crooked insurance companies and
industry. The government is very much part of the problem.

Unless, there were mandatory caps put on the
costs

Well, if you live in a town where 80% of the

people work at "the factory" and that factory

closes up, well yea the town's in a real pickle.

All towns have a major employer.

.That's wrong. Had you said "many" or a "good
deal", I would have to reluctantly agree with

you. But the area where I live has no "one"

major employer.

Again, you changed your claim. All towns have a major employer. If a
town has 10,000 people and all work at a different locale, but twenty
five work at the same place in town, that IS the major employed for that
town.

There is a collection of many smaller

professional and technology businesses. The

.same is true in many areas of California, and

Texas.

Exactly..and all towns have a major employer, even if it's the federal
government or local PD.

Years ago, when the textile mills ran, the steel
mills flourished, and other large factories

dotted the landscape, there might have been a
bigger impact. But most of those factories

have been closed now for over 20 years, and

have been replaced by smaller, denser high

tech industries.

Which, in turn, would be a town's major employer.