BTW, you do know that unemployment figures do not include those who have run out of unemployment and still not found a job don't you? They also do not reflect those who have been forced out of desperation to take a significant pay cut just to survive. Kind of like the false inflation numbers.

No Stlhead what I said is if you raise taxes and take away profits so business have to make cuts, they will. If you dont get that I dont know how to explain it to you. And no I did not say the 2000's are worse if you read it.....I said that the impression is worse and it comes from what party you are with, not tough to tell from you. There is no contridiction. I did not say the job market is wide open. I said there are jobs and you take what you can get until something better comes up. i said that the #'s are better than the nineties and people who say clinton was teh worlds greatest for his job numbers now complain about better #s than there were then. And they use the same way of finguring teh #s that they did then.
As far as employees having options, they do. they can come and go if they like but we give every benefit adn none have. If we are forced to make cuts due to taxes it is sad but I am not dumb enough to think they would not move on. I hope it does not come to that because they are like family as we are a small business. My point was if we get killed with taxes then some would be let go making the job market much worse. This is economy wide when it happens. Employers loose profits and go into black=employees loose jobs and health care. Bad situation made worse.
The no bid contract thing is funny. I am sure you screamed that the response wasnt fast enough.....impeach bush right, hates black people, blow up the levee. Then you complain about not getting bids adn corporate fat cats(They did have bids after the inicial response by the way....look it up). But when you need a fast response you dont send bids to a government agency as they cant get out of there own way and to busy making political points and would rather hurt the other party than help the people(both parties). Lastly, I am sure you are the same guy that screamed about us not getting the contract for the fuel tankers because we got under bid. Lets get Bush for that too. You cant have it both ways to say they dont get bids then say how dare they when you dont like the outcome. I think that we should always get bids and the best bid and product get it. Capitalism at its finest.

"I pay no more in tax for my health coverage than any average middle-class American. The co-pay is less than $100 annually. So why can't more Americans have that?"

You have a job that offers it and that is great. I pay 100% of all my employees health care. But take another 10% in taxes from your employers and soon there is not money to do that anymore. Health care benefits might only cost you $100 but your employer paid through the nose(unless you work for the government then someone elses employer paid) Keep raising taxes and there will be no jobs or health care coverage because employees and health care are the two biggest expenses and will go first in cutbacks.

I'll say this once again. Our health care package where I work is negociated as part of a total wage package. Nothing is "given" to us, we defer wages into the health care package.

Depends on the purpose of the taxes. You are a small business and are thinking on that scale. Billions of our tax dollars are awarded corporate America commonly under the guise of "creating jobs". So, one could twist that into "taxes are good" "raising taxes will create jobs". If taxes are for providing health care then it just might lower your health care burden as a business. Myself I feel I pay way too much in taxes and big business pay's way too little. I feel there are too many loop holes and deductions for everybody but me it seems. But I'm not dumb enough to not think we won't have to all pay the piper due to a completely inept administrtation and it's policies.

Numbers do lie....the middle class has been under attack. Yes they do use the same way of figuring. A job is a job. They don't account for the fact that decent wage jobs have disappeared and have been replaced with just above poverty level wages. Add rampant inflation and the devaluation of the dollar and it's not a pretty picture. Why should we care if a small business, run by someone who supports this climate, goes out of business? You can find another job just like anyone else right?

Impeach Bush? That's only a start. I want him tried for treason. And it has little to do with Katrina but I think you need to do your homework. The rebuilding was a sham full of no-bid contracts. Do a search. Katrina is but one of an almost near perfect score of complete incompetence, failures and down right treasoness actions in my book.

The tanker bid I think should have factored in what country our tax dollars are going to benefit which it didn't. Would a factor of that sort have changed the outcome? Who knows. But it's pretty eye opening to see our military awarding contracts for equipment to foreign entities. Maybe the failures of KBR and Halliburton have soured them on quasi-U.S. corporations?

Then why are wages on average lower in Socialist countries (i.e. sweden france etc) than the US?

And why do they get over three weeks of guaranteed paid vacation annually? Why is the cost of living relatively equal? Why is the Euro worth twice that of the dollar? Why aren't they dieing left and right because of socialized medicine? Why are they considered healthier? Why is the number of people out of work relatively equal to that of America? Why isn't there rampant poverty?

And for Doc... Why is there a higher percentage of small business owners in France then the US?

So many questions, so few answers.

France, Sweden, and all of the other countries that provide health care and people friendly benefits are not socialist countries. A true socialist regime emphasizes the collective and ignores the rights of individuals and those in power are generally very corrupt. None of the countries mentioned in this thread are socialist countries and are far from it.

We have the most expensive health care system in the world, but yet we lag behind Canada and most European countries in infant mortality and life expectancy. 47 million people go without health care because they cannot afford it and untold numbers get limited health coverage. I think questioning such a system is not only proper, but the kind of conversation this country should be having. You bet we should re-think this sucker and by doing so does not make anyone a socialist.

Not sure what that has to do with my point, but on to your question. Because of the higher rate of vacations and time off in European countries that means that there are more hours paid for that are not actual work hours, because of the end price of the manufactured item is basically fixed it means that the price for a hour of labor most be less to carry the burden of more time off.

I'd like to point out that we are all paying for those uninsured 47 million people either through taxes (medicare or similar public assistance) or higher insurance premiums. There is no escaping it, so why not get rid of HMO's - cut out the hugantic middle man that is screwing both hospitals/doctors and us?

The difference is now we're paying for reactive medicine via the Emergency Room, rather than paying for preventative medicine, which is significantly cheaper.

So yes, WRO, you're ALREADY paying for the uninsured. Only now, you're paying for it in its most expensive form.

And if you're real lucky, the night you get in a car accident, the ER will be so overwhelmed by the uninsured, that they'll not have the resources to save your life because 25 people are already in the ER.

It's best not to be penny-wise and pound-foolish.

This is the same for most of Boeing.

Yes, and I've heard employers often times say that the pay check is only a small part of your overall incentive package.

403 more posts and counting down Aunty!

I don't believe everything that i think

I have long maintained that the one thing that will bring this nation to its' knees is the cost of providing healthcare to public employees and thier dependents. In the private sector, there is and has been a "product" that has in the price a portion of the profit that helps pay for these costs. In the public sector jobs (which the number of is in a constant state of increase) there is very little product.As the Baby Boomers hit the retirement age and are living longer, it will take an ever growing amount of the tax base to support these costs. I believe we are only one bad investment by those in charge of these plans to wipe out the reserves and put a lot of people out in the cold as far as thier coverage goes.
I have known only a few firemen and policemen who have retired any older than 50.Add in the retired servicemen who get out after 20-25 years and are only in thier late 40s. As medical costs increase the money to pay for it must increase also.It's a downward spiral. Just my take on it.

Too many people have blinders on. If every other industrialized nation can provide healthcare to its citizens, why--can't--we? Just healthcare. Not education, not mass transit. Just healthcare. As a "Christian nation," why won't we?

People saw Sicko and fell for the concept of care recieved in Cuba for one place. Do you think that was real or just an excellent commercial for the Castro political machine?

Rumor has it that when Aunty hits 10,000 posts the software on the board is not set up for it and the board will crash.

It's Y2K all over again.

BWP,

Some good words there my man. I've heard from sources I thought credible that as affluent as we are as a nation, we really can't afford (on top of all the other national expenses we deem essential) the same high quality of health care that the middle class and up receive for every American and eligible alien. Yet our laws preventing the non-treatment option push health care costs to the brink of disaster.

I still think there's room among rational thinkers (currently estimated by me at about 5% of the nation's population -grin-) for a national plan that approximates what Oregon tried to do in the early 90s. The effort was led by a doctor turned state legislator. They prioritized every medical treatment on a list between 500+, with preventative measures at the top and "comfort" treatment for terminally ill, like AIDs and cancer patients. The plan required all of the state's health resource budget plus its share of federal Medicaid. Congress said no, so the plan went no where. But it's the closest to a viable universal health care plan anybody in the US has ever tried to advance. It acknowledges the broad social benefit of providing health care to all citizens, and that preventive medicine is the most cost effective medical treatment, and realizes that we cannot prevent people from dying, but can make them comfortable when they are. Clearly such a humane and cost effective health plan is out of synch with the majority of Americans who will only accept something that's not feasible, socially or financially, or remotely realistic.

Oregon has shown us that there is a smarter way to do universal health care, but it's so smart it lacks appeal to the irrational American majority.

Sg

I trust you have credible studies showing Americans actually know what level of care others receive. And they no doubt show the length of lines one stands in, or the waiting time for care. (Are they really shorter than emergency rooms here?) Of course that would mean these Americans would have actually had to experience care from another country and such, rather than simply follow blindly the Ayn Rand-esque rhetoric of neocon pundits.

A higher infant mortality rate, worse overall health, shorter life expectancy... all from easily found studies. Yet, I am amazed at how Americans choose to remain ignorant by continuing to follow the healthcare for profit agenda.

You know I already have, and it's virtually no different than what people complain about here. People will complain, regardless. But the studies clearly show that the United States falls behind other countries in matters relating to healthcare.

AM, you have virtually the same healthcare I do. I thank the Lord everyday for being so fortunate, and I want to see my fellow Americans as blessed as I. I don't understand why you wouldn't want your fellow citizens to be as secure in their healthcare as you are.