Re: OT:Is Obama as entrenched with the radical left as it appears?

On Jun 2, 6:40 pm, Snit <use...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"ed" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
4161f819-1cd3-4afa-94e5-1de8f5de6...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 6/2/08
3:00 PM:

On Jun 2, 2:17 pm, Snit <use...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"ed" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
fd309f61-e13c-46d5-8bca-1b667c0b6...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 6/2/08
2:09 PM:
When people have more time off they will take it.  Yes.  Many will use it
as
it should be used... likely most.  Some will abuse it, as they do with
current systems.  OK.

soo, you agree yours was a specious argument?

There are some paternal benefits now.  This would add others.  You seem to
be against all of them... I am not.  

of course not- you want to take advantage of them!  :P

The logical fallacy you are using is called an "Ad Hominem".  You are tying
to imply that I hold my views based on a personal life situation bias... and
then ignoring the fact that the *exact* same argument can be applied to you.

no, there's no logical fallacy there- it's called a "ribbing". i'm
against it- you're not- that's hardly something to make an argument
about (facts can be argued logically, opinions, not so much).

<snip>
I do think it makes sense to encourage parents to spend time with their
families especially around the time of a birth.  To not take such common life
changing situations into account is a detriment not just to the families
involved but to society as a whole.

if people want to take time off, fo for it.  having me pay for it is a
crock.

Are you against businesses offering this benefit to those with dependants or
just against a government mandate that pushes such?

obviously gov't. private businesses should be free to do as they
wish, and if it bothers me enough, i can go find employment elsewhere.

in what way do you view 401ks as detrimental to those who don't have
them?  this may shed light on your weird views of what's a detriment
to others...

They do not "get" the benefit others get.  

of course not, but you listed it as a dtriment.

Much like non-parents do not
"get" the benefit parents get.  

it's not just about not getting the benefits.  nonparents actually get
doubly screwed, because they have to pick up the slack, while paying
for the parents to take time off.

Show me where you have to work more.  

how would i show you such a thing in a satisfactory way?

Do you have any personal examples?

yup, several, but i'll give you a seriously crappy scenario. in jan i
was coming back from vacation in hawaii. i flew into lax at ~11pm.
my coworker's kid had was sick that day and he stayed home to take
care of him (never mind there's a stay at home mom in the picture)- he
was scheduled to be in a meeting in ft. worth 9am the next morning. i
was informed that was now my meeting, and i would be taking the 1am
redeye out, getting in at 6am.

Any stats to show that others are being forced to work more?

'forced to work more'? what do you mean, exactly, by that? if
someone's not doing their job for 6 weeks, somebody has to pick up the
slack- why would someone have done a study and have stats to show
that? the previous link i gave has many examples (not studies) from
the dept. of labor's request for public comment though.

Heck, childless people, I believe,
statistically are more likely to do risky things and hurt themselves... why
should I, a person with a child, have to support them when they get injured?

you believe, as in you don't know, right?

Correct, but for the sake of argument let's assume childless people tend to
take more risks.

why would we assume something we don't know to make your argument
sound more reasonable? :D

what i DO know is one of the costliest conditions for insurance is pregnancy,
so any arguments you make about relative risks for those w/ kids and those
without are meritless.  but again, you are talking about GROUP insurance,
which you can always opt out of.  fmla, you can NOT opt out of.

Most people who have the option of group insurance have no better option....

what YOU think is 'better' may not be what the person with the choice
thinks is better. i went w/out insurance for quite a bit after
college- you obviously wouldn't chalk up no insurance as a better
option, but in my situation, it was.

they are, essentially, stuck with that or an even more expensive option.

they may *feel* stuck, but they are not, in fact, stuck.

i think getting extra paid leave to pop out kids doesn't make a
stronger family.  i think those unable to spend time with, or support
their families without additional gov't assistance should not be
having families.

There is a difference between ongoing assistance and time to get your
family
started right (or dealing with a *huge* change).

not really-  if you can't swing taking a little time off to hang with
your kid when they're born, you're not going to be able to swing all
the necessities kids require and all the little emergencies that pop
up, and you are going to end up needing ongoing assistance (generally
of course).

Newborns take more than "a little time off"...

but a little time off is all we're talking about here (with fmla).

and the bonding time with an
infant is a very important thing.

goody.

Should there be government assistance for those who have health problems or
should we let the poor people with health problems just die?

eh?  how did you get to *that*?

Talking about government assistance in general.  Can you answer the
question?

no.  

Not surprising.

no, it's not surprising, given that it's a complicated question. also
not surprising you responded to the snippet stand-alone. :P

it's too general a question.  pragmatically, i'd say it depends.
philosphically, i'd say you let 'em die.  sounds cold, right? but the "right
to life, liberty..." doesn't gurantee you life- it doesn't say your neighbors
should have to feed and clothe you, or pay for your doctor bills- it says the
gov't won't deprive you of it, and you have the right to go get it, if you can
*afford* it.  it may be a struggle, and you may not get what you want.  but
it's not the gov't job to take money from one person to pay for another's
medical bills.

So you are against *all* social programs...

why would you think that, given i said 'pragmatically... it
depends'?

even wealth fare?  

it's clear from past discussions that we define 'wealth fare'
differently, but yes, i'm generally against that as well (i take a
pragmatic approach to both- what's the net (tangible) benefit (happier
kids ain't tangible)).

Well, maybe
not wealth fare... but any help for the non-wealthy is clear.  

incorrect- for one, i stated i donate to charity weekly.

In other
words you have an extreme bias that dictates your view on the matter at
hand.

obviously not- you've ignored several of my statements if you think
i'm against any help for the non-wealthy.

i.e. philosophically-  if i *want* to help someone (and i DO have *weekly*
payroll deductions to charities of *my* choice), good for me.  if a nonprofit
hospital wants to help?  sweet.  if my neighbor carlos doesn't want to help me
pay for  surgery because i broke my neck racing motorcycles at the track, even
though i'm going to die without it, and he doesn't want to gov't forcing him
to, i understand.

pragmatically- someone hit by a bus and needing emergency surgery and
insurance can't be verified?  sure, save 'em.  someone who doesn't have
insurance but has a big screen tv and 22" rims who who ruined their liver by
drinking 2 litres of vodka a day? let 'em die.

Sounds like a lot of red tape.

isn't it all...
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT:Is Obama as entrenched with the radical left as it appears?
    ... families especially around the time of a birth. ... the costliest conditions for insurance is pregnancy, ... i'd say you let 'em die. ... your neighbors should have to feed and clothe you, or pay for your ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT:Is Obama as entrenched with the radical left as it appears?
    ... Up to you to support your claim. ... insurance, which you can always opt out of. ... neighbors should have to feed and clothe you, or pay for your doctor bills- ... what's the net benefit (happier kids ain't tangible)). ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT:Is Obama as entrenched with the radical left as it appears?
    ... private businesses should be free to do as they ... The government handles many such things: ... Most people who have the option of group insurance have no better option... ... what's the net benefit (happier kids ain't tangible)). ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Ten Year Old Starting Petition to Change Helmet Law
    ... and raise kids that protecting them should become a priority. ... guy didn't have medical insurance i bet he also skipped on the life ... penniless and starting life from so deep in a hole that it will challenge ... responsibility to protect the rest of us from ourselves. ...
    (rec.motorcycles.harley)
  • Re: Whats in YOUR wallet?
    ... and(even if they don't pay) their credit is even more ruined. ... NO insurance and those kids go to regular doctor visits far more than ... I've never heard of hospitals going after debt that hard, ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)