Right to Die, or Duty to Die?

In my opinion, far too much of our retirement care is given to the government and not enough is kept in the hands of the person themselves. We should never just let it all fall into the hands of the government and should be working to pay for care and protection on our own. I really hate it when I see more and more of our care being taken by the government and being told how expensive it will be for our care. Right now I find I can not even understand our current retirement and medical care from the confused, still not completed, rules and regulations we call Obama care. How much will it cover and what portion of payments will I be required to pay. Nothing clear in the paper work I have received before or since being covered. The entire system is a big fog of rights and responsibilities. All this stuff about retirement living and health care should be in the hands of the individuals, not some major government group sucking up so much money while they spend most of their time overseeing restrictions on who gets paid and how much.

Many won't like my comments as there are those that only want to sit on their butts and depend on the big, unaffordable, government to take care of them. Life end care should also be easier to choose from and not so much involved with lawyers protecting their careers.

Just my thinking.
 

You had better have big assets to pay for your care if you don't want help at some point. Private nursing home care can break many within a few years...
 
Around here.. $4,000 per month.. and that's on the cheap side. Pretty easy to blow through life savings.

But let's put this into perspective though.. The percentage of elderly living in nursing homes is only 17%.. so it's not the rule of thumb.. or inevitable. Most live with famlies or independently until their "final illness". Usually people die withing a few weeks of that. It's not a given we all will need long term care.

http://www.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_elderly_population_reside_in_nursing_homes
 

My point was, and is, that we should all have our own health insurance and not have to depend on any large and expensive government agency to do it for us. We are now living in a true mess of government rules that also try to govern the private insurance companies products. No reason for all of the people of the US to have to live in this government mangled mess called health coverage. I know I am now getting less and paying more. Something I am not real happy with. I was quite happy with my employer provided health coverage and doctor/hospital coverage of the past. There were many ways for hospitals to make up for personal shortages, and they did. Now I am not sure they will be allowed to be so generous as before.

Yes, before, we did need to have our own insurance, from employers, unions, personal supplements. Or would pay our way as needed. One person I know of had hospitalization only insurance and payed their own way for daily needs and doctors. Our new care did not allow that to stand. I don't know which way this person finally went. No insurance at all, government demanded insurance that was much more expensive, or still holding on to their own way of doing their things.

Big government is not the answer to our health needs and should be amended or stopped. Overall cost of government run health care is much higher than before and the true cost, hundreds or thousands of more government employees to oversee and run the mess, are just not included in the total costs of medical care as it should be. Looking forward to a few more years and when many of the current errors and unneeded controls can be gotten rid of. Maybe then the health care program will have been allowed to return to the people and away from the government.
 
BobF said:
My point was, and is, that we should all have our own health insurance and not have to depend on any large and expensive government agency to do it for us. We are now living in a true mess of government rules that also try to govern the private insurance companies products. No reason for all of the people of the US to have to live in this government mangled mess called health coverage. I know I am now getting less and paying more. Something I am not real happy with. I was quite happy with my employer provided health coverage and doctor/hospital coverage of the past. There were many ways for hospitals to make up for personal shortages, and they did. Now I am not sure they will be allowed to be so generous as before.

Yes, before, we did need to have our own insurance, from employers, unions, personal supplements. Or would pay our way as needed. One person I know of had hospitalization only insurance and payed their own way for daily needs and doctors. Our new care did not allow that to stand. I don't know which way this person finally went. No insurance at all, government demanded insurance that was much more expensive, or still holding on to their own way of doing their things.

Big government is not the answer to our health needs and should be amended or stopped. Overall cost of government run health care is much higher than before and the true cost, hundreds or thousands of more government employees to oversee and run the mess, are just not included in the total costs of medical care as it should be. Looking forward to a few more years and when many of the current errors and unneeded controls can be gotten rid of. Maybe then the health care program will have been allowed to return to the people and away from the government.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I am going to disagree with you. Medicare is VERY much more efficient and has less overhead than private insurance. Up until the ACA took effect, private insurance could deny coverage for ANY pre-existing condition. It could place lifetime caps on dollars paid for care.. So if you were in the middle of Chemo treatmet, and your cap was reached.. you would be SOL.. right? Private insurance could raise primiums indiscriminantly and pay obscene bonuses and salaries to the CEOs and shareholders. They can also deny treatment for just about any reason they choose, or restrict which doctor you can see. As opposed to Medicare... Part A Medicare is free... Part B carries a small premium deducted from SS.. Supplimental policies are around $150 or less a month. You can see any doctor, and THERE are no approvals needed for services. Below is a chart showing just how much more cost effective Medicare is compared to private insurance. The Government may screw up a lot of things.. BUT they do Medicare VERY well.

hmo-v-medicare.jpg
 
Sorry, but now you are trying to turn this discussion into a political argument.

First is as I suggested in my previous post, it is not cheaper as you claim. Why the increased taxes for the government that is totally out of control. You don't count that apparently and just use what we are supposed to see as given by the government. No government is cheaper than private business nor as effective either. Local medical is much better that what we see with government controlled run out of DC with no real knowledge of our particular situations. We all must live to some sort of national norms and standards. Those certainly do not truly represent the high cost living in cities with the much lower cost of living in rural areas.

So for you, vote the political party you wish and I will do the same for my votes. There is no true right or wrong for all and what I see now is that what has happened is not good for me or many and for me it definitely is much more expensive for lessor coverage. One casualty for me was the loss of my employers many coverages for health care for whatever the Obama care felt was a cheaper way to go. It was not.

Our national debt has gone from about $10 trillion when Obama come in to about $18 trillion today. How does that make our medical cheaper. The country is in much deeper debt than before.

This conversation has gotten out of hand so I will respond no more. Overall, our health system is not cheaper as some think.
 
Debby said:
You are talking about something very different than the 'right to die'. To equate murder and choosing for yourself, when you are going to leave this world are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

If I am very sick, terminal and in great pain, I would prefer that people with good or reasonable health not tell me that I have to lie there in my bed, and 'enjoy' the suffering that could go on for a significant length of time. To choose for myself to be done with the pain and suffering isn't Nazi-like at all. It's my last 'choice' on this side of the grave.
Click to expand...

Debby, I didn't say I was against the "right to die." I am not, and think we should have that choice. I am, however, very outraged at the idea of a "duty to die." No one has to right to decide that another person has no right to continue living. Having said that, however, practicalities enter into the picture when families must make the decision whether or not to continue drastic life support measures to keep someone alive long after that person's body is ready to die. I don't believe that is right, either. I think that's why we all should consider having a living will or right to die affidavit, or whatever our jurisdiction calls it, in place, and to be sure our families and physicians know our wishes.

I absolutely agree with you that we should all have the right to decide whether we want to lay around in pain till the bitter end or not. But I also strongly believe that it a choice we should make for ourselves, not that others should make for us based on some outside criteria, like that we are "too old," for example.
 
Blaming Obama for the increase in national debt.. Is a bit silly isn't it? AND it certainly isn't from Medicare or the ACA.. NO... my friend.. you can put that increase squarely on the shoulders of our old buddy GW. and the bail out of the Banks... to avoid the entire economy from collapsing due to his poor policies... his unfunded wars.. His tax cuts to the wealthy AND his unfunded prescription drug program. Couple that with the fact that the GOP held House has not allowed one single thing to be done to create jobs, or address the tax issues with a large percentage of Corporations paying no taxes at all.. I hardly think one can point fingers at Obama. The goverment has to run.. and it has to have money to do that. The GOP has tried relentlessly to destroy the government.... except that is for the ultra wealthy.
 
Obama Care designer says 75 are enough years to live.

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-co...thinks-75-is-long-enough-to-live-2909394.html

Everything including cost and care are based on outdated thinking and mindset.

The only people with any excuse are the gold watch generation who were able to get a 30 year career with pension and good benefits. American society is almost based on a prison mentality. Do your time-working and you'll be taken care of.

Too many have been led to believe all they needed was a high school diploma or a college degree. Now that's the absolute bare minimum to exist not exceed in the work place. That being said it is that generation that thought they would learn all they needed to know in school and use their degrees the rest of their lives. This is the same generation that fails to evolve, develop, progress or learn their own survival skills including a fitness and nutrition routine above and beyond what the doctor ordered. More importantly all they had to do was pay someone else to do a lot of stuff they should've of learned on their own wether it be a computer, kitchen, tools etc. Too much emphasis on learning what someone can do for someone else rather than take care of themselves. This is why alot of things come down to money pure and simple.

Why do it yourself when you can pay someone else to do it. Is that an indication of lazyness, incompetence or you actually have the money to pay someone else to do it.
 
Now you are definitely trying to make this entire discussion a political one and not one of personal experience which I have been posting from.

Not a problem of George Bush either as Bush had the debt held into the $7 trillion level that came from Clinton's years. Still at $7 trillion till the last two years of Bush when the Democrats took over both houses of Congress with Reid and Pelosi. Those two went on spending sprees and only allowed Bush's requests for funds when a lot of their nonsense was allowed. Bush was attempting to run two wars and the country within the $7 trillion window left by Clinton and did so until Pelosi and Reid took control of Congress. In two years they had lifted the debt to the $10 trillion that Obama then raised to $18 trillion. Definitely not due to the so called banking rescue and the other distortions of truth. If all you say were even partly true, why then is Obama's loyalty so low as to be in the 40% for some surveys and even lower, 35%, in other surveys? Obama has created his very own sadness for the US and in two years we may have Hillary or someone else for the Democrats and whomever for the Republican party. Either one will have the job of cleaning up a lot of financial mistakes Obama has made and helping to get this country back on its feet and out of debt. Now for one of the biggest problems in today's Congress, look to Reid. He will not even look to any of the House offerings so any help is just allowed to sit on the desk. Just eliminating Reid would be a big help to getting the country operating again.

I said I would not respond to your jokes but it was so gross that I had to make a response. Here is a look at reality. Look at how the debt came down under Clinton when he had a Republican Congress to help him. And how fast the Democrat's raised the debt even before Obama got elected and continued this rapid waste of US wealth into something none of us can see.

 
A few years back, my husband, the son, (that was living on, and working our farm), and me had this very coversation. My husband let us know that he just wanted to live and died at home, as both my parents did. We kept both of my parents in our home to be able to home care them. My father was bed riden and on oxigon. He lived five years. My mother, who had her small trailer in the back yard, (they were divorced), died three years after my father. She had a massive heart attach, and died as I held her.
So all three of us were aware of the requirements it would take to allow for this kind of care. Our son had agree to help us both live out the remainer of our years as we wish.

My husband and I both fear nursing homes, and being seperated.

So we gave our son hand written instruction that clearly said when we reached the stage of our death, we didn't want any extraordinary measures to extend our lives other than pain medications that would relieve the pain as we died naturally. Sounded like a good plan. It worked for my parents.

But unexpectedly, our son ended up in a hospital transplant unit with a devastated liver one day, and the next day when we went to see how he was, his doctor was waiting for us. She informed us that during he night his fever spiked so fast and high, that he was dieing.

The doctor looked at me asked me what "I" wanted to do? They could keep him on life support for a long time, or I could make the decision to stop his life support. I asked if he had any chamce of life, and they told me he was brain dead. I knew right then what my son would want, and although I was tempted to wait and see, I knew that was my selfishness and for my sake. I asked if I could get into his bed so I could hold him. They let me do that, then they gave him a shot, and I held him as he died.

My point in all of this is that no government agencies tried to enterfere with my parents choices, and they had no will or written statements. And when my son died, they were very caring and took their direction from my wishes. My son didn't have a will or death statement either. :dunno:
 
BobF said:
In my opinion, far too much of our retirement care is given to the government and not enough is kept in the hands of the person themselves. We should never just let it all fall into the hands of the government and should be working to pay for care and protection on our own. I really hate it when I see more and more of our care being taken by the government and being told how expensive it will be for our care. Right now I find I can not even understand our current retirement and medical care from the confused, still not completed, rules and regulations we call Obama care. How much will it cover and what portion of payments will I be required to pay. Nothing clear in the paper work I have received before or since being covered. The entire system is a big fog of rights and responsibilities. All this stuff about retirement living and health care should be in the hands of the individuals, not some major government group sucking up so much money while they spend most of their time overseeing restrictions on who gets paid and how much.

Many won't like my comments as there are those that only want to sit on their butts and depend on the big, unaffordable, government to take care of them. Life end care should also be easier to choose from and not so much involved with lawyers protecting their careers.

Just my thinking.
Click to expand...


You've made some really valid points Bob but at the same time that same government has made it possible for large corporations and every industry that wants to, to move off shore, pay lower taxes, etc., all of which has left the populace kind of in the lurch. Either no jobs or few jobs, or poor paying jobs any one of which would make it difficult or impossible to save up for those last years. So what can they do? We don't want to see them just trudging off into the shadows of society to die miserably. That would say very bad things about our society wouldn't it?
 
Butterfly said:
Debby, I didn't say I was against the "right to die." I am not, and think we should have that choice. I am, however, very outraged at the idea of a "duty to die." No one has to right to decide that another person has no right to continue living. Having said that, however, practicalities enter into the picture when families must make the decision whether or not to continue drastic life support measures to keep someone alive long after that person's body is ready to die. I don't believe that is right, either. I think that's why we all should consider having a living will or right to die affidavit, or whatever our jurisdiction calls it, in place, and to be sure our families and physicians know our wishes.

I absolutely agree with you that we should all have the right to decide whether we want to lay around in pain till the bitter end or not. But I also strongly believe that it a choice we should make for ourselves, not that others should make for us based on some outside criteria, like that we are "too old," for example.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry that I misunderstood your original comment then Butterfly. I guess I may have misconstrued your direction when you mentioned Nazi's and all that that infers. I think on your other points we are in agreement.
 
BobF said:
Here is a look at reality. Look at how the debt came down under Clinton when he had a Republican Congress to help him. And how fast the Democrat's raised the debt even before Obama got elected and continued this rapid waste of US wealth into something none of us can see.

Click to expand...

Interesting graph Bob.
 
Ina said:
A few years back, my husband, the son, (that was living on, and working our farm), and me had this very coversation. My husband let us know that he just wanted to live and died at home, as both my parents did. We kept both of my parents in our home to be able to home care them. My father was bed riden and on oxigon. He lived five years. My mother, who had her small trailer in the back yard, (they were divorced), died three years after my father. She had a massive heart attach, and died as I held her.
So all three of us were aware of the requirements it would take to allow for this kind of care. Our son had agree to help us both live out the remainer of our years as we wish.

My husband and I both fear nursing homes, and being seperated.

So we gave our son hand written instruction that clearly said when we reached the stage of our death, we didn't want any extraordinary measures to extend our lives other than pain medications that would relieve the pain as we died naturally. Sounded like a good plan. It worked for my parents.

But unexpectedly, our son ended up in a hospital transplant unit with a devastated liver one day, and the next day when we went to see how he was, his doctor was waiting for us. She informed us that during he night his fever spiked so fast and high, that he was dieing.

The doctor looked at me asked me what "I" wanted to do? They could keep him on life support for a long time, or I could make the decision to stop his life support. I asked if he had any chamce of life, and they told me he was brain dead. I knew right then what my son would want, and although I was tempted to wait and see, I knew that was my selfishness and for my sake. I asked if I could get into his bed so I could hold him. They let me do that, then they gave him a shot, and I held him as he died.

My point in all of this is that no government agencies tried to enterfere with my parents choices, and they had no will or written statements. And when my son died, they were very caring and took their direction from my wishes. My son didn't have a will or death statement either. :dunno:
Click to expand...


Well I'm very sorry for your sad loss and how it all transpired Ina. That was such a hard thing for your family to go through I'm sure.

That said, I didn't know that Texas will actually allow doctors to proactively bring about death in a person? Here in Canada, we've been seeing the odd court case on that go through for years with no changes so far. I thought it was only Washington State that was allowing assisted suicide? Hmmm, one more thing to look up I guess.
 
Debby said:
You've made some really valid points Bob but at the same time that same government has made it possible for large corporations and every industry that wants to, to move off shore, pay lower taxes, etc., all of which has left the populace kind of in the lurch. Either no jobs or few jobs, or poor paying jobs any one of which would make it difficult or impossible to save up for those last years. So what can they do? We don't want to see them just trudging off into the shadows of society to die miserably. That would say very bad things about our society wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

That off shore movement of companies and individuals wealth is due to the higher taxes and more restrictions put on everything this government has decided to do. Companies and individual wealth could all come back to the states if the government would just ease off and make our taxes more incentive than taking the plants and wealth to other countries where taxes are half of the US. We have a very out of control government and it should be changed or replaced. I think this problem preceded Obama but Obama hss only made it worse. Efforts for tax changes so far get no positive responses.

For an article on our tax rates take a look at this Forbes discussion.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...4-oecd-countries-in-tax-code-competitiveness/
 
I heard an interesting twist on this discussion this morning on the radio.

Apparently a Belgian man has been granted the right to a lethal injection today after a 3 year process to decide his case.

He has been in prison for 30 years for the violent rape and murder of a 19 year old girl and he was already a serial rapist. He's now in his fifties and will never be released because he still has violent urges. He asked for euthanasia, which is legal in Belgium, even for children, because of prolonged and unbearable mental anguish.

The family of the murdered girl are against the move because they want him to rot in gaol for the rest of his natural life.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/belgium-grants-jailed-rapist-murderer-euthanasia-25532158

What do you think? Does he have a right to die in these circumstances?
 
BobF said:
That off shore movement of companies and individuals wealth is due to the higher taxes and more restrictions put on everything this government has decided to do. Companies and individual wealth could all come back to the states if the government would just ease off and make our taxes more incentive than taking the plants and wealth to other countries where taxes are half of the US. We have a very out of control government and it should be changed or replaced. I think this problem preceded Obama but Obama hss only made it worse. Efforts for tax changes so far get no positive responses.

For an article on our tax rates take a look at this Forbes discussion.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...4-oecd-countries-in-tax-code-competitiveness/
Click to expand...


That is absolute hogwash... I don't care how high the Corporate tax rate is... it doesn't matter... because Corporations don't pay that.. NOBODY pays that rate.. They are moving overseas to take advantage of cheap labor with no labor laws. Do you want America to go back to the days when we didn't have labor laws? How about child labor? How about working 7 days a week... 12 hrs a day? How about no sick time? Seriously? You think that's how America should be? They also like that foreign countries allow them to polute the air and water as they please.. Do you WANT filthy air and water for YOUR family?

The biggest, most profitable American companies paid only a fraction of the taxes they would owe under the official corporate rate, according to a study released on Monday by the Government Accountability Office.
Click to expand...
Using allowed deductions and legal loopholes, large corporations enjoyed a 12.6 percent tax rate far below the 35 percent tax that is the statutory rate imposed by the federal government on corporate profits.
The findings come amid rising criticism of the tactics that some big companies use to lower their tax bills.
Click to expand...



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/b...id-a-fraction-of-corporate-tax-rate.html?_r=0
 
QuickSilver said:
That is absolute hogwash... I don't care how high the Corporate tax rate is... it doesn't matter... because Corporations don't pay that.. NOBODY pays that rate.. They are moving overseas to take advantage of cheap labor with no labor laws. Do you want America to go back to the days when we didn't have labor laws? How about child labor? How about working 7 days a week... 12 hrs a day? How about no sick time? Seriously? You think that's how America should be? They also like that foreign countries allow them to polute the air and water as they please.. Do you WANT filthy air and water for YOUR family?

As part of your response you posted a New York Time article that explained why many do not pay the etire tax.

“Some U.S. multinational corporations like to complain about the U.S. 35 percent statutory tax rate, but what they don’t like to admit is that hardly any of them pay anything close to it,” Mr. Levin said in a statement. “The big gap between the U.S. statutory tax rate and what large, profitable U.S. corporations actually pay is due in large part to the unjustified loopholes and gimmicks that riddle our tax code.”

So rather than do all the cheating etc. many have decided to go to other more rationally taxed countries. And how about this Burger King deal? And I don't believe Canada fits any of your claims at all. And without following all the companies that have moved and to where, I doubt lots of your claims to be valid.

http://fortune.com/2014/08/28/is-burger-kings-move-to-canada-a-raw-deal-for-u-s-taxpayers/

Is Burger King’s move to Canada a raw deal for U.S. taxpayers?

Click to expand...
 
Dame Warrigal said:
I heard an interesting twist on this discussion this morning on the radio.

Apparently a Belgian man has been granted the right to a lethal injection today after a 3 year process to decide his case.

He has been in prison for 30 years for the violent rape and murder of a 19 year old girl and he was already a serial rapist. He's now in his fifties and will never be released because he still has violent urges. He asked for euthanasia, which is legal in Belgium, even for children, because of prolonged and unbearable mental anguish.

The family of the murdered girl are against the move because they want him to rot in gaol for the rest of his natural life.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/belgium-grants-jailed-rapist-murderer-euthanasia-25532158

What do you think? Does he have a right to die in these circumstances?
Click to expand...

Well that would be one way to escape from prison. If he were terminally ill and in great pain, with no relief in sight, then maybe it would be the right thing to do, and it would save the country the medical expense. But just because he is tired of it all, and doesn't want to do it anymore, doesn't get it for me. His victims don't have any choices.

I'm in the process of writing a long letter to the Texas parole board, concerning the murder of my oldest son. I have been writing about every four years for 21 years now, and I've gone to the hearings three times. This murderer asked for and got a plea bargain of 25 years. No one asked us what we thought of the bargain at the time. So I want him to serve the sentence he bargained for. He will be getting out in four more years, and then I wish never to think of him again.

So I don't think he should be allowed to escape his punishment. The families of his victums can't escape.
 
BobF said:
That off shore movement of companies and individuals wealth is due to the higher taxes and more restrictions put on everything this government has decided to do. Companies and individual wealth could all come back to the states if the government would just ease off and make our taxes more incentive than taking the plants and wealth to other countries where taxes are half of the US. We have a very out of control government and it should be changed or replaced. I think this problem preceded Obama but Obama hss only made it worse. Efforts for tax changes so far get no positive responses.

For an article on our tax rates take a look at this Forbes discussion.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...4-oecd-countries-in-tax-code-competitiveness/
Click to expand...


I did glance at your link Bob, but I'm not sure if it's really relevant to this discussion. I only mentioned 'taxes' as one reason why companies aren't employing people so that they can save for their last few years when they're unable to work. My real point was, if people don't have jobs that enable them to save, how do you propose that they will navigate the last few years of their lives? Some folks are lazy or spendthrifts, no doubt. But many are not and it's no fault of theirs that they can't survive day to day AND save for their retirements on top of that. Without government support, what do they do? You can't just write them off as if they don't matter and let's face it, any one of us, through some weird series of misadventures could wind up in that position unexpectedly. Out of work, out of luck, out of options.....
 
Ina said:
Well that would be one way to escape from prison. If he were terminally ill and in great pain, with no relief in sight, then maybe it would be the right thing to do, and it would save the country the medical expense. But just because he is tired of it all, and doesn't want to do it anymore, doesn't get it for me. His victims don't have any choices.

I'm in the process of writing a long letter to the Texas parole board, concerning the murder of my oldest son. I have been writing about every four years for 21 years now, and I've gone to the hearings three times. This murderer asked for and got a plea bargain of 25 years. No one asked us what we thought of the bargain at the time. So I want him to serve the sentence he bargained for. He will be getting out in four more years, and then I wish never to think of him again.

So I don't think he should be allowed to escape his punishment. The families of his victums can't escape.
Click to expand...

You've made some excellent points Ina! Agree with everything you've said.
 
As part of your response you posted a New York Time article that explained why many do not pay the etire tax.

“Some U.S. multinational corporations like to complain about the U.S. 35 percent statutory tax rate, but what they don’t like to admit is that hardly any of them pay anything close to it,” Mr. Levin said in a statement. “The big gap between the U.S. statutory tax rate and what large, profitable U.S. corporations actually pay is due in large part to the unjustified loopholes and gimmicks that riddle our tax code.”

So rather than do all the cheating etc. many have decided to go to other more rationally taxed countries. And how about this Burger King deal? And I don't believe Canada fits any of your claims at all. And without following all the companies that have moved and to where, I doubt lots of your claims to be valid.

http://fortune.com/2014/08/28/is-burger-kings-move-to-canada-a-raw-deal-for-u-s-taxpayers/

Is Burger King’s move to Canada a raw deal for U.S. taxpayers?

[/QUOTE]


But they aren't cheating Debby.... Those loopholes are perfectly legal. They are moving in order to pay NO US taxes.. As for the Canada Burger King deal? Yes.. it's called tax inversion.. They are essentially a Canadian company now.. so they will not pay US tax..
 
Debby said:
I did glance at your link Bob, but I'm not sure if it's really relevant to this discussion. I only mentioned 'taxes' as one reason why companies aren't employing people so that they can save for their last few years when they're unable to work. My real point was, if people don't have jobs that enable them to save, how do you propose that they will navigate the last few years of their lives? Some folks are lazy or spendthrifts, no doubt. But many are not and it's no fault of theirs that they can't survive day to day AND save for their retirements on top of that. Without government support, what do they do? You can't just write them off as if they don't matter and let's face it, any one of us, through some weird series of misadventures could wind up in that position unexpectedly. Out of work, out of luck, out of options.....
Click to expand...

You are quite correct when talking about taxes is really not part of this discussion. I have been talking back and forth with some that like to push certain political ideas over the topic itself. For me, and my circumstances this Obama care has proven to be more costly and have less benefits than what my employer had given us. So it is not a big deal as claimed by some in my eyes. I hear all the publicity the Obama folks like to post, just wish they could somehow tell the facts as they really are. More than a few are waiting for the opportunity to take on the Obama care and fix some not so good things that Obama does not want to fix. I end up spening more and not getting the same results as I expected to see before. It is new and with time I am sure that the medical folks and a different government leadership will get some things fixed.

Todays unemployment is still over 7% and hanging on at that level after 6 years of this Obama government. Unemployment was in the 5% range prior to the business crash under Bush with a Democrat Congress running things. When Obama took office it was up to 8.5%. Usually only takes a year or two to get the economy rolling again and our national debt has gone from $10 trillion to $18 trillion so far under this President. So we still have a sluggish country and high government costs added. Total experience is disappointing for far too many.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top