Health Care

[LeighaMason 19]

No. I have a problem with the government enforcing yet another regulation. Will there be no end?

The dreaded "Will there be no end?", you are complaining about a regulation that helps you. Why would posting calories be bad? Do the people who make the menu's charge by the number of characters on the page? No, the real problem is if you knew how badly the restaurant business was treating your body you would chose to not eat there. So this regulation forces them to clean up their act, so they will have to serve quality food. Which cost them money. So they sell you on the fact that it is bad.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I am glad that the government regulates corporate america. Left to their own devices they would do everything they could in order to maximize profits, including selling defective products, creating unsafe working conditions, and putting consumers at risk.

I agree with Leigha that the restaurants have a lot to hide with the fat and sugar filled and salt satured foods they serve us. We have the right to know. And it will force them to serve healthier foods.

[BJean 16]

I am glad that the government regulates corporate america. Left to their own devices they would do everything they could in order to maximize profits, including selling defective products, creating unsafe working conditions, and putting consumers at risk.

I agree with Leigha that the restaurants have a lot to hide with the fat and sugar filled and salt satured foods they serve us. We have the right to know. And it will force them to serve healthier foods.

A fine example of what corporations will do is the tobacco industry. They created cigarettes that are more addictive than plain tobacco cigarettes would be. They advertized to lure kids into smoking because it looked cool. And the list goes on for them. And they're probably no different than most other corporations.

If you think that corporations just provide a product and then wait to see if it is going to be popular and consumed in massive quantities, you're fooling yourself.

The lenders that did such creative financing that they were able to lure people into buying homes they really couldn't afford is another example.

patty will say that's the person's fault who was suckered into becoming addicted to cigarettes or the one who bought a home that is now in foreclosure. Or the person who signed up for a credit card at one interest rate but then found out that if they happened to miss a payment, not only would they be charged a late fee but the original interest rate would be go up drastically for any outstanding balance.

I disagree that customers are responsible for corporate fraud and misleading business practices. I think corporations should be made to adhere to fair trade practices. The government is able to help protect Americans from companies that misrepresent their products and it should regulate them and keep an eye on them if they want to do business in this country.

[tdslf1 0]

I said PG rants against the government just for it being the government. Proof everyday. When people rant against their own self interest, they're just ranting because they can. Makes no sense. Does look like "toe the like rethuglican, just say no to everything, I wanna get elected at any cost, Scott Brown.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I said PG rants against the government just for it being the government. Proof everyday. When people rant against their own self interest, they're just ranting because they can. Makes no sense. Does look like "toe the like rethuglican, just say no to everything, I wanna get elected at any cost, Scott Brown.

Exactly. And the proof is that I posted about the costs of corporate welfare, which is greater than people welfare. If spending and deficits were the REAL issue, then PG would rant about corporate welfare. And though she says she's against corporate welfare, all of her posts are against the programs that help the least among us, which shows her real agenda.

So, you see, it really isn't about spending and deficits, which is what I have been saying about her specifically and the whole teabagger movement generally.

[LeighaMason 19]

You know, this just occurred to me. The republicans are "against the government", but our government is us. Its not some dictator or king, it is elected officials that we voted for, so if they are against "them" naturally they have to be against themselves. How can you believe in democracy if you think its "us" against "them"?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

[Cleo's Mom 257]

You know, this just occurred to me. The republicans are "against the government", but our government is us. Its not some dictator or king, it is elected officials that we voted for, so if they are against "them" naturally they have to be against themselves. How can you believe in democracy if you think its "us" against "them"?

I've said this before. It is our government, we the people. How hypocritical it is for republicans to on one hand bash the government and on the other ask for us to give them a job in it. :bored: They act like if you give them a job in it, they will "fix" it. Well, we're living with their disastrous "fixes" from the bush administration: huge deficit, tanking economy, rising unemployment, recession, two wars and the list goes on....

[pattygreen 5]

The dreaded "Will there be no end?", you are complaining about a regulation that helps you. Why would posting calories be bad? Do the people who make the menu's charge by the number of characters on the page? No, the real problem is if you knew how badly the restaurant business was treating your body you would chose to not eat there. So this regulation forces them to clean up their act, so they will have to serve quality food. Which cost them money. So they sell you on the fact that it is bad.

What may be a 'good' thing for you may be yet another pain in the butt for someone else. When there are too many pains in the butt, you get aggrevation and higher costs for those who want to be in business. It may even be the last straw that turns people away from going into businesses of their own. This calorie posting thing is only one out of many thousands of regulations that small businesses have to comply with. When government keeps adding to the list, it gets costly, time consuming and aggravating. It even deters some people from even getting started in owning their own business, because they take a long look at everything the gov. requires just to open a restaurant, for example, and get turned off with all the petty regulations and requirements. Where once you could sell hotdogs on the side of the road, today you need to have a license and many other requirements just to eek out a living. I'm not saying that ALL regulating is bad, so don't go off on a tangent. But there needs to be a balance, and the gov. needs to back off some. It is too much now. Aren't they trying to create jobs? It seems to me with all their regulations, they are trying to deter people from owning businesses that employ people.

When I first started my daycare business, there was approx. 4 pages of rules and requirements for operating an in home day care. That was about 20 years ago. (before that people didn't need a license to babysit and get paid for it. Anyone could do it) 12 years later, the pages grew to 38. Everything from "a daycare provider could not keep her perfume on her dresser" to "the bathroom garbage can needed a lid on it". Absolutely these are good rules to follow when caring for children, but does the gov. really need to get involved in what people do in their own homes. It's not like a daycare that cares for 50 kids outside a home in a facility. Moms know that kids can swallow perfume if they get ahold of it. I raised 10 kids and always kept my perfume on my dresser and they never touched it. It's a matter of principle The gov. doesn't need to regulate and set sooooo many rules for us. This is what I refer to when I speak of some of those freedoms that are being taken away.

Edited April 3, 2010 by pattygreen

[pattygreen 5]

Exactly. And the proof is that I posted about the costs of corporate welfare, which is greater than people welfare. If spending and deficits were the REAL issue, then PG would rant about corporate welfare. And though she says she's against corporate welfare, all of her posts are against the programs that help the least among us, which shows her real agenda.

So, you see, it really isn't about spending and deficits, which is what I have been saying about her specifically and the whole teabagger movement generally.

I am against corporate welfare, but because I don't know much about it, I don't rant about it. It's not because I favor one more than the other. I am just corporate welfare illiterate.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I am against corporate welfare, but because I don't know much about it, I don't rant about it. It's not because I favor one more than the other. I am just corporate welfare illiterate.

Then may I suggest you spend as much time researching it and the abuses by the private sector as you do people welfare and government abuses?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

What may be a 'good' thing for you may be yet another pain in the butt for someone else. When there are too many pains in the butt, you get aggrevation and higher costs for those who want to be in business. It may even be the last straw that turns people away from going into businesses of their own. This calorie posting thing is only one out of many thousands of regulations that small businesses have to comply with. When government keeps adding to the list, it gets costly, time consuming and aggravating. It even deters some people from even getting started in owning their own business, because they take a long look at everything the gov. requires just to open a restaurant, for example, and get turned off with all the petty regulations and requirements. Where once you could sell hotdogs on the side of the road, today you need to have a license and many other requirements just to eek out a living. I'm not saying that ALL regulating is bad, so don't go off on a tangent. But there needs to be a balance, and the gov. needs to back off some. It is too much now. Aren't they trying to create jobs? It seems to me with all their regulations, they are trying to deter people from owning businesses that employ people.

When I first started my daycare business, there was approx. 4 pages of rules and requirements for operating an in home day care. That was about 20 years ago. (before that people didn't need a license to babysit and get paid for it. Anyone could do it) 12 years later, the pages grew to 38. Everything from "a daycare provider could not keep her perfume on her dresser" to "the bathroom garbage can needed a lid on it". Absolutely these are good rules to follow when caring for children, but does the gov. really need to get involved in what people do in their own homes. It's not like a daycare that cares for 50 kids outside a home in a facility. Moms know that kids can swallow perfume if they get ahold of it. I raised 10 kids and always kept my perfume on my dresser and they never touched it. It's a matter of principle The gov. doesn't need to regulate and set sooooo many rules for us. This is what I refer to when I speak of some of those freedoms that are being taken away.

The reason the government has to step in is that it has been shown that left on their own the private sector will not self-regulate. Their goal is to maximize profits.

So, yes, I want my child being watched in someone's home to have mandated safety protections. Whether their own children touched the perfume or not is irrelevant, I don't want it where my child can get into it. And the caregiver doesn't have any "freedom" or "right" to have that perfume on the dresser if they are going to charge money and make a profit from me. Their freedom was their right to open up a place of business in the first place.

[pattygreen 5]

Then may I suggest you spend as much time researching it and the abuses by the private sector as you do people welfare and government abuses?

...............no

[pattygreen 5]

The reason the government has to step in is that it has been shown that left on their own the private sector will not self-regulate. Their goal is to maximize profits.

So, yes, I want my child being watched in someone's home to have mandated safety protections. Whether their own children touched the perfume or not is irrelevant, I don't want it where my child can get into it. And the caregiver doesn't have any "freedom" or "right" to have that perfume on the dresser if they are going to charge money and make a profit from me. Their freedom was their right to open up a place of business in the first place.

You are right when you say that we should protect the kids. But this is not the point I am trying to make. The point is the OVER regulation to the point of not wanting to bother with starting a business because your end profit does not justify all the work, regulations, requirements, etc. to get that $3.00 an hour you charge to watch someones child while they work. Where at one time you could babysit in your home and make money while staying home with your kids, today it isn't possible due to the government.

Do you know that in CT you have to buy a 'special' license to fiish in the Atlantic ocean? $45.00 a year! That used to be one of those things that Americans could do on their leisure time like riding a bike or walking in the park or hiking that was free to enjoy. But the gov. needed to get involved. It was just another way for them to make a buck so they could continue to support all those wonderful programs that they have that gives things away for free. Oh, and of course now they have to employ wardens to cruise the Atlantic and fine those who don't comply. These government workers make two to three times more than the average private sector jobs, they get lavish HC and retirement and pension benefits as well as much more sick time and personal time than anyone else in a regular job. The government simply wastes our money like no tomorrow!

[BJean 16]

Elder care and child care businesses are probably the most regulated businesses we have. And for very good reason. Bad people were abusing old folks and children. They were not feeding them properly. Not keeping them clean. Physically hurting them. Not carrying adequate insurance. And other things that are too numerous to mention.

Having lots of regulations on those types of businesses is absolutely mandatory. And obviously if those are the businesses you've been in you have reason to complain about all the red tape. But it is necessary and although you seem to think people would be fine without so many regulations on those businesses, the opposite is true.

Restaurants can kill people with the improper handling of food so it is important that they have regulations to prevent that. Restaurants must have lots of oversight because people's health is at stake.

But many small businesses have virtually no government regulations to speak of. You should think about getting into another line of work if you believe that you're over-regulated by the government. The government oversight to protect the public from bad people with bad business practices is necessary, right and good.

With the population of this country and the mindset that anything goes as long as you're making money, we're likely to need more regulations, not less.