infrastructure

[JanS]

more goodies…thanks, Chrisma..

Ken…thank you for that, too..good article !

hooper…BS!

Share This

[EmmyJane]

Is this post a result of watching the special on failing infrastructure last night on channel 275 (I think that’s what channel. Bio, A&E, or maybe it was the history channel?)

Share This

[hooper1961]

emmyjane – yes i saw the special and it brought the issue to the forefront. why are we spending billions on unemployment checks for people to theoretically look for work. spend the money building/fixing infrastructure instead that is better for all.

health care is not an investment at all. it is a consumption item and those that do not pay for insurance should not be bailed out by the taxpayers.

i have no issues with basics that are cost effective; but expensive procedures if you don’t pay life sucks. this is especially the case at the end game of life. the reality it sucks but does it make sense for government (taxpayers) to pay $100,000’s to keep a 90 year old alive for 3 more months?

Share This

[tanyar23]

Well only if you heard it from a high school principal. Sorry, that was mean.

I’d love some roasted beets!

Share This

[tanyar23]

Actually, I’d support in terms of federal spending the use of tax dollars for investment in our infrastructure versus those tax cuts which really are more about consumption than investment in infrastructure.

Share This

[curiouslyinquisitive]

Hooper: I don’t believe anyone, group, or government, has the right to determine or deprive an individual of how long they live or when they die except for that individual.

JanS: Frankly I am dissapointed in that you did not give more details about ” Did you know that there’s a tea sale going on in the junction?” Was this at a shop or a side walk sale?

Share This

[hooper1961]

curiouslyinquisitive – i completely agree with you the government has no right to determine or deprive an individual of how long they live or when they die except for that individual; with a caveat if it is their money or insurance. taxpayers should not have to pay for the individuals choice.

Share This

[dawsonct]

A necessitous human is NOT a free human.

—

No one is asking for taxpayer provided liposuction or boob jobs or even semi-private rooms, just the basics of health-care so our fellow citizens can be free of the fear of losing coverage. It would also relieve the hidden tax on ourselves and our small businesses when we pay to provide our own coverage in a piecemeal system that works primarily to enrich a bunch of INSURANCE company executives.

—

Do you REALLY think it is cheaper to pay a corporation to hold on to your money until you need health care? Their ONLY concern is figuring out ways to reduce your dependence on their services, all while paying more and more. Most insurance providers are fairly reluctant to pay for preventative care also, since their actuaries have told them they wouldn’t reap the long-term benefits.

IT’S A SCAM!!! Don’t you get it!?

—

It costs MUCH less to run Medicare than it does to provide health-care through an insurance company middle-man.

—

The uninsured use emergency rooms for their primary care, which is extraordinarily expensive, and THAT cost is passed on to the insured.

Emergency rooms are part of our infrastructure, if they are flooded with the poor finding out their symptoms are late-stage cancer, then they can’t function efficiently in the manner they were intended. Another tax on the system.

—-

—-

AND, foremost, aren’t we Americans the most important part of our Nation’s infrastructure?

Share This

[miws]

Okay. Fine, hooper.

Let’s do it your way.

On one condition; You are appointed Bad News Czar.

You meet face to face with the parents of the young child with the severe illness, look them in the eye, and tell them they’re child is going to die because they can’t afford the treatment.

You meet face to face with the small child(ren), look them in the eye, and tell them that Mommy/Daddy is going to die, because they don’t have enough money to treat Mommy’s/Daddy’s illness.

(Why do I let myself get so worked up over hooper’s postings? Pickled Beets me!)

Mike

Share This

[hooper1961]

the credit card is maxed out

Share This

[JoB]

hooper1961

why is it when you say the credit card is maxed out you are only talking about social programs

what about corporate welfare…

now there is a chunk of change

and people who can actually afford to lose their benefits…

Today the Seattle Times reported job growth for American companies..

anywhere but here..

in the USA.

Share This

[elikapeka]

Hooper, if you’re talking about some great public works projects, I’m behind that all the way. Investing in repairing our roads, runways, air traffic control systems, national parks, dams (removal in some cases), and investment in green technology, and we could create enough jobs that unemployment would drop and extensions would become less necessary. Projects along the lines of the old WPA or CCC – I’m all for that.

Share This

[hooper1961]

elikapeka i would much rather spend our limited tax dollars on public works projects than on consumption items.

job – both social welfare for able bodied and minded and corporate welfare should be done away with that would provide funding for public works projects.

Share This

[tanyar23]

So, do you agree that in support of infrastructure, we should have rescinded the tax cuts hoop?

Share This

[hooper1961]

yes no extension of the tax cuts or unemployment benefits should have been given granted. instead the money should have used on infrastructure that would create jobs and provide for future wealth for the country; such as replacing a worn out bridge that ensures commerce does not disrupted if the existing bridge fails.

Share This

[tanyar23]

I think an alternative would be that for those receiving unemployment or BFET (Food benefits or food stamps) that they would contribute in some way (if physically and mentally able) for a minimum of 10 hours per week towards an activity that supports infrastructure or community in addition to the job search. I do agree that taking care of infrastructure is important.

Share This

[hooper1961]

tanyar23 agreed

Share This

[JanS]

so..Hooper…I’m almost 64. I am about 30 seconds away from end stage renal failure, which, without extraordinary treatment, will kill me. I will perhaps do dialysis, and am waiting to hear from my transplant coordinator. I can’t afford insurance (private) that might possibly pay for this. What would your solution be? Are you telling me that you’d actually tell me too effing bad, no insurance,no treatment, no life? Or are you willing to make exceptions? I’m asking, not as a what if…I am actually almost at end stage..not due to anything I’ve done…just the luck of the draw. So…what is your answer. I work, I am self-employed, and I have a preexisting condition (cancer, 6 year survivor) that precludes me from getting private insurance at an even astronomical cost. So..what is your answer?

Curiouslyi…it’s a sale at Tuscan Tearoom, actually..Tea of the Month Club…should appeal to anyone who likes a Tea Party ;-)

Share This

[tanyar23]

Jan, obviously “for profit” health insurance is a mess. We need to have health insurance be for the people and not the stockholders.

I personally love Remedy Tea on Capitol Hill.

Share This

[JanS]

I’m with you there, Tanya…and I’m an insurance provider/acceptor…and even I say there needs to be a better way. And those for profit insurances pay my rent…go figure…

Share This

[chrisma]

Well Hooper, I must give you credit for sticking around and actually responding to folks on this thread. I haven’t been around WSB very long, but it has been my impression that you tend to drop these position statements at the start of a forum thread and then disappear, or maybe lurk silently, but rarely circle back to, you know, actually discuss the topic. It has seemed decidely trollish.

I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say that you are actually engaging in discussion much in this thread either, other than maybe comments 28 and 40, which seem to elaborate your views a bit, rather than sticking to the “Agree/Disagree” model, that most of your responses follow. It’s something, and I’d be interested to hear more. Particularly, your answer to Jan S.

A few of the other posters here offer links to articles or available data to support their positions or rebuttals. Your positions and rebuttals (in my limited experience), however, are all self-contained. You offer no references, no research, no data. You simply state your opinion as if it is fact. An example from comment 12:

the voters are frustrated with government because it has lost its way and moved away from investment towards consumption that is the wrong way.

That may be your opinion, Hooper, but can you really speak for “the voters”? Can you offer any supporting evidence of this vast consensus among “the voters” on where government has gone wrong and how it needs to correct course? In a country where many elections are decided by a 1% or less margin, such a consensus is patently nonsense, and it comes across as weasely when you invoke it.

If you’re on some trolling mission, Hooper, perhaps even collecting some copper for you efforts, then troll on. Obviously, there are still plenty of bites here. Although, I hope you’re not in it for the lulz, as they seem pretty weak.

If you want to actually talk about some stuff, then stick around, and don’t be so stingy with your thoughts and words. You might not change any minds, but you might make a few friends, have some interesting conversations, and build some community.

Hope you enjoyed the recipes. Good night.

Share This

[redblack]

once again, hooper:

infrastructure will not be improved until voters stop defeating the means of paying for infrastructure improvement.

most of these projects occur at the state and local level. interstate highways and such receive matching block grants from the federal government.

as far as the “credit card” being “maxed out,” and how to pay for those block grants and “pork,” the top marginal tax rate needs to go back up to 90%. (that’s where i am starting the negotiations. weak-kneed politicians say that 39.5% is adequate. b.s.)

Share This

[hooper1961]

jans – the health care reform act (I personally feel the act failed to adequately deal with cost and is not equitable) makes it illegal to screen out for pre-existing conditions; thus either you pay for the insurance or the piper. i run a small business and pay for health insurance; it is a big expense item that if everyone paid their risk based share would be much less.

chrisma – do you know the price of copper; it is like $4.35 a lb now.

redblack – i agree the current tax system is not adequate; but a 90% take is extreme. but those making mint over say a million (double if married) a year ought to pay more.

the transportation infrastructure should be paid for via a much higher gas tax (as a side that hopefully will help foster alternative energy)

Share This

[JanS]

hooper… that’s not my question…my question is about now…that doesn’t take effect for quite some time…I know because I’m living it NOW. But you can’t/won’t answer, will you…just throw out opinions. My kidneys are not going to wait until 2014 for the new health insurance plan to take effect.What about now? Will you be the decider?

Share This

[hooper1961]

i am not stopping you from getting care, but why should the taxpayer pay for it. health care is not a guaranteed right in the us constitution.

Share This

[Author]

Posts