 |
 |
|
|
|
| Friday, January 25, 2008 |
|
In the News on January 25, 2008
By Eric Livingston ::
6 Comments :: Email to a friend
|
|
The Washington Post is reporting on a landmark case decided by the California Supreme Court which protects the rights of employers to maintain a drug-free workplace. The court determined that employers can still terminate workers who fail a drug test - whether the drugs were taken for "medicinal" purposes or not. If employers are liable for the actions of their employees while they are under the influence of illegal substances, they should be able to eliminate this risk from their businesses. Freedom's Watch applauds this common sense decision that will protect employers and combat drug use.
The New York Times has published an article detailing John Edward's openness to a health care system that is entirely government-controlled. While all of the leading Democratic Presidential candidates have essentially have the government calling the shots, Edwards goes the farthest by saying he would endorse a federalized system much like those in Canada and western Europe. This would, of course, result in government bureaucrats making decisions that should be left to doctors and patients. It would undermind the quality of health care Americans now receive.
Government subsidies and tax credits would be available to low- and middle-income families that cannot afford insurance. Those below the federal poverty line — currently $21,200 for a family of four — would get free coverage, Mr. Edwards said. Those making less than 250 percent of the poverty level — currently $53,000 — would be heavily subsidized and there would be some financial help for those making up to about $100,000.
Employers that do not offer medical benefits to their workers would have to contribute 6 percent of their revenues to the regional government pools that would offer Medicare-style plans. Midsize businesses and employers with large numbers of low-wage workers might be asked to pay less, and the smallest businesses would be exempt, Edwards aides said.
To pay for those subsidies, which account for much of the estimated $90 billion to $120 billion cost of the plan, Mr. Edwards would rescind President Bush’s income tax cuts for those with incomes above $200,000. Additional revenue would be produced through a broad menu of cost-control measures.
|
|
|
|
|
| Comments |
By
Old GI @
Friday, January 25, 2008 6:07 PM
|
Praise God! The decision to keep drugs out of the work place is only rational. Even if prescription drugs are used, if one is impaired enough to be dangerous to himself or others they should remain home until they are well. My wife read this in the paper to me just last night, and we were wondering what the out come would be. Thanks Freedom’s Watch for keeping us up to date!
|
|
|
By
keeemosabe @
Saturday, January 26, 2008 3:40 PM
|
Really? Have you ever been on Medicare, which will undoubtedly be the model from the patients' perspective? If so, would know the truth to be far from your interpretation. Leave it to those conservatives to get it wrong. Medicare leaves the decision to doctors and patients FAR MORE than private insurances. I know, I've had experience with both. The private insurance game is to avoid, by trick or by golly, the expensive treatments if they can, and only insure those who are healthy if they can. High school graduate clerks often determine a patient's fate. Recently a girl from Los Angeles was denied a liver transplant until it was too late. Just hours before she died, the insurance "magnanimously" ("generously"--- in their minds) made and "exception" "for her". They will now be sued for whatever form of contract weaseling, and I'd suppose this will be characterized by the righties as another "frivolous" lawsuit (What is that anyway? Any lawsuit that a plaintiff loses? Or is it any one that the defendant loses, but someone felt they should have settled out of court? But you go ahead and praise the current health insurance system, which with many decades to get it right, still leaves more than half our citizens uninsured. Yippee.
|
|
|
By
keeemosabe @
Monday, January 28, 2008 3:37 PM
|
On drugs on the workplace...What would happen to Lush Rim-BaHHH! in this scenario. HMMMMMMM! Be careful what you wish for! ;)
|
|
|
By
keeemosabe @
Tuesday, January 29, 2008 1:15 PM
|
|
Birdalone: Thank you. You are exactly right. You can bet business lobbyists (yes, even Walmart) are secretly (hush hush hush) making this pitch to any congresman who takes their money. And why not. It is true. Universal healthcare will make our industies more competitive, because the whole industrialized world uses this form of "employment subsidy" to make their industries compete more effectively in world markets.
|
|
|
By
birdalone @
Tuesday, January 29, 2008 12:16 PM
|
The real issue regarding health care is how employer-paid medical insurance is a leading factor in the loss of American jobs. More than one million American manufacturing jobs have moved to Canada since 2000, not because wage rates are lower, but because the employer does not have to also pay for medical insurance. Also, millions of invisible Americans over the age of 45 were downsized after 1995 because their perceived or real higher health costs increased their employer-paid premiums, particularly for small businesses. How many of those millions are now collecting Social Security disability and Medicare instead of retaining the dignity of work and full participation in the American economy?
True conservatives need to study history. Germany has the highest labor costs in the world, yet is STILL the world's leading exporter. Bismarck started the first social safety net programs in Europe to dampen the appeal of socialism. Britain's Conservatives saw how 100 years of the original Liberal Party's laissez-faire free trade agenda failed everyone.
De-linking medical insurance from employment compensation is the single best way to make what is left of American manufacturing competitive.
Calvin Coolidge was the last true American conservative President, and a model for a rebirth of his beloved America.
|
|
|
By
keeemosabe @
Saturday, January 26, 2008 3:42 PM
|
Oops! forgot the quote .....Re-posted as follows: Livingston sez:>>>>>>>>>Edwards goes the farthest by saying he would endorse a federalized system much like those in Canada and western Europe. This would, of course, result in government bureaucrats making decisions that should be left to doctors and patients. It would undermind the quality of health careAmericans now receive."<<<<<<<<<< Really? Have you ever been on Medicare, which will undoubtedly be the model from the patients' perspective? If so, would know the truth to be far from your interpretation. Leave it to those conservatives to get it wrong. Medicare leaves the decision to doctors and patients FAR MORE than private insurances. I know, I've had experience with both. The private insurance game is to avoid, by trick or by golly, the expensive treatments if they can, and only insure those who are healthy if they can. High school graduate clerks often determine a patient's fate. Recently a girl from Los Angeles was denied a liver transplant until it was too late. Just hours before she died, the insurance "magnanimously" ("generously"--- in their minds) made and "exception" "for her". They will now be sued for whatever form of contract weaseling, and I'd suppose this will be characterized by the righties as another "frivolous" lawsuit (What is that anyway? Any lawsuit that a plaintiff loses? Or is it any one that the defendant loses, but someone felt they should have settled out of court? But you go ahead and praise the current health insurance system, which with many decades to get it right, still leaves more than half our citizens uninsured. Yippee.
|
|
|
Click Here to post a comment
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |