Compare the wages of a female employee to a male that do the exact same job and explain to me why their is a disparity.Jay wrote:
Compare the productivity of a government or union employee vs productivity achieved in the private sector.
Do men take years off of work to raise a family?AussieReaper wrote:
Compare the wages of a female employee to a male that do the exact same job and explain to me why their is a disparity.Jay wrote:
Compare the productivity of a government or union employee vs productivity achieved in the private sector.
Surely if it is based on value, worth and effort of the employee, as you have said - then gender shouldn't dictate a lower rate of pay.
And how many of those have taken multiple year long maternity leaves?Uzique wrote:
that's funny cause female professors are routinely paid £10-15k less than their male counterparts
Not all women decide to raise a family. And they still are given a lower wage on average.Jay wrote:
Do men take years off of work to raise a family?AussieReaper wrote:
Compare the wages of a female employee to a male that do the exact same job and explain to me why their is a disparity.Jay wrote:
Compare the productivity of a government or union employee vs productivity achieved in the private sector.
Surely if it is based on value, worth and effort of the employee, as you have said - then gender shouldn't dictate a lower rate of pay.
Do men match their work schedule to their childrens schedule?
No, not nearly as often. Take a man and a woman who have put equal amounts of time into the same job and you'll find that women actually make a bit more. It's a contrived feminist argument. If pay is what they really care about, don't have kids. I'm sorry they were born with uterus' and thus are forced to take time off if they want kids. Life isn't fair.
well the professor that went to a tribunal over it had racked up 0 kids, soJay wrote:
And how many of those have taken multiple year long maternity leaves?Uzique wrote:
that's funny cause female professors are routinely paid £10-15k less than their male counterparts
Sorry, but this is complete bullshit. I've had a dozen jobs and not once was I able to set my wage.Jay wrote:
99% of workers do set their own wages. They negotiate. Unless they are part of a union, or work for the government, their pay is not dictated by concrete pay scales. The freedom to set your own wages is the freedom to define your own value.
The point is you and Jay are OK with things like socialised firefighting, run by the govt, on a low uniform fixed wage, with firefighters doing side-jobs to make better money - but dead set against socialised medicine because apparently it will be more expensive if run by the govt.......FEOS wrote:
So the military and police and firemen should then be free to perform their services on the side, as well?
Gee...when you use your argument against you, it makes no fucking sense.
US does have a 300 million population and each state is its own sovereign that run their own education, police, medical etc system. Its better done at a state level rather than a giant federal level. NCLB was a complete disaster when the federal government stepped in to "aid" states on education funding. The EU doesn't even have a health care system for the union, but each country running their own system respectively.Dilbert_X wrote:
The point is you and Jay are OK with things like socialised firefighting, run by the govt, on a low uniform fixed wage, with firefighters doing side-jobs to make better money - but dead set against socialised medicine because apparently it will be more expensive if run by the govt.......FEOS wrote:
So the military and police and firemen should then be free to perform their services on the side, as well?
Gee...when you use your argument against you, it makes no fucking sense.
Does not compute.
NCLB wasn't created to help fund education. It was created to raise education standards in all schools that take federal government money. Standardized test were the just the way to measure success.Cybargs wrote:
NCLB was a complete disaster when the federal government stepped in to "aid" states on education funding.
So why is it apparently equally evil for the states to consider socialised healthcare? All other public services are govt run.Cybargs wrote:
US does have a 300 million population and each state is its own sovereign that run their own education, police, medical etc system. Its better done at a state level rather than a giant federal level. NCLB was a complete disaster when the federal government stepped in to "aid" states on education funding. The EU doesn't even have a health care system for the union, but each country running their own system respectively.Dilbert_X wrote:
The point is you and Jay are OK with things like socialised firefighting, run by the govt, on a low uniform fixed wage, with firefighters doing side-jobs to make better money - but dead set against socialised medicine because apparently it will be more expensive if run by the govt.......FEOS wrote:
So the military and police and firemen should then be free to perform their services on the side, as well?
Gee...when you use your argument against you, it makes no fucking sense.
Does not compute.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-12-19 03:58:42)
how is that in any way a 'good' point re: american healthcare? no shit we don't have a health care system for the union, we're all sovereign states. we don't have a federal power presiding over the union. it's an economic arrangement (soon to be dissolved, by the looks of things). it has over-riding legal powers in civil courts on the grounds of human rights and the ability to create smaller laws in the forms of market regulations and standards. that is it. how the fuck is the european union going to execute a continent-wide healthcare system? the us, though equally constituted of (non-sovereign) states, true, has a goddamn federal power! you'd have a point if we were suggesting universal healthcare for the NAFTA or something.Cybargs wrote:
The EU doesn't even have a health care system for the union, but each country running their own system respectively.
Last edited by Uzique (2011-12-19 04:24:22)
EU is as much as a customs union as it is a political union. You do realize each state in the US is pretty much its own country except its just represented by the federal government at the international level right? It's not the job of the federal government to run a health care system, that shit is left to the states to deal with themselves just like education, emergency services, courts, etc.Uzique wrote:
how is that in any way a 'good' point re: american healthcare? no shit we don't have a health care system for the union, we're all sovereign states. we don't have a federal power presiding over the union. it's an economic arrangement (soon to be dissolved, by the looks of things). it has over-riding legal powers in civil courts on the grounds of human rights and the ability to create smaller laws in the forms of market regulations and standards. that is it. how the fuck is the european union going to execute a continent-wide healthcare system? the us, though equally constituted of (non-sovereign) states, true, has a goddamn federal power! you'd have a point if we were suggesting universal healthcare for the NAFTA or something.Cybargs wrote:
The EU doesn't even have a health care system for the union, but each country running their own system respectively.
Last edited by Uzique (2011-12-19 04:46:23)
Err nope. The federal government regulates trade between states, enforces laws provides criminal services, approves or rejects any state law it deems fit and much more.Cybargs wrote:
You do realize each state in the US is pretty much its own country except its just represented by the federal government at the international level right?
Well, here's the difference: if a fire breaks out, and a person refused to purchase fire insurance or whatever a commercial fire department would demand, there's a good chance the neighbors houses will burn down due to the first owners negligence. There's a heavy liability factor. The same liability issues can't be translated over to doctors and hospitals.Dilbert_X wrote:
The point is you and Jay are OK with things like socialised firefighting, run by the govt, on a low uniform fixed wage, with firefighters doing side-jobs to make better money - but dead set against socialised medicine because apparently it will be more expensive if run by the govt.......FEOS wrote:
So the military and police and firemen should then be free to perform their services on the side, as well?
Gee...when you use your argument against you, it makes no fucking sense.
Does not compute.
It's not evil for the states to consider socialized healthcare, it's evil for the federal government to attempt to implement it. As I've said in the past, I don't care what Vermont implements, I don't have to live there. If New York implemented it, I would move. I believe firmly that more power needs to be pushed down to the state level so that we as Americans have more freedom of choice when it comes to the style of government we wish to live under. If California wants to turn itself into a giant commune, it should be allowed to do so. The more competition between states for population, the better. The shit ideas sink, and the winners rise.Dilbert_X wrote:
So why is it apparently equally evil for the states to consider socialised healthcare? All other public services are govt run.Cybargs wrote:
US does have a 300 million population and each state is its own sovereign that run their own education, police, medical etc system. Its better done at a state level rather than a giant federal level. NCLB was a complete disaster when the federal government stepped in to "aid" states on education funding. The EU doesn't even have a health care system for the union, but each country running their own system respectively.Dilbert_X wrote:
The point is you and Jay are OK with things like socialised firefighting, run by the govt, on a low uniform fixed wage, with firefighters doing side-jobs to make better money - but dead set against socialised medicine because apparently it will be more expensive if run by the govt.......
Does not compute.
Then of course there's the military they're both so fond of.
That's one twisted way of interpreting what I wrote ...Jay wrote:
By your own admission, the only way I come out ahead with the government option is if I suffer a catastrophic injury, can no longer work, and thus pay no taxes.Varegg wrote:
You're not 40 yet and know ahead what your health will be? SweetJay wrote:
Calculations complete. The answer is still the same.
It won't happen because the state is full of rabid wingnuts. They would go to war with each other long before anything could be put in placeShocking wrote:
States like cali are "too big to fail", won't happen.
How is it negligence to not buy insurance?Jay wrote:
Well, here's the difference: if a fire breaks out, and a person refused to purchase fire insurance or whatever a commercial fire department would demand, there's a good chance the neighbors houses will burn down due to the first owners negligence. There's a heavy liability factor. The same liability issues can't be translated over to doctors and hospitals.Dilbert_X wrote:
The point is you and Jay are OK with things like socialised firefighting, run by the govt, on a low uniform fixed wage, with firefighters doing side-jobs to make better money - but dead set against socialised medicine because apparently it will be more expensive if run by the govt.......FEOS wrote:
So the military and police and firemen should then be free to perform their services on the side, as well?
Gee...when you use your argument against you, it makes no fucking sense.
Does not compute.
I know the history, thanks. Comparing firefighting with health coverage is simply apples and oranges. If you refuse health coverage you hurt no one but yourself. If you refuse fire coverage, you endanger your neighbors as well as yourself. That's where I personally draw the distinction.AussieReaper wrote:
How is it negligence to not buy insurance?Jay wrote:
Well, here's the difference: if a fire breaks out, and a person refused to purchase fire insurance or whatever a commercial fire department would demand, there's a good chance the neighbors houses will burn down due to the first owners negligence. There's a heavy liability factor. The same liability issues can't be translated over to doctors and hospitals.Dilbert_X wrote:
The point is you and Jay are OK with things like socialised firefighting, run by the govt, on a low uniform fixed wage, with firefighters doing side-jobs to make better money - but dead set against socialised medicine because apparently it will be more expensive if run by the govt.......
Does not compute.
You know that when the fire departments were commercialised, you had rival firefighters who would turn up to the scene of a fire and demand payment or let the house burn to the ground? If the neighbours house was insured, they wouldn't touch the house that was uninsured and let it burn, but save the one which was insured, to prove to the neighbourhood that insurance was such a good thing. Too bad if you had paid a rival firefighter company and the other guys turned up first. They would end up arguing on the sidewalk who gets to charge to put the fire out meanwhile the fire keeps raging. And they were well known to start their own fires.
Gambling with health and safety for the concept that competition is good, is a terrible idea.
Last edited by Jay (2011-12-19 12:34:39)
Lol. You've obviously never experienced American bureaucracy. "Best service possible"...AussieReaper wrote:
I think you're looking at it from the wrong direction. Forget about your "personal responsibilty" complex for a moment. Look at it with the insurance companies and the fire departments.
If the insurance companies are doing this to turn a profit, they are always going to charge above costs. They are always going to try to find a "pre-existing" condition to deny you your health claims. And they are always trying to assess their customers on the ability for that customer to pay. Not for the persons healthcare needs. To an insurance company, the responsibility of the business model is to profit shareholders.
Government run health care doesn't need to run a profit. That isn't the goal. The goal is to provide the best service possible and to as many people as possible.
