|
Rate this user:
  13 rating(s)
|
Loading...
 Loading...
Recent Comments
March 12, 2010
Helping yourself to displayed food without paying is theft plain and simple. Notify the child's mom (kids often respond 'my mom said I could' when caught whether that is true or not) or tell the manager. Beyond that what you describe is way beyond anything I have witnessed in any store in Davenport, Bettendorf, many in Chicago, South Carolina, and NJ. If your store is really that out of line with others, change stores - or become less sensitive. I personally am not bothered if a mom gives a kid a cookie or cracker, if she is paying for the box (irks me if an open box is placed back on the shelf - theft again, which adds to all of our costs. Maybe you should order your groceries online?
‘People pigs’ offend shopper
|
March 11, 2010
Grade school kids may understand basic math, but our current economic system is hardly basic math (just read a few of the very varied opinions by economists).
You are, Linda, going to care for the smokers etc, even if you are the wonderful, vertuous healthy living person you must be. They will come to the ER much sicker than they would be with good care up front... and you will pay their bill. I suppose by 'oppressive gov't demands' you mean things like requiring folks to buy insurance? So, let's let them not buy it... and then you (and I) will pay for their care when they have a need because no civilized society will turn away the deathly ill or badly injured because they don't have it. The users and cheats who believe it is their 'right' to not carry insurance if they choose, will play the rest of us, who pay into the system because it is the right thing to do, for suckers every time. The will tell you that they are willing to "risk my own money," but, in truth it is my money and yours that they are willing to risk...
Congress has heard the ‘no’
|
March 10, 2010
The thing is, Bobbie, that if we do nothing now, nothing will be done for another decade or more. Doing something imperfect that needs ongoing work is better than doing nothing. The 'it's not perfect,' or 'it's not bipartisan' or 'it's not all that I wanted' arguments all lead to the same place - no reform for the forseeable future. So, if you get really sick count on your employer to cut-off your treasured employer-provided health coverage just when you want it most. Trust other insurers then to refuse you coverage unless you mortgage the house, spend everything you have... all that might cover you for a few months... then?
‘Broken and broke’
|
March 10, 2010
It has been tried in: USSR, China, in Mexico for a while; in Egypt and elsewhere now (where there may be another 'party,' but only one actually counts). Unlike your fantasy island, in the real world, when there is only one party, there is no real choice. Where would you get the conservatives, right wingers, liberals, and left wingers who would all work together in harmony? How would you keep the nut-jobs from using those phone numbers on the screen to locate and attack the homes of those with whom they disagree. In most one party systems, the objectors (and nut-jobs) are simply imprisoned (as in disappeared from the world for an undefined period of time) or killed and buried in unmarked graves.
Try this kind of political party
|
March 09, 2010
You might also add, Glenn, the way that the 'good people' are outraged and constantly railing about homosexuality while giving a relative pass to adulterers. A gay couple can be in a long-term, committed, faithful relationship, but are deemed immoral by the 'good people,' but philandering pols may well be excused as long as their misbehavior is heterosexual...
Where’s our moral sense of balance?
|
March 09, 2010
Do you know, Jeff, that all are at risk of loosing coverage? You claim that 'current unemployment' is a convenient tool for the president. However, if those who are comfortable with their employer provided insurance become too sick to work they also loose their insurance in short order.
Most employer provided insurance gives 60-90 days coverage to someone who cannot work because of illness. Then (while you are very ill or maybe dying or hopeing to not die) they say ta-ta and cut you off. You can get COBRA, which is very, very expensive, if you can afford it... but that will not cover your family. People who claim that we do not need reform because most of us have insurance we are happy with (and apparently care little for those who do not) simply have their heads in the sand.
Vote for political climate change
|
March 08, 2010
"Non-essential" is not the same thing as unnecessary, Tom. In a crisis, essential has a far different meaning. A hospital might only require nurses, lab techs, etc to come in during a blizzard, but the place cannot run on an ongoing basis without the receptionists, secretaries custodians etc... If you thing the gov't is slow to get things done now, just try firing half the workers.
Cut red ink with this formula
|
March 07, 2010
Oh, well said, Thomas! Thanks. The current hypocrisy of the GOP is laughable as they are trying to be defenders of medicare, claiming that the health care reform will "cut your medicare"... of course, if it were up to them Medicare would not exist in the first place, our seniors would be living in poverty and dying much younger from treatable conditions for lack of health care coverage.
Time to pay for ‘starving the beast’
|
March 07, 2010
Think it was year before last that there was flooding, not last year when there was none of consequence. That is one of the points. Levees are expensive, expensive to maintain, and take away the beauty of the river front. What's more, leevees constrain the river along its length in a way that nature did not intend. I think the Davenport method of giving the river room to do what it needs to do (when that happens, which is by no means every year) is more environmentally sound and provides the glory of that river front the rest of the time.
Flooding needs permanent solution
|
|
|
