Workers' Compensation Discussion Forums
helthcare - Printable Version

+- Workers' Compensation Discussion Forums (http://www.workerscompensation.com/forums/general)
+-- Forum: Category (/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Off Topic Area (/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: helthcare (/showthread.php?tid=8714)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


RE: helthcare - MJC - 10-24-2009 09:01 AM

I am sick of hearing this on TV and now it is brought into our forum and all this back and forth is just getting the best of me and I only read it. I am not been participating on this thread. I feel it is getting the best of many of us on here. I am with Limbo and feel we need to give this a break and do what we do as a family on this forum. That is, help our family members that are overwhelmed with pain and family issues. It is evident that someone has asked Limbo to put this request on this board and this is what he is doing. Therefore, others must feel the same way. People need our support right now and arguing this healthcare crap is not helping our members that are in need of much support at this time.

As for Cycler, well, he knows how I feel about him/her. I want no part of this individual no matter what they post and I feel it is time some of the others heed the advice I have given myself unless you want to continue in an argument with this person. There is no reasoning and they know it all.

It is time to give this a break and devote our time to help our family members that are in need. We will not change this healthcare issue on this board. Thanks all and everyone have a blessed day. I love y'all!

Cajun Hugssssssssssss,
MJC


RE: helthcare - Bummer Knees - 10-24-2009 09:01 AM

Cycler my post has nothing to do with healthcare.

My post has to do with your rude attitude towards others on this forum.


RE: helthcare - capricorn - 10-24-2009 09:24 AM

I wish members wouldn't stay away because of one thread. If no one posts on it , it will die a natural death.

Those who are really having problems need to not read it at all and be with us in their time of need. I think we can all seperate the two. This will show WHO has no respect at this time. I said I was taking a break from the topic and will.

I just wanted to write this in hopes that it calms a few people down. Let it die. Don't post on it. Don't read it. I know there are af ew who aren't here because of the nastiness. It has nothing to do with the thread. It has to do with a total lack of respect by one member to another.

We ARE all adults here and there is no reason that ADMIN has to be involved or threads closed down. Whoever is theproblem on the thread isn't going to keep posting if they're not answered. Maybe we could all just let it be.

JMO


RE: helthcare - Bummer Knees - 10-24-2009 10:16 AM

I agree with you MJC & Cap and thank you!

This will be the last time I post on this thread!


RE: helthcare - stiffnecked - 10-24-2009 12:32 PM

I won't post again on this. If people want to live in a socialistic/communistic society why don't they just move? I enjoy living in a free country with free men. Not one where the government dictates what's good and bad for us. Long live freedom!!


RE: helthcare - Cycler - 10-24-2009 12:35 PM

Rude ? You haven't seen rude.

I won't be stirring up the militia members here again though. We've all had our say on the matter.
Mine is really just an appreciation of the dynamics of the political process that is trying to forge a consensus on the fundamental plank of the elected Presidents platform and timing is everything. As we draw this thread to a close The Washington Post today published a piece on pretty much exactly that. Please note this is a completely neutral piece of reporting and will not upset anyone.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/24/AR2009102401194.html


Bummer Knees Wrote:Cycler my post has nothing to do with healthcare.

My post has to do with your rude attitude towards others on this forum.



RE: helthcare - stiffnecked - 10-25-2009 09:35 AM

Cycler Wrote:Rude ? You haven't seen rude.

I won't be stirring up the militia members here again though. We've all had our say on the matter.
Mine is really just an appreciation of the dynamics of the political process that is trying to forge a consensus on the fundamental plank of the elected Presidents platform and timing is everything. As we draw this thread to a close The Washington Post today published a piece on pretty much exactly that. Please note this is a completely neutral piece of reporting and will not upset anyone.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/24/AR2009102401194.html


Bummer Knees Wrote:Cycler my post has nothing to do with healthcare.

My post has to do with your rude attitude towards others on this forum.

Obama may in fact be the president. But that doesn't mean any of us need to support his liberal/socialist ideals. I hope that he goes out in flames as one of the worst presidents this country has seen right next to Jimmy Carter. Hopefully the idiots that elected him will learn
their lesson.

And this very post on here shows people your true intentions.


RE: helthcare - Cycler - 10-25-2009 09:45 AM

While I agree with you that many do not and will never support Obama's initiatives and have every right to do so through the democratic process of the ballot box, you are mistaken as to your perception of what is or is not my intention(s). As a matter of fact, the only rudeness I've really experienced have been your posts Stiff so I guess it's in the eye of the beholder.


stiffnecked Wrote:Obama may in fact be the president. But that doesn't mean any of us need to support his liberal/socialist ideals. I hope that he goes out in flames as one of the worst presidents this country has seen right next to Jimmy Carter. Hopefully the idiots that elected him will learn
their lesson.

And this very post on here shows people your true intentions.



RE: helthcare - stiffnecked - 10-25-2009 11:09 AM

Cycler Wrote:While I agree with you that many do not and will never support Obama's initiatives and have every right to do so through the democratic process of the ballot box, you are mistaken as to your perception of what is or is not my intention(s). As a matter of fact, the only rudeness I've really experienced have been your posts Stiff so I guess it's in the eye of the beholder.


stiffnecked Wrote:Obama may in fact be the president. But that doesn't mean any of us need to support his liberal/socialist ideals. I hope that he goes out in flames as one of the worst presidents this country has seen right next to Jimmy Carter. Hopefully the idiots that elected him will learn
their lesson.

And this very post on here shows people your true intentions.

I really don't care if you think I'm rude or not. Sometimes that's just the way the cookie crumbles.


RE: helthcare - Bad Boy Bad Boy - 10-25-2009 12:00 PM

Dosen't the History of Workmen's Compensation show to be considered socialistic? Lets see how the History Story goes as it is written in the Insurance Journal...

Marxism, Socialism and Workers Compensation

Otto von Bismarck, the "Iron Chancellor" introduced "Workers' Accident Insurance" in 1881. Phased in between 1881 and 1884, the program became the model for workers' compensation programs in Europe and ultimately America.

Bismarck was not known as a socially-conscious ruler; the working conditions of the common man were not necessarily foremost in his mind. History teaches that the unification and growth of Germany (Prussia) and the protection of his position were his main concerns. But Bismarck's main political rivals were Marxist with socialist agendas - a feigned concern for the plight of the common man. On the top of this agenda was the creation of a social program for the protection of workers injured on the job, a workers' compensation program.

The "Iron Chancellor" eventually outlawed Marxist and other socialist-leaning parties, securing his rule. However, he did borrow some of their ideas to keep peace among the people. Workers' Accident Insurance became the first compulsory workers compensation program enacted in a modern, industrialized Europe.

England followed Germany's lead replacing the outdated Employer's Liability Act of 1880 with its own Workmen's Compensation Act in 1897. The employer's liability act was relatively expensive protection that depended on the court system. This is the same type of program common in America during the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century.

America and Workers' Compensation

America did not enjoin the workers' compensation social revolution until the 1900's. Maryland (1902), Massachusetts (1908), Montana (1909) and New York (1910) each introduced workers compensation statutes. All four laws were struck down under constitutional challenge as violating "due process."

New York's 1910 act faced fierce opposition from labor unions. Union officials feared that state control of worker benefits would reduce the need for and popularity of the union. With socialized care and compensation, the necessity of the union was compromised and long-term loyalty to the union was in question.

On March 24, 1911, the New York Court of Appeals declared the State's compulsory workers compensation law unconstitutional. One hundred forty-six (146) workers were killed the next day in a fire at the Triangle Waist Company in New York City. Not all were killed in the fire, most died attempting to escape the flames, jumping from nine and 10 stories up to the street below.

With no workers compensation system, family members and dependents had to turn to the courts in an attempt to force Triangle to compensate the injured and the families of the dead. The owners were tried for manslaughter and acquitted. A civil suit against the owners netted each of 23 families $75 in damages (The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia). New York finally adopted a workers' compensation law in 1913 that would withstand constitutional challenges.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2008/07/29/91833.htm