Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amy J who wrote (112033)	5/23/2000 9:34:00 AM
From: Scumbria	Respond to of 1570919

Amy, Our medical system is designed to keep people sick, and treat the symptoms. In California, doctors who treat causes rather than symptoms (N.D.'s) are not allowed to practice. The AMA is very threatened by the concept of healthy people. Since we quit eating poison food two years ago, our only need for a doctor was my oldest boy's broken foot, (which healed much faster than expected.) The best way to reduce health costs is to quit feeding people food which makes them sick. Diseases like cancer and Alzheimers have exploded in recent years, because of changes in the quality of food. Scumbria

To: Amy J who wrote (112033)	5/23/2000 11:04:00 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570919

Amy, OT Re: context of Family Medical Leave The debate at the time was not whether the companies should provide adequate parental leave, for which the answer was unanimous yes, the question was whether this should be a federal mandate, to which majority of Republicans answered no. As far as the woman going to work 2 weeks after c-section, I find it crazy that she did go to work that quickly regardless of the c-section, and even crazier that she would want to go back to work for company that had such a nonsensical policy. Going back to work for this company by your friend was a way of providing positive feedback to the company. If on the other hand the company lost all the female employees of the childbearing age to companies that accommodate working parents better, maybe the company would change their policy on their own. Maybe your friend enjoyed receiving higher take home pay because the company did not provide this benefit and the company could afford to pass the savings to their employees. Maybe this particular company finds that women of childbearing age are less valuable than other employees, and the company doesn't want to go out of their way to attract them. Maybe the company is forced by the federal law to overpay a woman of childbearing age (based on the economics of the situation) and underpay her husband, or 2nd woman's husband. Maybe this 2nd woman whose husband is underpaid in order to provide the benefit for the 1st women chose to undergo the financial sacrifice and stay home with her child in order to provide better care. Now some federal law is going to make this sacrifice even tougher, because they have to subsidize other people who chose more money rather than better care for their kids. Maybe this increased cost of the 2nd family leaves them in a situation where they can't afford to have their brakes in their car checked, and they die in a car accident. Did you account for the death of this 2nd family in the cost of providing the benefit of the 1st family? I don't think so. It is always convenient present only the benefits, to look only at one side of the story and to describe the other side as negligible, 0.0004 % of some amount X, that is paid by someone else anyway, some impersonal 3rd party, or even better, the government. The fact that this cost is going to affect real people in real way is never presented. You only get to see a small, loud group of beneficiaries with some compelling stories on their side (as you presented), but you will never hear of the dead young family (the 2nd family in my example) who paid with their lives to provide this benefit. Maybe the cost of providing some benefit will force people to eat less expensive, less nutritious, sugar laden food, that will cause increased cases of diabetes. The same argument applies to your 2nd case, of federal government forcing insurance companies provide insurance for diabetes (which in case of Type 2 is entirely self inflicted disease). The health insurance and the "health care" industry is entirely different subject. I will rather not get trapped defending them, because my view of this industry is close to what Scumbria said in his reply to you. Joe