Balance and the Presidential Race

The 2007 elections are now over, which means you'll again be able to watch TV without seeing ads for candidates you've never heard of before. Instead, we can start thinking about the first Tuesday of next November, when the presidential candidates will most certainly clog up airwaves far worse than any would-be Virginia senators could.

By Brian Reid |  November 8, 2007; 7:00 AM ET  | Category:  Conflicts , Flexibility
Previous: Baby Einstein and Other Paradoxes | Next: Marathon Moms


Add On Balance to Your Site
Keep up with the latest installments of On Balance with an easy-to-use widget. It's simple to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry to On Balance.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



First! (chomp)

Posted by: nonamehere | November 8, 2007 6:56 AM

I am a bit impressed that you waded through all that stuff on each candidate's site to find the positions.

I hope you are not naive enough to believe that any of these positions might actually have any resemblance to reality.

Posted by: nonamehere | November 8, 2007 7:23 AM

"I hope you are not naive enough to believe that any of these positions might actually have any resemblance to reality."

What he said.

Posted by: chittybangbang | November 8, 2007 8:30 AM

Brian,

In today's WSJ page D10:

"Men on the Daddy Track Find
A Place of Their Own at Home"

Posted by: chittybangbang | November 8, 2007 8:42 AM

I'm a ditto head this morning...what mako and chitty said: ditto

However, I don't believe for a second that the president has any power regarding family issues... There is just too many other important, and clearly federal, issues on their plate. This issue is not going to be noticed by those in power. If you want change, start with your local state representatives, and then go upward from there. imho.

Posted by: dotted_1 | November 8, 2007 8:42 AM

At least the Dems acknowledge the problem. So if one of them wins, we can remind them of their campaign promises and push them on the issue. The Repubs just don't give a damn.

Posted by: skylark1 | November 8, 2007 8:43 AM

skylark1 - saying "just don't give a dam*' may be one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is republicans don't believe it is in the domain of what the President can/should be doing. Executive branch can't legislate(from my civics class).

Posted by: dotted_1 | November 8, 2007 8:47 AM

Here here dotted! All the stuff that Hillary comes up with will only cost SO MUCH MONEY and NOT SOLVE ANYTHING. Cause already - we are spending way more than we have and getting so very little for it.
And so we want to spend more to get less? Great idea.
I really don't want anyone in charge of my healthcare but me. Allow market forces to work better than they have (i.e., it is about impossible to insure yourself on your own - why? Govt regulations, not market mechanisms). Look at what a horrible job they do now, why does anyone think it would get better if we allowed them more power? *shudder*.
I want the govt to leave me alone - help those who really can't help themselves - not those who choose not to subscribe to the health insurance they can get elsewhere to have the govt pay for it.
Yeah, what we have isn't the best (well, the care is, just go to another country - they come *here* when they're really sick) - but, as I will kill the quote: it's the worst, except for all the other ways of doing it.
Don't put MORE regulations on companies - they WILL start discriminating against women of a certain age, women with kids, etc. It won't LOOK like discrimination, but it will happen.

Again: ask not what YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU! Ask what YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY. Puts things in perspective, brian.

Posted by: atlmom1234 | November 8, 2007 9:00 AM

I want the govt to leave me alone...

Posted by: atlmom1234 | November 8, 2007 09:00 AM

Hear, Hear!

Posted by: klynnwilder | November 8, 2007 9:06 AM

HRC: "I particularly want to allow eligible stay-at-home parents to receive child care subsidies through the child care development block grant. Currently only parents who place their children in child care are eligible to receive that assistance. That makes no sense to me. Why should we pay for other people to care for your children but not give you the support to stay home and do it yourself?"

SAHM welfare. Interesting.

atlmom- I agree, but I'm OK with the reward over the stick way to deal with companies: tax breaks for doing right by parents vs. penalties for not doing right by parents. You got to let market forces work.

Posted by: atb2 | November 8, 2007 9:08 AM

atb: I sorta agree. I don't like that we keep tinkering with our tax code - it SHOULD be a way to raise an amount of money to fund our government. It has become this behemoth where companies and lobbyists and interest groups want their hand in the pot.

www.fairtax.org
That's one reason I'm behind the fairtax. There's no reason we should be conducting social experiments with our tax code. It's just kinda silly.

Posted by: atlmom1234 | November 8, 2007 9:12 AM

oh, and brian, you must live in a state the candidates care about. I didn't see one commercial in 2004 (probably not even in 2000) for any candidate for the gen'l election, I doubt any for the primaries.
I don't live in a swing state, so they think the outcome is already known. In 2004, Bush won with something like 70% of the vote.

Posted by: atlmom1234 | November 8, 2007 9:15 AM

atlmom- I really like the concept of the fair tax, too, but I wonder, has the US ever enacted such an enormous change before, particularly all at once? It seems we creep into change. Matt, can you find an example of a sweeping change? Bonus points if it's not during a national crisis.

Posted by: atb2 | November 8, 2007 9:27 AM

atb: well, it's apparently been around for a while - and gaining momentum wherever people are enthusiastic about it. Yes it would take a lot of time and energy, but the numbers of people who support it are growing. It wouldn't be easy - but nothing good ever is.
And more and more people in congress are seeing that support for the fairtax is getting them elected. So whatever people are doing is working...

Posted by: atlmom1234 | November 8, 2007 9:31 AM

I think anything that gives employees/workers more negotiating power is going to help families. Employers obviously want as much as they can get for as little as possible! (Not a criticism -- that's the way the market works). The Bush administration has very actively undermined working people in many, many ways. Those of you who want *government* out of your lives need to realize how much *government* has already actively done to stack the deck against you. I want a government that represents me not just my employer. I want to go back to a more even playing field. Then let workers negotiate for more time with their families -- or more time to go surfing. That's not up to me!

Posted by: anne.saunders | November 8, 2007 9:34 AM

anne: agreed. Fix the tax code. You don't even realize how much you cost to your employer (not salary - all the other costs). That is taken out of your salary - i.e., if they didn't have to pay whatever they pay to social security, you would get more in your paycheck. If they didn't have to pay for XYZ insurance, tax, whatever, because they employ you, your salary would go up.
If you're unhappy, get more skills, work harder, go back to school. You can't just demand more to get more - the unions are not doing so well now because of that (although, yes, we all have the unions to thank for sick days/vacation days/etc - but, again, your salary would be higher if your company didn't pay you for them - it's all a tradeoff).

Posted by: atlmom1234 | November 8, 2007 9:37 AM

I really don't want anyone in charge of my healthcare but me. Allow market forces to work better than they have (i.e., it is about impossible to insure yourself on your own - why? Govt regulations, not market mechanisms). Look at what a horrible job they do now, why does anyone think it would get better if we allowed them more power? *shudder*.

Posted by: atlmom1234 | November 8, 2007 09:00 AM

Really? You think it's the government? It's called "pre-existing condition." I have a very wealthy uncle who took early retirement maybe five years ago. He can't get health insurance. He probably has millions in the bank, and he can't get health insurance. Why? He's overweight. Yes, that's a pre-existing condition. I'd really like to know where you think the government is STOPPING private health insurance agencies from insuring people.

Not that I think either republicans or democrats are doing to make any difference for the typical working man. The democrats profess to care more, but that's just because they are speaking to their base. And the republicans don't talk about it, once again speaking to THEIR base who don't want federal involvement. In the end, little will change. If even millionaires can't get health insurance, I'm not sure the system is working for anyone, rich or poor. And I'm not going to profess to know the solution.

Posted by: _Miles | November 8, 2007 9:44 AM

Miles: yes, it may suck now, but it will get SO MUCH WORSE here. Why do people in canada come here? In england, they have to wait forever for procedures. In canada, people go to vets to get medicine.
Many drs won't take medicare/medicaid cause they don't pay enough and you have to deal with the govt - which i hear is worse than insurance agencies.
Rationing needs to be done some way or another. if the govt runs it, they are definitely not going to do it the way you like.
So, yes, there probably should be a way to have the govt as provider of last resort - or a company that works with the govt to do that (as we have now for car insurance).
So everyone who wants it could get it somehow - but they will have to pay for it somehow too. I mean, being overweight is typically a situation that you can control (and, I know, sometimes not), but getting leukemia as a kid probably isn't.
It's just that the govt running something has typically not been a good solution except for our armed forces.

Posted by: atlmom1234 | November 8, 2007 9:53 AM

If you want to know what it would be like if the government took over health care, look at the VA system. The current system certainly needs a lot of work, but a government-run system isn't the answer.

Posted by: dennis5 | November 8, 2007 9:55 AM

atlmom,
I think you can tell something is out of whack when you look at worker productivity. U.S worker productivity improved and all the financial benefit went to the CEOs and CFOs etc while pay stagnated. All while the current administration attacked labor laws and worker protections. But will the Dems do any better? I think the U.S. Senate vote on a fairer tax for private equity firms/hedge fund managers will be very telling. These folks (who benefit from a major tax break right now) have been HUGE contributors to many of the presidential candidates. So when it comes time to vote on the bill, will the senators side with their wealthy contributors or will they attempt to level the playing field just a hair? I'm paying close attention.

Posted by: anne.saunders | November 8, 2007 10:39 AM

I don't think the government should be paying people to stay at home with their kids (we used to call this welfare, and I don't think anyone held noble ideals about welfare mothers).

Make these arrangements before you conceive, or figure out how to deal with it during the nine months of pregnancy. I've known couples living on less than $30K in the WDC area that had one stay-at-home parent. Okay, this is certainly not a high standard of living, but it's all about what you are willing to sacrifice. But it should NOT be at taxpayer expense...it's never a good idea to offer a financial incentive to breed.

Posted by: pepperjade | November 8, 2007 11:00 AM

"Miles: yes, it may suck now, but it will get SO MUCH WORSE here. Why do people in canada come here? In england, they have to wait forever for procedures. In canada, people go to vets to get medicine."

Altmom, please get your facts right before you give your opinion. Not all Canadians come to the US for healthcare (in many cases it's the other way around), and everyone in Britain is not waiting forever for a procedure. Are there problems with the Canadian and British systems? Of course! But let's look at the problems in our system as well....and the millions of people that are uninsured or insured but any illness can have lasting repercussions on their finances is a huge problem.

Posted by: MV_78 | November 8, 2007 11:02 AM

Although I would never be the receipent of such a program, I do support some of the ideas of paid maternity/paternity. I am more in favor of a shared employee/empolyer cost. Similar to the Candian EI program. Where it works as part of a larger workers disability insurance program. Where the employer and the employee pay a monthly fee to be part of the insurance program. The insurance pays part of the salary lost during the leave period. This shared cost and burden works the best in my mind. I also think it should be optional. So if child free people do not wish to be part of the insurance program, they can opt out or not opt in. But I am not exactly big on government funded maternity/paternity leave or a full ride. I do think pepperjade has some point, that people (at least middle to rich) should bare some of the responsibilities of preparing for the leave time. But the other sentiment, I just don't agree with. I don't think reasonable people consider paid maternity/paternity an incentive to have additional children. How could 8 weeks of pay compare to 18 years of cost of raising a child? But to Brian's orginial question, I really think there are bigger and more important issues on the President and the Congress' plate then paid parental leave.

Posted by: foamgnome | November 8, 2007 11:15 AM

Miles- My mother has lupus and smokes and has individual medical insurance. My father is self-employed, and my mother doesn't work. It's a fortune, but she has it. I'm not sure your uncle is being straight with you.

Posted by: atb2 | November 8, 2007 11:23 AM

Yeah, there should be plenty of places to get coverage - but he sounds like he could afford to be self insured as well.

Also, I never said that everyone in canada comes here, just that for certain things, they do.

And let's get something else straight: you are not denied healthcare if you are uninsured. Yes, something could happen that could cost you a ton of money, but you get the healthcare you need.

I tell my husband all the time how we are lucky that no one in our family has ever had even small health problems, let alone a big illness. Lucky in a zillion ways, and financially is a small part of that.

Posted by: atlmom1234 | November 8, 2007 11:30 AM

Atlmom wrote: "that could cost you a ton of money...." What if you don't have a ton of money? What if you are living paycheck to paycheck?

Posted by: skylark1 | November 8, 2007 11:45 AM

Want government health care? Go to your local DMV office and you will see what it will look like. Take a good look and ask yourself is this how i want to be treated for the most precious thing in my life, my health or your kids health? Government sucks at everything but protecting itself!

Posted by: pATRICK | November 8, 2007 11:49 AM

atlmom:

We have people in Arizona who are going to Mexico for cheaper meds, cheaper dental work and cheaper surgery. Our state's subsidized (Medicare) health care system is facing a $100 million shortfall. More than one million residents receive their health care through this system; we have six million total residents. Not so good.

Posted by: pepperjade | November 8, 2007 11:49 AM

skylark: people aren't denied healthcare in this country - someone (the hospital, the govt) eventually pays it. If you want the best doctor, care, etc, then yes, it could cost you a ton of money. But make no mistake, people with money will always be able to afford the best. It's people who can't that get whatever the govt will decide is appropriate, and that will probably not mesh with your idea of appropriate.

Posted by: atlmom1234 | November 8, 2007 11:52 AM

I knew you'd pipe in eventually, pATRICK. :)

Posted by: atlmom1234 | November 8, 2007 11:54 AM

And let's get something else straight: you are not denied healthcare if you are uninsured. Yes, something could happen that could cost you a ton of money, but you get the healthcare you need.
Posted by: atlmom1234 | November 8, 2007 11:30 AM


The trouble is there's a cascade of consequences that affect all of us. Folks without insurance often delay seeking care because they can't pay for it then end up in the emergency room at 10X the cost of a doctor's visit. That cost then gets distributed to those of us with insurance, which pushes more companies to reduce their health benefits, which pushes more people out of the insurance market. Better to get us all covered in some sensible universal fashion -- it'll be cheaper in the long run. Also health problems are the leading reason for filing for bankruptcy -- again a situation where creditors lose out on money they are owed because someone doesn't have health insurance to meet their needs. Not to pick on you or anything atlmom but you're the most articulate today!

Posted by: anne.saunders | November 8, 2007 12:00 PM

Want government health care? Go to your local DMV office and you will see what it will look like.
Posted by: pATRICK | November 8, 2007 11:49 AM

I was taken to a doctor's office in Sweden to be tested for strep throat -- and pATRICK's right, the linoleum was exactly like that at my state DMV. My doctor here in the U.S. has nice carpeting in his lobby. But ya know, the Swedish doctor, the strep test and the antibiotics were all just fine. And in the end that's all I care about.

Posted by: anne.saunders | November 8, 2007 12:05 PM

We will never have Sweden's system. We currently pay taxes at a rate very similar to many Euro countries, but we support a massive military. I think with about a 65% tax rate we could support health care, paid maternity leave for 6 months, and the military. No thanks!

Posted by: atb2 | November 8, 2007 12:10 PM

We currently pay taxes at a rate very similar to many Euro countries, but we support a massive military"

And a big time criminal justice system.

Posted by: chittybangbang | November 8, 2007 12:18 PM

"I was taken to a doctor's office in Sweden to be tested for strep throat -- and the linoleum was exactly like that at my state DMV.

My doctor here in the U.S. has nice carpeting in his lobby. "

Yah and the doctors in Sweden are much hotter than the U.S. doctors

Posted by: chittybangbang | November 8, 2007 12:23 PM

anne: discussion is good.
You are correct on all that - people don't take care of themselves. However, I think that the idea of a healthcare system totally run by the govt where there is no market mechanism is bad. If the govt wants to expand the medicaid program, so if you'd like, you could opt in, with a sliding scale for fees, I think I could get behind that - but not a mandatory system. I'd rather be in charge of my choices. Of course, with something like that - your employer may not offer anything.
Yes, for those who can't afford coverage elsewhere, the govt may be an option - but many people want to live as they'd like, and not pay a dime for their healthcare -
realistically, I think no one has my family's health in mind more than me, i.e., no one is going to make the right choices for us but us - no one is going to care all that much, but us. It *is* a very difficult situation - you can live without a car, but not healthcare (or, typically, not as well).

Posted by: atlmom1234 | November 8, 2007 12:26 PM

Yah and the doctors in Sweden are much hotter than the U.S. doctors.

Posted by chittybangbang

oooo, pray tell. I was only age 10 when I saw the doc. What did I miss?

Posted by: anne.saunders | November 8, 2007 12:31 PM

I think that the idea of a healthcare system totally run by the govt where there is no market mechanism is bad.
Posted by: atlmom1234 | November 8, 2007 12:26 PM

I don't disagree at all. I'm open to a wide variety of solutions. I'm just not happy with the status quo!

Posted by: anne.saunders | November 8, 2007 12:41 PM

I knew you'd pipe in eventually, pATRICK. :)

Posted by: atlmom1234 | November 8, 2007 11:54 AM


Like a moth to a flame, i can't help myself:)

Posted by: pATRICK | November 8, 2007 2:50 PM

I read about a man who almost died in a Paris hospital, the staff couldn't locate a govt official to approve his emergency surgery. Seems august in france is a bad time to get sick.HMM seems like getting sick and depending on government bureaucrats is a bad idea too, whether in Paris or not.

Posted by: pATRICK | November 8, 2007 2:52 PM

There are scary healthcare stories everywhere. I am thinking about the boy who recently died of an infected tooth, because he could not get a dentist to take his medicaid dental coverage. I saw something on tv of a woman who had an un-necessary mastectomy, because the lab tests told her she had breast cancer when she didn't. Apparently, her results were mixed up with those of another woman. And even more tragically, the other woman, who did have cancer, was told she did not, and now, she is in a more advanced stage because of lack of a proper diagnosis, when it could have, and should have, been caught in the early stages.

In any case, mistakes and tragedies happen everywhere, not just in Paris.

Posted by: Emily | November 8, 2007 3:08 PM

In any case, mistakes and tragedies happen everywhere, not just in Paris.

Posted by: Emily | November 8, 2007 03:08 PM

Absolutely and mixing in uncaring government bureacrats would not help in the least. Remember the DMV?Nextttttttttttttt. Nexttttttttt. Nextttttttt. Sorry no way.

Posted by: pATRICK | November 8, 2007 3:19 PM

Absolutely and mixing in uncaring government bureacrats would not help in the least. Remember the DMV?Nextttttttttttttt. Nexttttttttt. Nextttttttt. Sorry no way.

Right. Have you ever tried to deal with the worse pseudo-bureacracy of uncaring private insurance companies? They are worse than the DMV.

Posted by: Emily | November 8, 2007 3:24 PM

"if criminals are seen as bad role models, then why doesn't the state try to take their kids

Posted by: atlmom1234 | November 7, 2007 04:55 PM:


"I want the govt to leave me alone...

Posted by: atlmom1234 | November 8, 2007 09:00 AM"

Hmmm...so the government should have free reign to take away other people's kids but better not touch your healthcare, huh? Interesting view of government.

Posted by: nobodyknowhow | November 8, 2007 3:25 PM

"if criminals are seen as bad role models, then why doesn't the state try to take their kids

Posted by: atlmom1234 | November 7, 2007 04:55 PM:

The state frequently does put children in foster care while their parents are incarcerated, but the kids usually end up back with these parents at some point. My coworker who does foster care has four kids: one whose mother is in prison; another whose mother is awaiting trial and two whose mother, an addict, died while her kids were in foster care. All of these kids have emotional and behavioral issues, and hopefully, their time with my coworker will help them work through these issues.

Posted by: pepperjade | November 8, 2007 3:57 PM

Well, ya. Taking kids out of abusive homes = good. Forcing subpar health care on kids = bad.

-----------------------------------------

Hmmm...so the government should have free reign to take away other people's kids but better not touch your healthcare, huh? Interesting view of government.

Posted by: atb2 | November 8, 2007 4:02 PM

Right. Have you ever tried to deal with the worse pseudo-bureacracy of uncaring private insurance companies? They are worse than the DMV.

PULLEEZE. I have yet to meet a government employee who gives a damn about helping me. They act as if they are doing YOU a favor by even recognizing your existence. I sure don't want those people making my health decisions.

Posted by: pATRICK | November 8, 2007 4:11 PM

I have yet to meet a government employee who gives a damn about helping me.

Posted by: pATRICK | November 8, 2007 04:11 PM

I'm a government worker, and I do care about the people I work for (residents of my state). I got a call from a woman from out of state whose mother had been murdered in Arizona 14 years ago. She wanted help finding her mother's remains. It took some doing, but within five days I was able to give her this information, as well as let her know her mother's case was being re-examined as a cold case. This woman sent me flowers with a thank-you note, which, of course, was completely unnecessary.

Yes, I could have simply given her the number of the law enorcement agency that handled the original investigation and wished her good luck. Instead, I tracked down the original officer who worked the case, the medical examiner who did the autopsy, and the funeral home where the body was released to. I knew that a call from me was more likely to get results because I have working relationships with the government agencies involved (and the funeral home was sympathetic).

Some of us government workers do give a damn.

Posted by: pepperjade | November 8, 2007 4:21 PM

pATRICK- I'm also a gov't employee, and I do whatever I can to help my "clients" navigate a very confusing system. Unlike pepperjade, I can't accept gifts, because I have the power to release huge boatloads of money. I can assure the taxpayers out there, I'm fair.

Posted by: atb2 | November 8, 2007 4:27 PM

If the government can run the armed forces well, why couldn't they run other things like health care well? And in fact, I don't hear many complaints about Medicare, except that they don't pay for dental or eye surgery. I also wonder why, if government health care is invariably a disaster, 90 percent of advanced nations still prefer this system.

Posted by: skylark1 | November 8, 2007 4:27 PM

The soldiers are relying on their families to send them kevlar jackets. I can only imagine how hard it would be to get insulin. Other nations started out as socialist. I think it's more historical than a preference. And you know who complains about Medicare? The service providers. They get reimbursed at horribly low rates. The insurance companies aren't much better, though.

Posted by: atb2 | November 8, 2007 4:33 PM

I am also a government employee, and I can say that there are lot of such workers who sincerely care about how their jobs impact the American people. And many such people work for a lot less than they would get in private industry, because they care more about their work than the money they would earn. Teachers are government employees. So are many scientists, health care providers, fire fighters, judges and lawyers, and myriad other people. Having worked in both private industry and government, I can honestly state that there is every bit as much as slacking off and indifference in private industry as there is in government, and that there is every bit as much as dedication in government as there is in private industry.

Posted by: Emily | November 8, 2007 4:40 PM

You know why getting into medical school is competetive? There's a potential to make good money. Not as much as before, but enough so that getting in is still difficult, which is a good thing. It generally means the smartest kids get in. If the gov't takes over, the earning potential will tank, and the smartest will move on to law and business, leaving the 2nd tier people acting as doctors.

People seem to forget that medicine is a for profit business. Take the profit out and that will seriously change the lanscape, and IMHO, not in a good way.

Posted by: atb2 | November 8, 2007 4:41 PM

"People seem to forget that medicine is a for profit business. Take the profit out and that will seriously change the lanscape, and IMHO, not in a good way."

Perhaps. But then I think of all the big and hugely rich hospital companies where profit is such a huge driver that their healthcare mission becomes secondary, and I think that's wrong. These for profit companies have been, for years, doing shady stuff, like billing Medicare and Medicaid incorrectly (on purpose) in order to maximize their profits. Or like paying kickbacks to doctors for sending patients to them. There are many examples of such illegel and immoral actions by companies that run our healthcare system, because profit has become more important than caring for people.

I seriously doubt that most doctors only work in their professions for the money. Those that I know have a more noble reason than money, and frankly, it is such a demanding profession, that I am sure many who are just looking for money would be able to find it in easier places than medicine. I am not advocating socialized medicine, but I do think that there has to be some control in the healthcare field to keep it from selling its soul to capitalism, while forgetting that it's primary goal should be to serve the healthcare needs of people. Money should come after that.

Posted by: Emily | November 8, 2007 4:50 PM

Well, we have a profit driven system and profit driven fixation/mentality now, and we see where it has lead us as a country and a society.

Posted by: skylark1 | November 8, 2007 4:51 PM

"You don't even realize how much you cost to your employer (not salary - all the other costs).

...That is taken out of your salary - i.e., if they didn't have to pay whatever they pay to social security, you would get more in your paycheck. If they didn't have to pay for XYZ insurance, tax, whatever, because they employ you, your salary would go up."


**SNORT!**
BANG, clatter, smash...

Sorry, I just got up off the floor. I fell because I was laughing so hard at this statement.

Really, atlmom, you're smarter than that! Do you REALLY think the plutocrats who run USA Inc. would give that money to the WORKERS!? Sure, it would be nice, but I'm not exactly gonna hold my breath.

Posted by: educmom__615 | November 8, 2007 5:08 PM

Med school is expensive. In a universal health care system, if doctors are reimbursed at the same rates as they are right now for Medicaid/care, how will they be able to pay back their student loans? How can a profession attract people when the pay is poor and they'd be unable to pay back the money it took to become a doctor?

Posted by: ducky2 | November 8, 2007 5:10 PM

educmom: yes, companies only pay what they have to. But if they have more money they will likely increase salaries. Why? cause if i can go down the street and get the same job at the same salary, I would. Competition, that's why they would pay more. Yes, my company only pays me as much as they have to so I won't leave, but if they didn't pay me benefits, then they'd have more money to pay me - if no one paid benefits, all those companies would still be competing with those other companies, and someone would increase the salary.

Make sense?

Posted by: atlmom1234 | November 8, 2007 7:52 PM

not abusive atb2, she said the govt should take kids if the parents aren't good role models. Taking kids willy nilly with no real standard and intruding on one of the most sacred relationships vs providing health care for everyone.

Posted by: nobodyknowhow | November 8, 2007 8:00 PM

ducky: the govt would just pay for the education of all doctors, right?

Posted by: atlmom1234 | November 8, 2007 8:37 PM

wait, wait!! I think there's a HUGE leap between 'bad role model' and 'in prison for a crime' you could even say: in prison for a felony. I mean, really. It was just a thought, in any event.
Who is more vulnerable in our society than children, really?

Posted by: atlmom1234 | November 8, 2007 9:27 PM

Obviously, it is time for the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be elected and fix all this mess!

Posted by: anonthistime | November 8, 2007 9:51 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company