From Rozar: "But your approving the tyranny of the majority. "

Nope. Obamacare passed muster through the Supreme Court. Further, AGAIN, why do I have to pay for wars I don't want? We are a society. Unless you want to drop out and go somewhere else you need to comply with the rules.

For reasons enumerated earlier (contagious diseases, etc.) it benefits all to be covered.

We truly are a society. Get used to America.

If you don't like it, rather than telling someone else to get another job, or increase their value, etc., YOU are free to find a country that suits you more. Go there if America isn't good enough for you.

Rob

Then let that long road take you someplace besides America because Universal Health Care is what's best for America.

Rob

From OA: "How do you propose to stop the unions from buying political favors with union dues?"

It's a bigger problem than that.

And how do you stop corporations that might be foreign owned from buying political favors? That's a double edge sword.

That's really tricky without government regulation. So, the question becomes, "Where to regulate."

Without some sort of oversight what interest will anyone have in ending bad practices? The trick is to make it minimally impact the negotiation process without tilting the playing field.

My idea would not to touch unions or owners. Let them spend their money. However for politicians ALL contributions should be made available to the public by candidates. This would include indirect contributions (as in PACs) so that the American Public would know who is trying to buy our government.

More from OA: "The government fines and even breaks up companies when they feel they are too big for their britches."

Not lately. "Too Big To Fail" seems to be the latest cry. Do you have an example of a company that was broken up since Ma Bell that turned out to be a huge failure. In fact the merger between Comcast and NBC with the vertical integration and potential for a monopoly sure deserves a close look. The public can't win when there is an unregulated monopoly. You know, no competition.

"They will not reproach the unions though because they are largely a giant monolithic voting block. Many of the politicians are beholding to them."

There are many politicians that are beholding to corporations too. Adolph Coors and the Koke Brothers are excellent examples.

From both directions it's bad. At this point I again think that daylight is best so the American Public see who is supporting who. Then they can decide if it's better to have a politician bought and paid for by the Koke Brothers, Monsanto, China, Japan, or a Teachers', Police, Fire, or Grocery store union.

Each voter can then decide for themselves.

There should be no political input into the negotiation between management and labor as possible. It should be the job (interesting theory anyhow) for our government to assure a level playing field and that's it.

BTW, OSHA (even though there are abuses) and other things relating to health and safety shouldn't be left to a political process but a common sense one. We don't want anyone dead if something could have been done about it.

Rob

khalling, you sound so much like Rush trying to beat an opinion into me.

What part of "I advocate no government intervention or any special advantages for either side," don't you understand?

Clue: You really do look kinda silly when you try to make up my position and then argue against it.

Just in case you've never heard of it check this out: "what is a straw man argument ? | www.mathematicsofscience.com
www.mathematicsofscience.com/What_Is_a_S......
A straw man argument is an argument in which the oppositions true point of view is ignored and a substitute, false argument is imposed. And the argument is imposed without ever really having the true oppositions viewpoint heard and argued."

I can understand how some folks in their enthusiasm can jump into such a mode in order to "win" at any cost, but the fact is that now you have been informed of what you are doing. If you choose to do it again it's my inclination that you are doing it willfully and with the knowledge of what you are doing. Quite frankly sir, I find such to be quite dishonest.

As a reminder here is my position: I advocate no government intervention or any special advantages for either side.

Do you need me to clarify it anymore?

Rob

Rozar, I agree with you completely if you are suggesting that the labor and management are working towards a fair and mutual agreement. It is in both of their interest that neither side feel like they have been taken advantage of.

Rob