Restaurants Way Of Dealing With Economy

[Hassan]

[quote name='BG45' post='1851264' date='Apr 28 2009, 11:29 AM']Yeah, I was liquidated from my last position, and with nearly a year of graduate studies under my belt, and having presented alongside the likes of Henry Kissinger, I'm working a minimum wage job that it took me three weeks to manage to be hired for with over 20 rejections for other minimum wage work and even more professional positions.[/quote]

Unfortunatly that's becoming more common. That must have been nice presenting with Kissinger. I recently started his Diplomacy book and really hope to read some of his works over the summer.

[quote]As for the state job idea, that's one of the things I'm trying to do. I did an internship once in a Probation Office and the guy in charge made a comment on my second day, "I never realized how lazy we were until we got an intern. Phil's done more to reorganize everything in a little over a day than we do in weeks!"[/quote]

Yeah that happened with me. When I first got there I just did a huge ammount of work, started to really dig into some projects and such and got kind of the same response. But by this semester I felt like I was just getting dragged into the (lack of) work ethic. I like the people but it's like they are proud of kind of doing nothing and getting paid for it. I mean they do do stuff, but they also stand around talking for an hour.

[quote]Which was sad, they were some of the hardest working state employees I've ever met. Juggling court dates, check ins, random drug tests, home visitations, etc. Often in the same day.[/quote]

wow.

[BG45]

It was nice, he was without a doubt the reason people were in the room. The rest of us, three students, were pretty much window dressing by giving our work. We rode his coat tails basically.

I believe the being dragged into a lack of work ethic thing. I'm seeing that with myself in this minimum wage retail position already; I've been trying to keep myself busy cleaning and straightening, but when even my immediate superior is like "why do you bother" when I try to alphabetize...[b]everything[/b] in the CDs, DVDs, and games...heh.

And yeah, they definitely earned their money at the probation office. One of the officers is in the graduate program with me right now actually. So he has that on top of work.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1851263' date='Apr 28 2009, 10:28 AM']You mean its not mandatory yet.
As more and more people lose their "perks" of health care or their jobs they are not going to stop getting sick or having accidents or babies, and the hospitals can't turn them away. Its obviously not going to be the unemployed - so its going to be taxes or mandatory- one way or another - someone is going to pay.[/quote]
No, I mean we won't see legislation that mandates that all businesses provide health coverage for employees. There is already legislation that mandates that if you provide coverage you have to provide certain types of coverage, but that is not the same thing.

The closest you'll get to employers having to provide coverage is higher taxes. I think the Massachusetts program comes close to mandating that business provide coverage (although I think small business might be exempt). If I remember right, employers don't have to provide coverage but if they don't they are taxed at a higher rate.

Small businesses are the hardest hit by these sorts of things because they're the least able to absorb overhead costs. Personally, I think encouraging high deductible health plans coupled with health savings accounts is the best option for all involved. Expecting "somebody" to pay is a lot less cost effective in the long run than encouraging people to have a personal stake in their health care coverage and to spend their own money to get the care they need. When someone else is picking up the tab, you're more likely to abuse it.

[Hassan]

[quote name='BG45' post='1851297' date='Apr 28 2009, 01:15 PM']It was nice, he was without a doubt the reason people were in the room. The rest of us, three students, were pretty much window dressing by giving our work. We rode his coat tails basically.

I believe the being dragged into a lack of work ethic thing. I'm seeing that with myself in this minimum wage retail position already; I've been trying to keep myself busy cleaning and straightening, but when even my immediate superior is like "why do you bother" when I try to alphabetize...[b]everything[/b] in the CDs, DVDs, and games...heh.[/quote]

I remember when I was like 17 I worked at this really crummy Food Lion in kind of a bad (not that bad just sketchy) part of town and a lot of the people were just counting down the clock. One Saturday I took probably five hours (slow day) to clean out the big room that held all the cleaning stuff. There were cockroach nests in the rolls, all kinds of disgusting stuff in the mop buckets (and I'm complulsive about being clean) just disgusting. I cleaned it out and made the place almost clean enough to eat off of and well organized. I checked back like a week later and it looked almost as bad as it did before I cleaned it, minus the mold and roaches. That was kind of my sign to find a new job. If the other people and managers don't care, why should I?

[quote]And yeah, they definitely earned their money at the probation office. One of the officers is in the graduate program with me right now actually. So he has that on top of work.[/quote]

I always thought I had good work ethic until I met the brother of a friend of mine. He dropped out of school when he was 20 to raise a family, a few years later he's back hoping to go to law school to make a better life for his kids. He works in a shockingly dangerous town like 30 minutes away in a gas station. He goes to class and works like 12+ hour days Monday Wensday Friday and weekends. The on Tuesdays and Thursdays he watches his kids while his wife goes to a community college. I don't know. His father came over not even speaking English and now they have lawyers in their family. It kind of reminds me of that line from WallStreet (the movie), you can make it if you're "poor, smart, and hungry". And that's them.

[Hassan]

I don't know much about this so I will ask. Why not single payer health care?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1851311' date='Apr 28 2009, 11:38 AM']I don't know much about this so I will ask. Why not single payer health care?[/quote]
Ask people in Canada, or Europe.

Pros:
Everybody gets a minimal level of coverage.

Cons:
Because there's no competition, there's no incentive to develop better medicine, i.e., treatments and medications.

There are longer waits for care, and denials of treatments that would be available otherwise.

There's also the problem of putting government in a position where it has the capacity of making life and death decisions, when choosing life means incurring greater costs at taxpayer expense. Historically, government doesn't follow a moral path when given that sort of choice.

[Archaeology cat]

I personally like the way it's done here (and I think in Australia, though I'm not sure). Everyone is covered by the NHS here, but you can get private insurance if you want. There's still competition that way, since there is a private sector.

[CatherineM]

I always waited longer in the US than I have in Canada. I have never been denied any treatment I needed, and actually have access to specialized PTSD therapy here, that I tried to get for over a decade in the US unsuccessfully. As to no incentive to develop new therapies, look up the Edmonton protocol for diabetes.

[Sojourner]

nm ... to avoid totally derailing the thread I'll refrain.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Terra Firma

[Hassan]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1851313' date='Apr 28 2009, 12:44 PM']Ask people in Canada, or Europe.

Pros:
Everybody gets a minimal level of coverage.

Cons:
Because there's no competition, there's no incentive to develop better medicine, i.e., treatments and medications.

There are longer waits for care, and denials of treatments that would be available otherwise.

There's also the problem of putting government in a position where it has the capacity of making life and death decisions, when choosing life means incurring greater costs at taxpayer expense. Historically, government doesn't follow a moral path when given that sort of choice.[/quote]


The military has single payer healthcare. Do medical coroporations not compete to sell to them? I don't see why competition would be eliminated. The government does not produce the medications.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1851775' date='Apr 28 2009, 09:00 PM']The military has single payer healthcare. Do medical coroporations not compete to sell to them? I don't see why competition would be eliminated. The government does not produce the medications.[/quote]
Well, by your definition every large employer has a single-payer healthcare system. When people typically refer to single-payer health, they're referring to one payer for everyone. One big government entity that pays all medical bills (and presumably has veto power over treatment like what happened to [url="http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/health/Bristol-grandmother-refused-cancer-drug/article-935954-detail/article.html"]this UK woman[/url] who was told her cancer treatment was just too expensive).

Canada's system approaches this. It is illegal in Canada to charge medical consumers for health care (presumably because they're trying to avoid a tiered system wherein those who pay get better service). Some doctors are starting up clinics in opposition to the law because there is a significant demand for better healthcare. Google "Natasha Richards" and "helicopter." When you have a heavily regulated market, with one entity writing the checks, there are cutbacks on medical technologies and treatments. Canada has persistently dealt with complaints about waits for service, among other things. There are a number of studies documenting very long wait times to receive medical attention, particularly from specialists. The government has been working to address the situation.

Competition thrives when there is a reward for risk. Seven of the ten top-sell pharmaceuticals were developed in whole or part by U.S. companies. Some of that money goes to line executive and shareholder pockets, to be sure, but a good chunk of it goes back into researching and developing new drugs.