It is Human to be JealousPosted Monday, October 26, 2009, at 7:41 AM
Now, let's talk about insurance companies. Obama, Pelosi and others have used false statements to incite the people against the "profits" made by the insurance industry while poor people everywhere suffer. They have used anger and fear to get the American people on their side; making us believe that the insurance company's CEO's are the "fat-cats" raking in the dough, oppressing the underdog. Well, maybe there are a lot of high-ups who make a lot of money and that just pisses most of us off so we are prime for the pickins. That anger and jealousy towards those who have more is a natural human emotion and if we allow ourselves to feed that negative emotion, then it will eat us alive with hate and anger. That is perfect. That is exactly what the champions of this healthcare reform want. They will use it to further their agenda. Those very same politicians that are supporting this bill along with Obama and Pelosi are also the ones who have plenty. They have the very huge incomes and abundant material things that we are jealous of. They have the cars, the big homes, the staff at their beck and call, the fancy clothes, trips to great places in private jets and plenty of cash to buy anything they want. They are "Fat cats" calling the kettle black. They are in their posh restaurants eating expensive meals and dreaming up more ways to use that anger to further their agendas. They are in their expensive cars, driving to their nice offices while planning and scheming to keep this unrest fresh.
We can't allow it to happen. We must not feed that part of ourselves. Think about this! Every parent wants their child to succeed. What parent would hate their child if they grew up, worked their way up in a company and became the CEO? Would you be angry that your child was making a great living? Would you tell them that they are oppressing others who have not? Would you question the morality of their income when you worked 40 years and barely scrapped by? Are all those who make six-figure incomes to blame for the short-comings of the middle and lower class? Is that really what you think? If so, then where is the outrage at Fortune 500 companies who pay their people super incomes? Insurance companies are not making enormous profits. They saw a meager 2% profit which is nothing compared to most of the Fortune 500 companies. That's lower than drug manufacturers (16.5 percent), health information services (9.3 percent), home health care (8.4 percent), medical labs and research (8.2 percent), and many others. According to the Washington Post, Economics section, insurance companies don't make high profits and are listed as 86th most profitable industry. What about the other 85 profitable industries? How come everyone is not all up in arms about the latest annual profit margins of other industries? Nobody is marching on Capital Hill for profit-reform. What about these companies: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent. Where is the outrage? Are they not taking advantage of us? What about these CEO's of those companies? Aren't they living high on the hog while the rest of us struggle? Do you have someone in your family who made it big in some company or perhaps actually started their own business? Do you hate them? Are you jealous? Don't they owe you? They should be paying your insurance and medical bills. They should be sharing the wealth, shouldn't they? Does any of that make sense? Insurance companies make money but certainly not as much as the politicians want you to think. As much as we may not like it when others have more, the truth of the matter is that we live in a free country where those who work hard can achieve more than others and even more than their parents did. That is the country that we wanted, unlike the communist who convinced others that everyone should have the same. Communist officials who incited the anger of the people and spoon-fed a generation of jealousy and anger; convinced their people that taking from the wealthy to give to the poor was right. Making everyone the same was right. They played on the emotions of a nation and enslaved them in a government that didn't work. We are all not the same and we are all not going to be equal in pay or material things. Maybe that is why God warned us when He proclaimed in his laws, Thou shalt not covet they neighbor's wife...nor anything they neighbor has. He knew that feeding this emotion would make a very unhappy enslaved people. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
I've lived in Mtn Home for over 20 years. I love my city and my country. Since I am a writer, my decision to blog here seemed appropriate. I enjoy acting so I've been blessed with the opportunity to work on some independent films and with Prairie Dog Productions and Bogus Creek Ranch. I hope that something I have to write about has some value for others or just amuses someone.
Hot topics Mayfield? Here's my thought.(5 ~ 10:39 AM, Aug 18)
Watch myi48 short film
FINALLY USAMA BIN LADEN DEAD
i48 Film Festival
Pakistan, the Lying Nation
|
Email link
Read comments (21)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.mountainhomenews.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
I don't have a problem with somebody having more than me. When the few who WERE studying in school (while the rest of us were out shooting pool and chasing the girls), are now making millions, more power TO them.
They did without THEN, so they could have, NOW.
It's the "evil rich" the left wants to tax out of existence............that PROVIDE the jobs that are still OUT there.
What irks ME, is when they take tax money they aren't even Constitutonally entitld to in the FIRST PLACE, and blow it on crap that you and I would NEVER support as individuals. All these pork projects and foreign aid are just "chump change' to Washington...............'cause it AIN'T THEIR MONEY! You'd think after awhile, the taxpayers would be mad enough to stand together and DO something about it, wouldn't you?
They lecture US about getting in over our heads buying a new car or house-----------but THEY borrow by the TRILLIONS from China.............hit US up for more taxes and levies.....
And they STILL blow it on college grants to study sea shells in the Amazon and tunnels for turtles.
And WE STILL "support our parties" by re-electing these fools.
The only thing I covet is our freedom. And the rest of you out there better start coveting it too, or it's gonna be gone.
There's one OTHER thing you folks who want to "spead the wealth" need to think about:
When you take from the achievers and give to the NON-achievers, what's the incentive for the achievers to want to CONTINUE to achieve?
What's the incentive for a young guy or gal to WANT to invest time, money and hard work into a college education, be inventive and revolutionize business and industry.............if it's just gonna be taken from him and given to the next generation of "pool shooters?"
And this Public Healthcare? Not only does Obama & friends NOT listen to the voters......they don't listen to the doctors either, nearly a THIRD of them are going to retire from practice and go do something else, if this bill passes with a government option.
If that happens, how often do you think you're gonna get seen in the future? How many more are gonna even WANT to be doctors, attending which will by then be GOVERNMENT-run colleges?
There's a REASON that while medication might be cheaper in Canada and other countries.......they still travel to AMERICA for the treatment itself.
Our blog-buddy Twilcox is going to college. He's taking the initiative to get a better education, and it's a good one. He WANTS to be a success, or he wouldn't be there. He's doing what I should probably have done a few decades ago, and I admire him for that. I really do.
I wouldn't be the least bit "jealous or coveting" if he ends up making 4 or 5 times as much money as I ever did. If he's willing to put in the effort and dedication.............well, he's EARNED it.
But wouldn't it be a crime in itself, for Twil to bust his butt doing all that............only to have some socialistic government take from HIM, to "spread the wealth" to those who just sat back while he toiled?
I have more than some people..........and not as much as others. But what I have, I've worked for, and do not have any disdain for those who have more................IF they've worked for it.
When my tax dollars have helped pay for some politician's private jet, yacht or mansion, I DO have a problem with THAT, because from all I can see, they've done little to nothing, to deserve any of it................and it ain't THEIR money to spend. It's OURS.
But where does that leave the poor who actually do work their asses off but still can't get ahead?
Not everyone that is classified as poor are loafers. Heck some of these poor did go to college and it didn't help. Some of these poor followed all the rules did like society told them and still end up with the short end of the stick. Will you leave them out in the cold?
And despite popular belief there aren't enough jobs in America for every single person. Why? Because these corporation don't want to pay a live-able wage to American citizens and move there whole manufacturing plants out of country. Heck even the auto company that got huge bailout money from us opened another plant in china right after they got their bailout and closed the plant here in the states. Where are their loyalties to America and it's citizens.
But hey, screw it. If these people are unemployed because of companies leaving America, then it's the unemployed individuals fault. And they should just get sick and die because they can't afford insurance and decent food or shelter. Screw'em! They shouldn't have wanted the American dream of comfort and plenty. Right? Because once your poor your less of a citizen. Right?
Let the poor and unemployed die in the street. Because that is what Jesus would do. Right?
Bleeding non-achievers!
( When people make 'Generalizations' about others, they sound stupid.)
You guys always get on people for towing a party line but then you guys do the same thing.
Censored,
Being broke is temporary. Being poor is a state of mind. I've been poor, on welfare, hungry and homeless. Had I not decided to work to improve my lot in life, that would probably still be the case.
If you empathize or sympathize with the poor, unwashed masses, then do your best to help them. Just remember, that doing your best does not give you the right to demand that I pay for your decision.
JY-D
Being poor is a state of mind?
See, I thought it was an economic state in which money is lacking and jobs hard to come by.
Maybe you can use your state of mind bs to conjure up some jobs? Maybe put out a book that 'people of the poor state of mind' can't afford to read, so they'll never know that poverty is fake.
Get out of town with that noise.
Poverty is fake,....that's great. It'll mean a lot to the hungry masses.
Nice job, junkyard. I was just beginning to have faith in humanity and you dashed my faith to sunders.
Poverty is fake,...?
....thats crazy.
Jy-D:
I guess the sky-rocketing unemployment numbers are a figment of our collective imagination as well?
State of mind, my friggin butt.
Since there was misuse of scripture I figured I'd add some scripture that says otherwise. Just because I am the naysayer.
1 Corinthians 10:24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.
Matthew 25:35 For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Leviticus 25:35 And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee.
Isaiah 58:7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou see-st the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?
Job 31:16-22 If I have withheld the poor from their desire, or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail; Or have eaten my morsel myself alone, and the fatherless hath not eaten thereof; (For from my youth he was brought up with me, as with a father, and I have guided her from my mother's womb;) If I have seen any perish for want of clothing, or any poor without covering; If his loins have not blessed me, and if he were not warmed with the fleece of my sheep; ...
1 Corinthians 12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
John 2:9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.
Galatians 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
As long as you're in the Bible, ya might want to ponder through Revelations, then turn on the news.
Good scriptures. It is another reason to say, we must take care of each others. If everyone, in their own countries would care for each other, then there would be no need for us to be the caretakers of the world. Focus on doing the right thing for your family, then your neighbors, then reach out to your whole community and from there you move on to caring for others in your state, then on to your nation. It moves out from the core of the family. What sense would it make to be out fighting for the poor and destitute in other countries while our own are starving.
kim:
Uhmm,...okay. I was talking about taking care of the people in our own country. But it should be pretty christian to help people of other nations as well.
Bazooka:
I've read it many times,.... but I'll read it again just for you.
I was just trying to point out that when a person uses scripture to show that something like health insurance for all is evil, that a person can also find scripture that would lead you to believe that health insurance for all is a noble thing. But, I would be willing to bet that God would approve of health care for all. I'm pretty sure God and Jesus are into the whole love of humanity thing.
But thats just my opinion, and I'm sure you could find scripture to prove me wrong.
Not to bag on religion but for every scripture that supports your cause there is other bits that if you read into enough can contradict it.
No society nor govt. can provide for all. That is a fact. Next, there will always be some frictional unemployment. Frictional means that due to timing and market conditions, a mismatch exists between levels of labor supply and demand. The two will never equal. The incentives behind labor supply and labor demand are not the same. We can work to keep it as low as we can but full employment is a pipe dream. Yes, low wages and outsourcing to China affect this but do not tell the whole story.
The economic objection to socialism is this. Govt. nor any other group can plan for the needs of all. Setting averages and expecting society to adhere to these is fallacy. Incentives and conditions change.
About health care, those who have health insurance use it more. Those who use it more are usually the sickest, weakest, or more prone to risky behavior. This drives up the cost. In the case of socialized health care, this is going to distort the picture. Doctors, hospitals, etc. rely on past statistics to set prices and so on. So, if all they see is the sickest they are going to set an artificially high price for their services. Past experience telling them that the next person to walk in the door is most likely going to be quite sick.
The price is a rationing tool. Only those who want it the most will be given the good or service. In case of catastrophic illness, this could be relaxed. If we socialize it, this rationing tool gets abandoned. It will be overutilized and therefore more costly in the aggregate sense than if we had left it be.
Some will be uninsured. Hospitals not being able to refuse anybody no matter how trivial it seems is flawed. For a broken finger, a full grown adult should not be able to walk in and get it treated without showing any ability to pay. My ex-wife made 12 emergency room visits in 3 years and never paid a dime. Only one of those visits was nonpreventable. Better feminine hygiene, less carelessness, and ability to endure pain could have saved everybody money. Her hypochondriac ways cost financially-sound or insured patients at St. Lukes money that they could have spent in better ways.
Censored...........no. Nor would I want to.
Twilcox:
(Your right on the scripture/religion bag, but I already said it in less words. It's still good to remind people of their faith when they use it hypocritically)
--------------------------------------------------
Ickinomics:
It only seems like a fact because that's what you've been taught. Not to down grade your education, but your being taught to think in one direction and not outside of the norm. But that's American economics, you must believe or be shunned. And the reason that jobs can never be available for everyone is because the guys at the top of the chain would make less money. And we can't cut into their pocket books can we?
--------------------------------------------------
Health Ickinomics:
How is it that you can say, that people WITH insurance and use it are the weakest, sickest, and so on? Cause usually the people with insurance are healthier because they have access to better treatment and don't need to visit the docs repeatedly. Where as, the uninsured have less access to Good treatment, get sick more often and have more health problems later on down the road. Which causes repeat visits. Hypochondria shouldn't even be an issue in this. It's a minuscule percentage of hypochondria that's in the mix.
--------------------------------------------------
Ranty Ickinomics:
And American style economist have been known to skew the numbers in their favor.
There is no rational in economics as it stands, unless your the individual running the show.
It's nihilistic and shortsighted to even believe that there is rationality in the economics game.
That's just my opinion,.....
Maybe it's time to diversify?
Job creation is not as straight forward as TV, newspapers, magazines, blog contributors, etc. make it out to be. Increasing GDP or funds available does not translate to job creation.
Full employment is defined as every able-bodied member of the labor force having employment that can be accounted for. Labor force is not the same as population. Labor force is population minus the retired, disabled, children, and those who choose not to seek work. Increasing wages has the effect of limiting labor demand. There is only so many funds to give out. Its called scarcity. All economists and most humans know that money and any desirable good has limits. So given scarce funds to pay wages with, employers do not simply jack up wages so they can be nice. Profits dont exist to scam the buyer or screw the worker. Breaking even would give no incentive to innovate nor would there be any safety against unforeseen market failure.
European economists such as Hayek, Mises, and Marx have voiced their objections to socialism. These gentleman are considered to be pioneers and great economists.
It is called adverse selection. Those who need it the most will procure the good first. Those who want the beer the most usually are the ones who will drink it first or more often. Those who need insurance are usually the least healthy. Healthy individuals who feel that they do not need it will forego that expense. That may be faulty logic but there is ample evidence to show that this is how people react. Those who need it the most are more likely to overuse it because due to lower cost to themselves. These individuals have the effect of driving up insurance premiums as a whole. This does not explain the whole picture of course. I think that the current admins proposal is short-sighted.
Finally poverty as defined by the Census is not always indicative of how much effort puts into their life. Its all relative but where have we heard this before.
twilcox:
Nice. Keep living by definitions and squares, and you'll go far.
Marx's, of the communist manifesto? I thought it was a sin to listen to him? He didn't object to socialism, he saw it as a part of the evolution towards communism.
--------------------------------------------------
Just a smidgen of his theory:
Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, socialism will replace capitalism, and lead to a stateless, classless society called pure communism. This would emerge after a transitional period called the "workers state" or "workers' democracy."
(i'll probably be shot for wording that and the copyright infringement alone will kill me)
--------------------------------------------------
What he objected to was how some people would/did go about using his theories.
--------------------------------------------------
But go on, you've got the books laid out in front of you and of course all the real answers are there.
Lets just all remain irrationally self-interested and keep the ship heading for the rocks. The boat has already sprung a leak, so lets just ram it home, it's already too late to change course.
Enough of this verbal masturbation. You win.
The only "Marx" that ever made any sense to ME, was GROUCHO!
No kidding. Those guys we're/are hilarious.
Ok, lets declare an impasse. Marx said that it would end up the way that you mentioned. Yet he also stated that he would prefer capitalism but wanting and having are not always the same.
Sounds to me like a few fleas are complaining that their host is anemic. For me, an insecticidal shampoo makes more sense than working harder to compensate for the deficiencies brought on by the care and feeding of parasites. A healthy dog serves his master much better than a diseased one ever could, regardless of how hard he tries to be a good dog.
All right, impasse.
Jy-D:
Your just as much a parasite as the rest of us American citizens. Especially if you prescribe to the whims of masters.
And you sound like a scientologist.
The government is there to "serve"r US. If they can't remember that, we need to remind them as various Novembers pass.
Personally, I don't recognize any "masters"..........not in a free society.
Your boss IS your "boss" because you CHOSE to work for him.
The only time I've EVER considered a president, senator or congressman as MY president, senator or congressman, (or even a MAYOR, for that matter),.......is if I VOTED for him.
As far as I'm concerned, "master" is just a wannabe term used by the U.N.