Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by dmek25

how did we go from discussing health-care, to online schooling? just wondering

I think the lines of thinking went from poor, lower class people who can't afford health and how poor people are usually lazy and unwilling to better themselves by going to college. Maybe the exact words were not said (or typed,) but I believe that is how we went from health care to schools.

[724Skinsfan]

Pretty much. To sum it up in a slightly cynical perspective:

The vast majority of people who don't have the types of jobs that offer decent health care are lazy and should just simply better themselves by going to the magical world of college where you automatically get a job with great healthcare benefits upon graduation. Oh yeah, college is extremely cheap, if not free, you just simply have to suck it up for 3-4 years with absolutely no luxury because to not do so would mean you don't have your priorities in order; not because you thought you'd be a cool single parent and buy your kid a decent pair of shoes...once.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

Pretty much. To sum it up in a slightly cynical perspective:

The vast majority of people who don't have the types of jobs that offer decent health care are lazy and should just simply better themselves by going to the magical world of college where you automatically get a job with great healthcare benefits upon graduation. Oh yeah, college is extremely cheap, if not free, you just simply have to suck it up for 3-4 years with absolutely no luxury because to not do so would mean you don't have your priorities in order; not because you thought you'd be a cool single parent and buy your kid a decent pair of shoes...once.

Perfectly stated!

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I'm curious (as well as the others in this thread) as to where you got your MBA for $25 a month. After all, all accredited schools charge a lot more for Master programs than bachelor programs.

That was purely in reference to transportation costs. I still owe 50k in student loans.

This argument is not going anywhere, thus my absence from this discussion. There is nothing productive being said, and I am just as guilty for indulging to this point.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jsarno

By the way, I apologize, I forgot to call the DOL today...sorry, I was busy, I will do so tomorrow.

My online program was and is fully accredited Matty, and not all online degrees are crap like you are suggesting. Most colleges are doing online courses / degrees now, and some will even wire you into an actual class.
I didn't see my college on that list, (didn't look hard either) but that is not the only list of accredited universities.
This is a site that my degree is accredited by:
Higher Learning Commission - HLC Home

That is a list of colleges / universities that are held to higher standards.

Eesh. Jsarno, my condolences. The only accredidation that matters, when it comes to business degrees and MBAs, is the AACSB. These regional commissions, like the one you linked to, are parts of for-profit companies designed to funnel students towards non-AACSB accredited programs. They're in it for the money.

I actually have an open position in my department right now for which we're searching for candidates with MBAs, and we've already dismissed a few candidates with "MBAs" from non-accredited schools. I won't even interview them.

I know this isn't easy to hear, and believe me I'm taking no pleasure in telling you, but in my opinion those schools are practically scams. PM me if you want to discuss it further.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

This is a great document I studied in school. Have you heard of it?

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Are you assuming that I would lock them up without due process? They have rights until they break the Law. I am not saying haul them off immediately, but give them a reasonable deadline in which to accomplish the objective. If they fail to achieve desired results within the alloted time, then they broke the Law. That is of course assuming that a Law that will never get passed becomes effective.

This entire conversation is hypothetical. It is because of arguements like this that nothing ever gets accomplished the way it should. We spend years talking about the issues without ever fixing them. I am laughing uncontrollably as I write this.

Keep in mind that ideas are just that, ideas. Nothing in life is black or white with a definate answer unless you are refering to math. I find it funny that we will beat our heads against a wall trying to change a persons mind instead of comming to a compromise to most effectivley solve or minimize the problem.

You so quickly pointed out that my ideas go against the constitution, which can be changed. What is your solution? Can you think of one that would work best for all of those involved? I would love to hear it. (Not sarcasim)

I do not mind supported evidence being used to disprove my ideas and theories. That is what a good productive argument is all about. But, you cant just say that I am wrong and leave it at that. Provide your own insight and ideas so that the conversation stays open and a cooperative conclusion can be reached.


EDIT: I could have been a smartass and said that when I enlisted I had no idea what the constitution which I was supporting and defending actually read. DEE DEE DEE! Then where would the conversation have gone?

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by angryssg

Are you assuming that I would lock them up without due process? They have rights until they break the Law. I am not saying haul them off immediately, but give them a reasonable deadline in which to accomplish the objective. If they fail to achieve desired results within the alloted time, then they broke the Law. That is of course assuming that a Law that will never get passed becomes effective.

This entire conversation is hypothetical. It is because of arguements like this that nothing ever gets accomplished the way it should. We spend years talking about the issues without ever fixing them. I am laughing uncontrollably as I write this.

Keep in mind that ideas are just that, ideas. Nothing in life is black or white with a definate answer unless you are refering to math. I find it funny that we will beat our heads against a wall trying to change a persons mind instead of comming to a compromise to most effectivley solve or minimize the problem.

You so quickly pointed out that my ideas go against the constitution, which can be changed. What is your solution? Can you think of one that would work best for all of those involved? I would love to hear it. (Not sarcasim)

I do not mind supported evidence being used to disprove my ideas and theories. That is what a good productive argument is all about. But, you cant just say that I am wrong and leave it at that. Provide your own insight and ideas so that the conversation stays open and a cooperative conclusion can be reached.


EDIT: I could have been a smartass and said that when I enlisted I had no idea what the constitution which I was supporting and defending actually read. DEE DEE DEE! Then where would the conversation have gone?

I don't understand most of your post Angry but if you are arguing that indefinitely detaining people for being homeless is within the bounds of the constitution I would disagree. If you are arguing that the constitution should be changed to allow for the indefinite detention of people for not having a home then I would disagree with that too. It is one thing to argue that homeless people shouldn't be given governmental handouts, or even that you should not personally give them spare change so as not to support their lifestyle. It is quite another to suggest that they should be denied rights intrinsic to American citizenship. Yours is a version of America quite different from what our founders envisioned in my opinion.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

I don't understand most of your post Angry but if you are arguing that indefinitely detaining people for being homeless is within the bounds of the constitution I would disagree. If you are arguing that the constitution should be changed to allow for the indefinite detention of people for not having a home then I would disagree with that too. It is one thing to argue that homeless people shouldn't be given governmental handouts, or even that you should not personally give them spare change so as not to support their lifestyle. It is quite another to suggest that they should be denied rights intrinsic to American citizenship. Yours is a version of America quite different from what our founders envisioned in my opinion.

The founders also probably didn't envision any man willingly living on the streets with so many opportunities available to him. Tell me why it is that an immigrant can come into this country and begin making a life for himself almost immediately. Meanwhile, you have a homeless man on the corner, who is a citizen and has had most of the same opportunities available to him as the majority of the population.

1. He either makes a great living being homeless. (There are a lot of professional bums around here.)
Or
2. He is so used to society handing him everything that he does not have the intestinal fortitude to make something of himself. Essentially he is lazy.

Either way it is pitiful, yet we tolerate it.

To clarify something else: I am not referring to the guy who is trying and just down on his luck. If he lost his job and lost his house and still making an asserted effort, then he is not who I am talking about.

After the Immigration Act of 1917, customs began to filter out peoples with undesirable traits. Being a career beggar or homeless person was considered an undesirable trait; in which case they were not allowed into the country.
1917 Immigration Act

Why was it OK then and not OK now? I believe that 100 years ago lawmakers were better able to determine what the vision of our forefathers was.

Even during the Great Depression, FDR wanted people to work their way out of depression as opposed to accepting handouts from the government. I happen to agree with him.

A man who is too lazy to get out and make something of himself would be better off in prison. He would eat 3 meals a day, be provided adequate shelter, clothing, and healthcare. He would have no choice but to sober up and perform some type of job within the prison walls. Hell, he might just get rehabilitated.

I understand that some Vagrancy Laws are considered Unconstitutional because in certain circumstances they were abused. However, they are necessary to some extent and they should be revised. As long as the end result is the same, which is the removal of bums from the streets; it doesn't matter how we accomplish it. It just needs to be done for the betterment of man and society.

My ideas might get frowned upon, but they would work. I see no one else making an asserted effort to actually make changes. All we do is sit back and argue political ideas without actually compromising and making something happen. Most of the time both sides become close minded to each other. I have an idea. Why don't we just make a immediate decision that works and implement it? Once we later come to a compromise of what should stay and what should be thrown out, revisions could be made to the law. Any decision, regardless of varying opinions of it, is better than no decision.

I do not understand why you have a hard time following my discussions as I write them in plain, modern day, Americanized English.

[dmek25]

i have learned alot from this. i didn't realize that all poor people are lazy, and just looking for handouts. i learned that alot of my fellow warpathers are all for one, and one for all. at least as long as that one is ME. i learned that people that don't have health care should not own anything, even cable, until they can supply themselves with coverage. i learned i can get a degree for 25.00 a month. but i also learned that the poor people( which are all lazy) don't want to farther their education. they would rather remain poor, and stupid. thanks for enlightening me guys

[KLHJ2]

Hold on now. I am not saying that all poor people are lazy. I acknowleged that there are those who make an asserted effort to live a better life. Those people should be helped. It is the ones who just do not care or pretend to be poor that I am refering to.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by angryssg

The founders also probably didn't envision any man willingly living on the streets with so many opportunities available to him. Tell me why it is that an immigrant can come into this country and begin making a life for himself almost immediately. Meanwhile, you have a homeless man on the corner, who is a citizen and has had most of the same opportunities available to him as the majority of the population.

1. He either makes a great living being homeless. (There are a lot of professional bums around here.)
Or
2. He is so used to society handing him everything that he does not have the intestinal fortitude to make something of himself. Essentially he is lazy.

Either way it is pitiful, yet we tolerate it.

To clarify something else: I am not referring to the guy who is trying and just down on his luck. If he lost his job and lost his house and still making an asserted effort, then he is not who I am talking about.

After the Immigration Act of 1917, customs began to filter out peoples with undesirable traits. Being a career beggar or homeless person was considered an undesirable trait; in which case they were not allowed into the country.
1917 Immigration Act

Why was it OK then and not OK now? I believe that 100 years ago lawmakers were better able to determine what the vision of our forefathers was.

Even during the Great Depression, FDR wanted people to work their way out of depression as opposed to accepting handouts from the government. I happen to agree with him.

A man who is too lazy to get out and make something of himself would be better off in prison. He would eat 3 meals a day, be provided adequate shelter, clothing, and healthcare. He would have no choice but to sober up and perform some type of job within the prison walls. Hell, he might just get rehabilitated.

I understand that some Vagrancy Laws are considered Unconstitutional because in certain circumstances they were abused. However, they are necessary to some extent and they should be revised. As long as the end result is the same, which is the removal of bums from the streets; it doesn't matter how we accomplish it. It just needs to be done for the betterment of man and society.

My ideas might get frowned upon, but they would work. I see no one else making an asserted effort to actually make changes. All we do is sit back and argue political ideas without actually compromising and making something happen. Most of the time both sides become close minded to each other. I have an idea. Why don't we just make a immediate decision that works and implement it? Once we later come to a compromise of what should stay and what should be thrown out, revisions could be made to the law. Any decision, regardless of varying opinions of it, is better than no decision.

I do not understand why you have a hard time following my discussions as I write them in plain, modern day, Americanized English.

Maybe it is pitiful but it's not illegal. The punishment for being homeless is that you don't get to live in a house. I don't think we need indefinite jailing as an additional punishment!! Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness includes the right to be a loser, as pathetic as that choice might seem to someone like yourself.

It's not your English that I have trouble following Angry, it's your loopy logic. It reminds me of when I used to take acid in high school and write in my diary. I'm still not really sure what your point is, but evidently locking up bums is the solution. Anyway, good luck with all that. See you!

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i have learned alot from this. i didn't realize that all poor people are lazy, and just looking for handouts.

Not all, but most. And it also depends how you define poor. If you can afford anything more than the basic needs in life, then you're not poor, at least in my book.

Originally Posted by dmek25

i learned that alot of my fellow warpathers are all for one, and one for all. at least as long as that one is ME.

That's the very nature of capitalism, everyone looks out for themselves. And it's in my best interest to make sure everyone has shelter, food, water, and heat. Otherwise they'll start stealing and selling drugs just to meet their basic needs. I don't care about these people enough to see that they get any more than what they need to survive. If they want anything beyond the basic needs, they can earn it just like I am.

Originally Posted by dmek25

i learned that people that don't have health care should not own anything, even cable, until they can supply themselves with coverage.

That's called just being smart. Why would you buy cable before paying for healthcare? Isn't that just a stupid thing to do? If you have a heart attack and need open heart surgery, you won't get the surgery if you don't have coverage. Why on earth would you do that? Seems like the only intelligent decision is to ditch cable and pay for some coverage, even if it's only to cover the catastrophic illnesses like heart disease or getting hit by a bus.

Yes, that's a real disease. It's called Getting Hit By a Busitis.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Eesh. Jsarno, my condolences. The only accredidation that matters, when it comes to business degrees and MBAs, is the AACSB. These regional commissions, like the one you linked to, are parts of for-profit companies designed to funnel students towards non-AACSB accredited programs. They're in it for the money.

I actually have an open position in my department right now for which we're searching for candidates with MBAs, and we've already dismissed a few candidates with "MBAs" from non-accredited schools. I won't even interview them.

I know this isn't easy to hear, and believe me I'm taking no pleasure in telling you, but in my opinion those schools are practically scams. PM me if you want to discuss it further.

Ouch, that hurts.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i have learned alot from this. i didn't realize that all poor people are lazy, and just looking for handouts. i learned that alot of my fellow warpathers are all for one, and one for all. at least as long as that one is ME. i learned that people that don't have health care should not own anything, even cable, until they can supply themselves with coverage. i learned i can get a degree for 25.00 a month. but i also learned that the poor people( which are all lazy) don't want to farther their education. they would rather remain poor, and stupid. thanks for enlightening me guys

This thread has taken some interesting turns hasn't it? I'm quite amused myself for a variety of reasons.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by angryssg

As far as the homless issue goes, I want more money for prisons to put the homless in jail (not give them handouts). They can either become a contributing, working, member of society or rot in jail. Either way they are off of the streets. Money doesn't always have to go to a person, it can fund the cause in other ways as well. I refer to it as helping man with a little "tough love", otherwise known as motivation provided by negative reinforcement.

Let's just kill them, and be done with it.