Discussion about hot topics trending today

[aretood2]

The Constitution says the government can't restrict your right to free speech. It says nothing about other entities. This message board can choose to block any political discussion, or any other topic it wants to. They could ban discussion about Star Trek, and they would be within their rights. They, nor the NFL, Coke, Pepsi or any other company are the government, so the 1st amendment does not apply.

Constitutional law is not limited to that one document. An employer, for example, cannot fire you for attending a church to his disliking. Another example would be an employer requiring you to vote or politically support on person/party over another. The state does have a vested interest in preventing such things, especially once a private entity attempts to assume the role of governance. It's also important to note that the founders could not foresee big corporations that would hold so much power over an individual's life, had they been able to foresee it they would have added a few more words into the constitution.

In an ideal, fantasy world, maybe. But in reality, that doesn't work. In addition to the physically grueling training process, as I understand it, the average student debt a doctor graduates with is around $200K. It's not reasonable to expect them to eat that.

That's the real problem with the entire HC system anyway. The providers earn many, many times what the average consumer of their services make, therefore lower income consumers can't afford their services.

As a long term solution in a competitive economy, I don't think forcing people to pay for health care for those who can't afford it is workable.

It would be better to take steps that force wages up so any working stiff can afford it.

If only doctors didn't need to pay 200K for an education...

yeah man why shouldn't have the right to bring whomever he wants into the world without consequences?

So you would also be outraged if he decided to donate his entire estate to charity?

[SoulReaver]

So you would also be outraged if he decided to donate his entire estate to charity?

his entire estate? yes (though wouldn't be quite as pissed)

[aretood2]

his entire estate? yes (though wouldn't be quite as pissed)

Why?

[SoulReaver]

Why?

? cause he'd still be disowning his heirs

[aretood2]

? cause he'd still be disowning his heirs

So?

[SoulReaver]

So?

so no biggie they're just his kids

[Annoyed]

so no biggie they're just his kids

And for all you know, they were a bunch of useless ne'r do wells who simply expected to be supported due to the old man's money or who knows how many other possible family scenarios where the kids didn't deserve a dime.

[SoulReaver]

And for all you know, they were a bunch of useless ne'r do wells who simply expected to be supported due to the old man's money or who knows how many other possible family scenarios where the kids didn't deserve a dime.

and for all you know - wait, we all know - they didn't ask for any of this

(and where did I say they deserve the money?)

[mad_gater]

Constitutional law is not limited to that one document. An employer, for example, cannot fire you for attending a church to his disliking. Another example would be an employer requiring you to vote or politically support on person/party over another. The state does have a vested interest in preventing such things, especially once a private entity attempts to assume the role of governance. It's also important to note that the founders could not foresee big corporations that would hold so much power over an individual's life, had they been able to foresee it they would have added a few more words into the constitution.



If only doctors didn't need to pay 200K for an education...



So you would also be outraged if he decided to donate his entire estate to charity?

attending church services and voting are also activities that happen off the clock and are thus none of the employer's business anyway since an employer cannot tell you what you can and cannot do in your free time

[Womble]

In an ideal, fantasy world, maybe. But in reality, that doesn't work. In addition to the physically grueling training process, as I understand it, the average student debt a doctor graduates with is around $200K. It's not reasonable to expect them to eat that.

That's the real problem with the entire HC system anyway. The providers earn many, many times what the average consumer of their services make, therefore lower income consumers can't afford their services.

As a long term solution in a competitive economy, I don't think forcing people to pay for health care for those who can't afford it is workable.

It's been workable in many countries for many decades. But you know what could also help? Driving down the costs of education.

I've been advising my American friends to send their children to Europe to study. A non-EU undergrad student in Austria or Belgium pays less than $15 000 a year for EVERYTHING including the cost of living and transportation; in Germany you can make do with under $10 000. Those who study in American universities pay two to five times more in tuition fees alone, then begin their adult lives burdened by outrageous debt. A lower-middle class Midwest American family can send their child off to a world class university like Heidelberg in Germany and pay only the cost of living and transatlantic flights, which is $12 000 or so; domestically, it's either $15 000 for tuition fees alone at Wichita State University which is at the bottom of the school ranks, or $40 000 - again, for tuition fees alone - at a top-grade university comparable to Heidelberg. You really need to be your children's worst enemy to make them get their degrees on American soil.

[aretood2]

attending church services and voting are also activities that happen off the clock and are thus none of the employer's business anyway since an employer cannot tell you what you can and cannot do in your free time

The thing is that the NFL doesn't seem to mind what they are doing. So what is it? Do employers have the right to dictate this or not? You can't have it both ways. As for Church attendance and voting being outside of the workplace, so is posting things on facebook that are totally legal. However, people have been fired for posting totally legal stuff on facebook. Also, that guy from Duck Dynasty, didn't want to fire him for something he said "outside of work"?

It's been workable in many countries for many decades. But you know what could also help? Driving down the costs of education.

I've been advising my American friends to send their children to Europe to study. A non-EU undergrad student in Austria or Belgium pays less than $15 000 a year for EVERYTHING including the cost of living and transportation; in Germany you can make do with under $10 000. Those who study in American universities pay two to five times more in tuition fees alone, then begin their adult lives burdened by outrageous debt. A lower-middle class Midwest American family can send their child off to a world class university like Heidelberg in Germany and pay only the cost of living and transatlantic flights, which is $12 000 or so; domestically, it's either $15 000 for tuition fees alone at Wichita State University which is at the bottom of the school ranks, or $40 000 - again, for tuition fees alone - at a top-grade university comparable to Heidelberg. You really need to be your children's worst enemy to make them get their degrees on American soil.

60,000 over a 4 years is more expensive than state schools (Can be around 20,000-40,000 for all four years). So many lower income families wouldn't see it as an option, especially when not all degrees can transfer into the US. Not everyone will want to live in EU. But the point is still valid. Education costs are way out of hand here in the US.

[garhkal]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ow-SanDee.html

what a POS '_' didn't even know this was legal in that ****hole but it's not that surprising
(in the EU there's a fixed % that goes to the heirs no matter what)
hopefully the victims will contest

So the state should be able to dictate to you who you get to leave your estate to? Sorry but i call bull..

? cause he'd still be disowning his heirs

So you don't feel someone has the right to disown his heirs...

And for all you know, they were a bunch of useless ne'r do wells who simply expected to be supported due to the old man's money or who knows how many other possible family scenarios where the kids didn't deserve a dime.

Or black sheep who kept bringing dishonor to the family name..

(and where did I say they deserve the money?)

When you said "I hope they contest the **** out of this".

[Annoyed]

It's been workable in many countries for many decades. But you know what could also help? Driving down the costs of education.

I've been advising my American friends to send their children to Europe to study. A non-EU undergrad student in Austria or Belgium pays less than $15 000 a year for EVERYTHING including the cost of living and transportation; in Germany you can make do with under $10 000. Those who study in American universities pay two to five times more in tuition fees alone, then begin their adult lives burdened by outrageous debt. A lower-middle class Midwest American family can send their child off to a world class university like Heidelberg in Germany and pay only the cost of living and transatlantic flights, which is $12 000 or so; domestically, it's either $15 000 for tuition fees alone at Wichita State University which is at the bottom of the school ranks, or $40 000 - again, for tuition fees alone - at a top-grade university comparable to Heidelberg. You really need to be your children's worst enemy to make them get their degrees on American soil.

Oh, I've been griping about the state of the U.S. education system for longer than some of the folks around here have been alive. But until the government stops running it and paying for it, it ain't never gonna change.

[SoulReaver]

So the state should be able to dictate to you who you get to leave your estate to? Sorry but i call bull..

on the other hand you're good with the State dictating what people can do with themselves
lol

Or black sheep who kept bringing dishonor to the family name..

they never asked to be brought into the flock

When you said "I hope they contest the **** out of this".

hope you don't mind if I just requote

(and where did I say they deserve the money?)

now be honest: if you were betrayed by your parents how would you feel?

[Annoyed]

The thing is that the NFL doesn't seem to mind what they are doing. So what is it? Do employers have the right to dictate this or not? You can't have it both ways. As for Church attendance and voting being outside of the workplace, so is posting things on facebook that are totally legal. However, people have been fired for posting totally legal stuff on facebook. Also, that guy from Duck Dynasty, didn't want to fire him for something he said "outside of work"?

For now, the owners are going along. If, as it appears, however, these protests start having a long term effect on their profit & loss sheets, you can bet they will change their mind. These players on "on the clock" and dressed in the official uniform of their employer. The employer has an absolute right to control their behavior while on the clock.

Regarding off-work posts on social networking sites being cause for dismissal, I agree. They *should* not be cause to fire someone. But that has been well established by now; post something which is too far outside the politically correct standard of the day, and employers have been known to fire people.

Here's a hypothetical question for you. Suppose company employee 3,289.2 posts an anti-(gay, minority, female, etc, pick one or more) bigoted, something-phobic diatribe on social media. Something so far over the line it would make Hitler blush.

Should the company have the right to fire him or her?

Suppose this employee is known to the public as being connected with the company or represents it in his official capacity when he his working. Is his job safe?