| Well you guys have found some pot holes in his new road construction idea.
A mix of capitalism with some socialism is not a bad idea. We are not animals trying to survive by the law of the jungle. Re: survival of the fittist.
We have the ability for compassion and brotherly love, why not use it some of the time?
Okay lets look at the alternative plan. We get the voters to pass a new law that companies must arrange their work schedules (hours open) to confrom with this new law. To enforce and monitor the new law we would open up a large new government department and they would send out people who would tell each company when they can open their doors and when they must close up shop. Will they be happy being forced to work within those limitations? What about overtime and so forth? What would the Unions have to say about the plan?
If the trucks must roll at night to reach the shipping and receiving docks then the companies must have workers on hand to unload or load the trucks, at night time only. And so all dock workers would be working the midnight shifts and having no time with their daytime family.
And those night time hours must be approved by the new department that will regulate when your company can be open. Meanwhile we must pitch that idea as great to new companies that might wish to move their business here. That will take some fast talkin'. It would have a downside effect on economic growth.
But opening the carpool lanes is a good idea, perhaps even assigning one lane for trucks only and not permitting them to use other lanes. If Arnold could get his budget "advance" he could have the state buy up all the toll roads and freeway lanes that charge money (from those private companies).
That would give low income drivers more options which would relieve some of the traffic on roads now used by the public. Freeways are of course a form of socialism, so you might want to turn all the roads over to a private and very capitalistic company? eh? Like our hospitals.
If we can have freeways for our cars why not free hospitals for everyone, paid for by the same resource. What's the difference?
Opening one lane for everyone that is already partly used is not the answer that will meet the future demands when our population jumps up by a million or so more people. We cannot avoid building more freeways and highways, and they must find a way to do it faster so that it does not take years to install a mile of roadway.
We must have a medical plan that people can afford, the costs have skyrocketed during the past 15 or 20 years. Insurance companies now have the right to refuse providing people with insurance if they work in construction jobs, and other occupations that are known to have a high rate of accidents.
Insurance companies can pick what drugs they will pay for and which ones they will not pay for. A expensive drug that is often prescribed by Doctors might not be covered by the insurance policy. Many jobs do not provide insurance for their workers, and if they do the policy forces you to pay a percent of the expected cost of an operation in advance. If you cannot choke up thousands out of pocket you cannot get the needed treatment, even if the insurance would cover up to 5000 dollars of the cost. Others do not have any insurance because they cannot pay for it and still buy food for the family.
Reason: The medical industry is charging way too much and can survive on the rich clients. But the point is that everyone should be able to get health care when it is needed, that is what we mean by haveing a culture or a country. Otherwise we might as well return to the 1930s depression era or let people croke in the cutter like they do in India. Do you want to walk down the street and see a bunch of sick people laying on the sidewalks with gravestone eyes? In America? |