What a great country, eh?
 

http://tinyurl.com/mntn3y7
--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

What a great country, eh?
 

On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 21:06:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mntn3y7

===

Actually it is a pretty great country. Her former employer, maybe not
so much. I guess you need a liberal arts degree to see the logical
relationship.

Where else but the USA would you still be walking free after all of
the crap you've gotten away with (so far).

What a great country, eh?
 

On Friday, January 31, 2014 10:50:04 PM UTC-5, Wayne. B wrote:

Where else but the USA would you still be walking free after all of

the crap you've gotten away with (so far).

No **** !

What a great country, eh?
 

On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 21:06:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mntn3y7

I can think of only two people who would use that story to indict the USA.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/1/14, 8:38 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 21:06:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mntn3y7

I can think of only two people who would use that story to indict the USA.



What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone
because they get sick? What a wonderful country.

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

What a great country, eh?
 

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 9:05:54 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 8:38 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 21:06:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mntn3y7

I can think of only two people who would use that story to indict the USA.


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone
because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


You're being silly again. This country doesn't "allow" that anymore than it allows bank robberies or tax evasion. The company did something wrong, and she's using the legal system to right that wrong.

Stop whining.

What a great country, eh?
 

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 09:05:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 8:38 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 21:06:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mntn3y7

I can think of only two people who would use that story to indict the USA.



What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone
because they get sick? What a wonderful country.

A person got fired - justly or unjustly. If justly, the country did nothing wrong. If unjustly, then
the employer is at fault. How do you possibly get off indicting the USA for this action?

I really can't understand why anyone responds to any of your ****.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/1/14, 4:53 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 09:05:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 8:38 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 21:06:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mntn3y7

I can think of only two people who would use that story to indict the USA.



What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone
because they get sick? What a wonderful country.

A person got fired - justly or unjustly. If justly, the country did nothing wrong. If unjustly, then
the employer is at fault. How do you possibly get off indicting the USA for this action?

I really can't understand why anyone responds to any of your ****.



There you go again, with the personal insults.

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

What a great country, eh?
 

In article , says...

On 2/1/14, 4:53 PM, Poco Loco wrote:

I really can't understand why anyone responds to any of your ****.



There you go again, with the personal insults.

I'm afraid that's all you'll get. It appears he doesn't like you.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/1/14, 5:41 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says...

On 2/1/14, 4:53 PM, Poco Loco wrote:

I really can't understand why anyone responds to any of your ****.



There you go again, with the personal insults.

I'm afraid that's all you'll get. It appears he doesn't like you.


A number of the "righties" here just can't seem to behave decently
towards posters with whom they disagree politically. It's interesting in
that several of them exhort others to behave in a manner they are not
willing to follow themselves.

I can't say I am surprised. :) I am certain they are ****ed off that I
am not responding to their efforts to *bait*.


--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

What a great country, eh?
 

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone

because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country? Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article says she does...

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone

because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country? Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article says she does...


In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been
fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have
been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it
to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the
company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/1/2014 6:08 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone

because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country?
Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article
says she does...


In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been
fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have
been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it
to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the
company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.

Your outrage is outrageously funny considering the sort of fellow you
are. ;0(

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/1/2014 6:08 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone

because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country?
Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article
says she does...


In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been
fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have
been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it
to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the
company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.



Was that the reason she was fired? I don't know because her lawsuit
hasn't hit the courts yet and we haven't heard what the company has to say.

That said though, I agree, it's yet another example of why businesses
making widgets shouldn't be the provider or even administrator of health
insurance plans. Government passing laws that force businesses to
retain employees even as the health insurance premiums rise
exponentially isn't doing anything to help anybody.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/1/14, 6:32 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 6:08 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone

because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country?
Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article
says she does...


In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been
fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have
been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it
to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the
company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.



Was that the reason she was fired? I don't know because her lawsuit
hasn't hit the courts yet and we haven't heard what the company has to say.

That said though, I agree, it's yet another example of why businesses
making widgets shouldn't be the provider or even administrator of health
insurance plans. Government passing laws that force businesses to
retain employees even as the health insurance premiums rise
exponentially isn't doing anything to help anybody.


Indeed, health insurance should not be subject to the employer's whim.
Neither should defined benefit pensions. Too many workers have been
screwed out of pensions because their employers used the funds for
something else or allowed unfunded liabilities to skyrocket.




--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

What a great country, eh?
 

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:08:08 PM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:





What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone



because they get sick? What a wonderful country.





What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country? Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article says she does...





In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been

fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have

been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it

to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the

company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.

If the company is guilty of wrong doing, I'll pretty well imagine that when all is said and done, she'll come out way better ahead than if she was still hired on . Even if she was granted a LOA.

What a great country, eh?
 

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/1/14, 6:32 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 6:08 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone

because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country?
Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article
says she does...


In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been
fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have
been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it
to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the
company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.



Was that the reason she was fired? I don't know because her lawsuit
hasn't hit the courts yet and we haven't heard what the company has to say.

That said though, I agree, it's yet another example of why businesses
making widgets shouldn't be the provider or even administrator of health
insurance plans. Government passing laws that force businesses to
retain employees even as the health insurance premiums rise
exponentially isn't doing anything to help anybody.


Indeed, health insurance should not be subject to the employer's whim.
Neither should defined benefit pensions. Too many workers have been
screwed out of pensions because their employers used the funds for
something else or allowed unfunded liabilities to skyrocket.





Sort of like the unfunded public pensions? How many cities have or are
going to declare bankruptcy over unfunded liabilities?

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/1/14, 7:00 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/1/14, 6:32 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 6:08 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone

because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country?
Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article
says she does...


In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been
fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have
been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it
to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the
company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.



Was that the reason she was fired? I don't know because her lawsuit
hasn't hit the courts yet and we haven't heard what the company has to say.

That said though, I agree, it's yet another example of why businesses
making widgets shouldn't be the provider or even administrator of health
insurance plans. Government passing laws that force businesses to
retain employees even as the health insurance premiums rise
exponentially isn't doing anything to help anybody.


Indeed, health insurance should not be subject to the employer's whim.
Neither should defined benefit pensions. Too many workers have been
screwed out of pensions because their employers used the funds for
something else or allowed unfunded liabilities to skyrocket.





Sort of like the unfunded public pensions? How many cities have or are
going to declare bankruptcy over unfunded liabilities?



I don't recall excluding public employers from my comment about unfunded
pension liabilities.

My local union's pension fund does not allow unfunded liabilities.
Adjustments are made in other areas when necessary.

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/1/2014 6:54 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 6:32 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 6:08 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone

because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country?
Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article
says she does...


In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been
fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have
been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it
to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the
company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.



Was that the reason she was fired? I don't know because her lawsuit
hasn't hit the courts yet and we haven't heard what the company has to
say.

That said though, I agree, it's yet another example of why businesses
making widgets shouldn't be the provider or even administrator of health
insurance plans. Government passing laws that force businesses to
retain employees even as the health insurance premiums rise
exponentially isn't doing anything to help anybody.


Indeed, health insurance should not be subject to the employer's whim.
Neither should defined benefit pensions. Too many workers have been
screwed out of pensions because their employers used the funds for
something else or allowed unfunded liabilities to skyrocket.




Life's a bitch and then you die. If you spend it depending on someone
else to protect and provide for you, you are doomed to getting your ass
kicked.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/1/2014 6:56 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:08:08 PM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:





What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone



because they get sick? What a wonderful country.





What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country? Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article says she does...





In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been

fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have

been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it

to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the

company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.

If the company is guilty of wrong doing, I'll pretty well imagine that when all is said and done, she'll come out way better ahead than if she was still hired on . Even if she was granted a LOA.


And if the company is found guilty of wrong doing it means it broke a
law and the law was enforced. That means the "country" did not fail
her, as presented by out resident liberal in chief and general
anti-establishment advocate. :-)

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/1/14, 7:11 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 6:54 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 6:32 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 6:08 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone

because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country?
Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article
says she does...


In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been
fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have
been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we
allow it
to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the
company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.



Was that the reason she was fired? I don't know because her lawsuit
hasn't hit the courts yet and we haven't heard what the company has to
say.

That said though, I agree, it's yet another example of why businesses
making widgets shouldn't be the provider or even administrator of health
insurance plans. Government passing laws that force businesses to
retain employees even as the health insurance premiums rise
exponentially isn't doing anything to help anybody.


Indeed, health insurance should not be subject to the employer's whim.
Neither should defined benefit pensions. Too many workers have been
screwed out of pensions because their employers used the funds for
something else or allowed unfunded liabilities to skyrocket.




Life's a bitch and then you die. If you spend it depending on someone
else to protect and provide for you, you are doomed to getting your ass
kicked.





Wow. You are giving employers a pass for bad behavior.

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

What a great country, eh?
 

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/1/14, 7:00 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/1/14, 6:32 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 6:08 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone

because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country?
Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article
says she does...


In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been
fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have
been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it
to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the
company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.



Was that the reason she was fired? I don't know because her lawsuit
hasn't hit the courts yet and we haven't heard what the company has to say.

That said though, I agree, it's yet another example of why businesses
making widgets shouldn't be the provider or even administrator of health
insurance plans. Government passing laws that force businesses to
retain employees even as the health insurance premiums rise
exponentially isn't doing anything to help anybody.


Indeed, health insurance should not be subject to the employer's whim.
Neither should defined benefit pensions. Too many workers have been
screwed out of pensions because their employers used the funds for
something else or allowed unfunded liabilities to skyrocket.





Sort of like the unfunded public pensions? How many cities have or are
going to declare bankruptcy over unfunded liabilities?



I don't recall excluding public employers from my comment about unfunded
pension liabilities.

My local union's pension fund does not allow unfunded liabilities.
Adjustments are made in other areas when necessary.


I found the insinuation to be private employers. Sorry.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/1/2014 7:16 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 7:11 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 6:54 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 6:32 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 6:08 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire
someone

because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country?
Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article
says she does...


In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been
fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not
have
been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we
allow it
to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact
the
company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.



Was that the reason she was fired? I don't know because her lawsuit
hasn't hit the courts yet and we haven't heard what the company has to
say.

That said though, I agree, it's yet another example of why businesses
making widgets shouldn't be the provider or even administrator of
health
insurance plans. Government passing laws that force businesses to
retain employees even as the health insurance premiums rise
exponentially isn't doing anything to help anybody.


Indeed, health insurance should not be subject to the employer's whim.
Neither should defined benefit pensions. Too many workers have been
screwed out of pensions because their employers used the funds for
something else or allowed unfunded liabilities to skyrocket.




Life's a bitch and then you die. If you spend it depending on someone
else to protect and provide for you, you are doomed to getting your ass
kicked.





Wow. You are giving employers a pass for bad behavior.


Not at all.

What a great country, eh?
 

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 17:30:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 4:53 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 09:05:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 8:38 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 21:06:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mntn3y7

I can think of only two people who would use that story to indict the USA.



What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone
because they get sick? What a wonderful country.

A person got fired - justly or unjustly. If justly, the country did nothing wrong. If unjustly, then
the employer is at fault. How do you possibly get off indicting the USA for this action?

I really can't understand why anyone responds to any of your ****.



There you go again, with the personal insults.

Read what you wrote. What you wrote was an indictment of America based on what one woman gave as her
side of a story.

It was ****. We've all written some **** in our time. That happened to be an example of yours.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/1/14, 9:08 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 17:30:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 4:53 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 09:05:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 8:38 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 21:06:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mntn3y7

I can think of only two people who would use that story to indict the USA.



What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone
because they get sick? What a wonderful country.

A person got fired - justly or unjustly. If justly, the country did nothing wrong. If unjustly, then
the employer is at fault. How do you possibly get off indicting the USA for this action?

I really can't understand why anyone responds to any of your ****.



There you go again, with the personal insults.

Read what you wrote. What you wrote was an indictment of America based on what one woman gave as her
side of a story.

It was ****. We've all written some **** in our time. That happened to be an example of yours.


I'm not engaging in personal insults against other posters here. You
are. Period. It's perfectly within your rights to not like my political
opinions, as it is within my rights to not like your political opinions.
No need to make it personal.

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

What a great country, eh?
 

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 19:07:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 7:00 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/1/14, 6:32 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 6:08 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone

because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country?
Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article
says she does...


In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been
fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have
been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it
to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the
company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.



Was that the reason she was fired? I don't know because her lawsuit
hasn't hit the courts yet and we haven't heard what the company has to say.

That said though, I agree, it's yet another example of why businesses
making widgets shouldn't be the provider or even administrator of health
insurance plans. Government passing laws that force businesses to
retain employees even as the health insurance premiums rise
exponentially isn't doing anything to help anybody.


Indeed, health insurance should not be subject to the employer's whim.
Neither should defined benefit pensions. Too many workers have been
screwed out of pensions because their employers used the funds for
something else or allowed unfunded liabilities to skyrocket.





Sort of like the unfunded public pensions? How many cities have or are
going to declare bankruptcy over unfunded liabilities?



I don't recall excluding public employers from my comment about unfunded
pension liabilities.

My local union's pension fund does not allow unfunded liabilities.
Adjustments are made in other areas when necessary.

Damn shame Detroit wasn't run by your local union.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/1/14, 9:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 19:07:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 7:00 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/1/14, 6:32 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 6:08 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone

because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country?
Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article
says she does...


In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been
fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have
been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it
to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the
company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.



Was that the reason she was fired? I don't know because her lawsuit
hasn't hit the courts yet and we haven't heard what the company has to say.

That said though, I agree, it's yet another example of why businesses
making widgets shouldn't be the provider or even administrator of health
insurance plans. Government passing laws that force businesses to
retain employees even as the health insurance premiums rise
exponentially isn't doing anything to help anybody.


Indeed, health insurance should not be subject to the employer's whim.
Neither should defined benefit pensions. Too many workers have been
screwed out of pensions because their employers used the funds for
something else or allowed unfunded liabilities to skyrocket.





Sort of like the unfunded public pensions? How many cities have or are
going to declare bankruptcy over unfunded liabilities?



I don't recall excluding public employers from my comment about unfunded
pension liabilities.

My local union's pension fund does not allow unfunded liabilities.
Adjustments are made in other areas when necessary.

Damn shame Detroit wasn't run by your local union.


It's a sad example, as are the examples of many corporations that have
screwed their employees out of their pensions. What do you think ought
to be done about it?

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

What a great country, eh?
 

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/1/14, 9:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 19:07:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 7:00 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/1/14, 6:32 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 6:08 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone

because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country?
Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article
says she does...


In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been
fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have
been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it
to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the
company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.



Was that the reason she was fired? I don't know because her lawsuit
hasn't hit the courts yet and we haven't heard what the company has to say.

That said though, I agree, it's yet another example of why businesses
making widgets shouldn't be the provider or even administrator of health
insurance plans. Government passing laws that force businesses to
retain employees even as the health insurance premiums rise
exponentially isn't doing anything to help anybody.


Indeed, health insurance should not be subject to the employer's whim.
Neither should defined benefit pensions. Too many workers have been
screwed out of pensions because their employers used the funds for
something else or allowed unfunded liabilities to skyrocket.





Sort of like the unfunded public pensions? How many cities have or are
going to declare bankruptcy over unfunded liabilities?



I don't recall excluding public employers from my comment about unfunded
pension liabilities.

My local union's pension fund does not allow unfunded liabilities.
Adjustments are made in other areas when necessary.

Damn shame Detroit wasn't run by your local union.


It's a sad example, as are the examples of many corporations that have
screwed their employees out of their pensions. What do you think ought to be done about it?


Make all pensions 401k types. You get the money to invest every year. If
you spend the money, even with the penalty, before retirement, you starve
when you retire. That way If you stay less than vesting time, you still
get a retirement fund.

What a great country, eh?
 

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:16:15 PM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 9:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 19:07:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



On 2/1/14, 7:00 PM, Califbill wrote:

"F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 6:32 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 2/1/2014 6:08 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:





What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone



because they get sick? What a wonderful country.





What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country?

Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article

says she does...





In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been

fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have

been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it

to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the

company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.







Was that the reason she was fired? I don't know because her lawsuit

hasn't hit the courts yet and we haven't heard what the company has to say.



That said though, I agree, it's yet another example of why businesses

making widgets shouldn't be the provider or even administrator of health

insurance plans. Government passing laws that force businesses to

retain employees even as the health insurance premiums rise

exponentially isn't doing anything to help anybody.





Indeed, health insurance should not be subject to the employer's whim.

Neither should defined benefit pensions. Too many workers have been

screwed out of pensions because their employers used the funds for

something else or allowed unfunded liabilities to skyrocket.











Sort of like the unfunded public pensions? How many cities have or are

going to declare bankruptcy over unfunded liabilities?







I don't recall excluding public employers from my comment about unfunded

pension liabilities.



My local union's pension fund does not allow unfunded liabilities.

Adjustments are made in other areas when necessary.



Damn shame Detroit wasn't run by your local union.





It's a sad example, as are the examples of many corporations that have

screwed their employees out of their pensions.

Harry, don't think corporations are the lone rangers...

http://www.workforcefreedom.com/blog...scam-taxpayers

What a great country, eh?
 

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 19:15:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

That means the "country" did not fail
her, as presented by out resident liberal in chief and general
anti-establishment advocate. :-)

===

Unfortunately his twisted mind probably considers that a compliment.

What a great country, eh?
 

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 21:09:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

I'm not engaging in personal insults against other posters here. You
are. Period. It's perfectly within your rights to not like my political
opinions, as it is within my rights to not like your political opinions.
No need to make it personal.

===

You engaged in a personal insult against our country. That is quite a
different matter than expressing a political opinion. As I and
others have pointed out, there was no logic to your statement, just
anti-establishment, emotional rhetoric.

Now go FOAD, right after you pay your taxes and creditors.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/2014 2:35 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 19:15:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

That means the "country" did not fail
her, as presented by out resident liberal in chief and general
anti-establishment advocate. :-)

===

Unfortunately his twisted mind probably considers that a compliment.



I don't know about twisted minds but I think many "progressive liberals"
are a little befuddled due to living in La-La land too long.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/14, 7:33 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/2/2014 2:35 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 19:15:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

That means the "country" did not fail
her, as presented by out resident liberal in chief and general
anti-establishment advocate. :-)

===

Unfortunately his twisted mind probably considers that a compliment.



I don't know about twisted minds but I think many "progressive liberals"
are a little befuddled due to living in La-La land too long.



Perhaps we can add "Americans who get sick" to the list of groups and
concepts upon which Republicans are making war...let's see...women,
gays, latinos, people who have sex, blacks, peace, students, the poor,
the middle class, non-christians, immigrants. the environment, the
unemployed...I'm sure there are more.

Here's something to think about:

Many studies have shown that abortion rates drop dramatically when
contraception is free and easily accessible.

So, why do so many self-described pro-lifers oppose
free and accessible birth control?

Is the answer that they really do not care about babies but, rather,
they want to punish women for having sex, even forced sex?

The Republican war on women is real and happening now.


--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

What a great country, eh?
 

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 21:09:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 9:08 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 17:30:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 4:53 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 09:05:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 8:38 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 21:06:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mntn3y7

I can think of only two people who would use that story to indict the USA.



What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone
because they get sick? What a wonderful country.

A person got fired - justly or unjustly. If justly, the country did nothing wrong. If unjustly, then
the employer is at fault. How do you possibly get off indicting the USA for this action?

I really can't understand why anyone responds to any of your ****.



There you go again, with the personal insults.

Read what you wrote. What you wrote was an indictment of America based on what one woman gave as her
side of a story.

It was ****. We've all written some **** in our time. That happened to be an example of yours.


I'm not engaging in personal insults against other posters here. You
are. Period. It's perfectly within your rights to not like my political
opinions, as it is within my rights to not like your political opinions.
No need to make it personal.

Horse manure. A journalist who writes **** should expect to face the consequences. Seems like that
happened fairly recently. Both Lara Logan and David Kilpatrick wrote some ****. Logan got fired.
Kilpatrick was simply supporting a liberal newspaper which revels in lies.

Both wrote ****, which is what you did. I suppose you feel insulted, but on the other hand, I live
in the country you continuously insult.

What a great country, eh?
 

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 02:47:08 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 21:09:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

I'm not engaging in personal insults against other posters here. You
are. Period. It's perfectly within your rights to not like my political
opinions, as it is within my rights to not like your political opinions.
No need to make it personal.

===

You engaged in a personal insult against our country. That is quite a
different matter than expressing a political opinion. As I and
others have pointed out, there was no logic to your statement, just
anti-establishment, emotional rhetoric.

Now go FOAD, right after you pay your taxes and creditors.

What he said.

What a great country, eh?
 

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 21:16:15 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 9:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 19:07:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 7:00 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/1/14, 6:32 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 6:08 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone

because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country?
Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article
says she does...


In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been
fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have
been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it
to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the
company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.



Was that the reason she was fired? I don't know because her lawsuit
hasn't hit the courts yet and we haven't heard what the company has to say.

That said though, I agree, it's yet another example of why businesses
making widgets shouldn't be the provider or even administrator of health
insurance plans. Government passing laws that force businesses to
retain employees even as the health insurance premiums rise
exponentially isn't doing anything to help anybody.


Indeed, health insurance should not be subject to the employer's whim.
Neither should defined benefit pensions. Too many workers have been
screwed out of pensions because their employers used the funds for
something else or allowed unfunded liabilities to skyrocket.





Sort of like the unfunded public pensions? How many cities have or are
going to declare bankruptcy over unfunded liabilities?



I don't recall excluding public employers from my comment about unfunded
pension liabilities.

My local union's pension fund does not allow unfunded liabilities.
Adjustments are made in other areas when necessary.

Damn shame Detroit wasn't run by your local union.


It's a sad example, as are the examples of many corporations that have
screwed their employees out of their pensions. What do you think ought
to be done about it?

Get unions out of the pension business. Get unions out of anything which involves their handling of
money, to include dues collecting. Get unions out of politics.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/14, 8:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 21:09:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 9:08 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 17:30:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 4:53 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 09:05:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 8:38 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 21:06:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mntn3y7

I can think of only two people who would use that story to indict the USA.



What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone
because they get sick? What a wonderful country.

A person got fired - justly or unjustly. If justly, the country did nothing wrong. If unjustly, then
the employer is at fault. How do you possibly get off indicting the USA for this action?

I really can't understand why anyone responds to any of your ****.



There you go again, with the personal insults.

Read what you wrote. What you wrote was an indictment of America based on what one woman gave as her
side of a story.

It was ****. We've all written some **** in our time. That happened to be an example of yours.


I'm not engaging in personal insults against other posters here. You
are. Period. It's perfectly within your rights to not like my political
opinions, as it is within my rights to not like your political opinions.
No need to make it personal.

Horse manure. A journalist who writes **** should expect to face the consequences. Seems like that
happened fairly recently. Both Lara Logan and David Kilpatrick wrote some ****. Logan got fired.
Kilpatrick was simply supporting a liberal newspaper which revels in lies.

Both wrote ****, which is what you did. I suppose you feel insulted, but on the other hand, I live
in the country you continuously insult.



I think it is reasonable to attack an idea you don't like, but I don't
see where it is necessary to attack the person *here* who posted the
idea you don't like.

You seem to be admitting defeat, and stating you cannot control
your temper and engage in adult-level conversation without engaging in
personal insults.

I had a feeling the righties who post here would not be able to control
their tempers and would engage in personal insulting even if the usual
"object" of their hatred (me, of course :) ) refrained from those same
sort of personal insults. Thank you for proving me correct. At least a
half dozen of you righties, many of whom complain about the "tone" in
rec.boats, are perpetuating the tone you claim you don't like.

This, by the way, is not a venue of journalism in which people who are
paid to write are paid for what they write here, so therefore I think
your attempts to make comparisons to Ms. Logan or Mr. Kilpatrick (never
heard of him, actually) are invalid.

As for *your* country...it is *my* country, too, and I would like my
country to do a better job of what most people would find important.

Oh, and I shall continue to not engage in personally insulting other
posters here, and simply observe the hypocrisy of "the right."

As always, have a wonderfully terrific day.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/2014 7:50 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/2/14, 7:33 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/2/2014 2:35 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 19:15:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

That means the "country" did not fail
her, as presented by out resident liberal in chief and general
anti-establishment advocate. :-)

===

Unfortunately his twisted mind probably considers that a compliment.



I don't know about twisted minds but I think many "progressive liberals"
are a little befuddled due to living in La-La land too long.



Perhaps we can add "Americans who get sick" to the list of groups and
concepts upon which Republicans are making war...let's see...women,
gays, latinos, people who have sex, blacks, peace, students, the poor,
the middle class, non-christians, immigrants. the environment, the
unemployed...I'm sure there are more.

Here's something to think about:

Many studies have shown that abortion rates drop dramatically when
contraception is free and easily accessible.

So, why do so many self-described pro-lifers oppose
free and accessible birth control?

Is the answer that they really do not care about babies but, rather,
they want to punish women for having sex, even forced sex?

The Republican war on women is real and happening now.



In your mind maybe.

In my mind here are the fundamental differences between conservatives
and liberal "progressives":

Conservatives believe in personal choice, (within the limits of
reasonable laws) personal responsibility and personal accountability
for one's actions in life.

Progressives believe that too many people lack personal responsibility
and accountability for their own actions and therefore the government
should step in and solve all their problems ... or the problems they
create.

I will concede that there is an ultra-right faction that for religious
reasons or whatever would like to see things laws like Roe vs Wade
overturned but they don't represent the majority of conservative
thinking. Most I know are like myself ... I personally don't believe in
abortions for *all* reasons but respect the right of others to think
otherwise.

Conservative men aren't waging a war on women. We love women.
How many conservative gays do you know? :-)

What a great country, eh?
 

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 08:28:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/2/14, 8:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 21:09:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 9:08 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 17:30:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 4:53 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 09:05:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 8:38 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 21:06:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mntn3y7

I can think of only two people who would use that story to indict the USA.



What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone
because they get sick? What a wonderful country.

A person got fired - justly or unjustly. If justly, the country did nothing wrong. If unjustly, then
the employer is at fault. How do you possibly get off indicting the USA for this action?

I really can't understand why anyone responds to any of your ****.



There you go again, with the personal insults.

Read what you wrote. What you wrote was an indictment of America based on what one woman gave as her
side of a story.

It was ****. We've all written some **** in our time. That happened to be an example of yours.


I'm not engaging in personal insults against other posters here. You
are. Period. It's perfectly within your rights to not like my political
opinions, as it is within my rights to not like your political opinions.
No need to make it personal.

Horse manure. A journalist who writes **** should expect to face the consequences. Seems like that
happened fairly recently. Both Lara Logan and David Kilpatrick wrote some ****. Logan got fired.
Kilpatrick was simply supporting a liberal newspaper which revels in lies.

Both wrote ****, which is what you did. I suppose you feel insulted, but on the other hand, I live
in the country you continuously insult.



I think it is reasonable to attack an idea you don't like, but I don't
see where it is necessary to attack the person *here* who posted the
idea you don't like.

Fine, attack an idea. If I post something that is ****, attack that post also. I don't give a rat's
butt. If it's ****, and I posted it, then I deserve the attack.

Amen.


You seem to be admitting defeat, and stating you cannot control
your temper and engage in adult-level conversation without engaging in
personal insults.

Seem? Are you pretending to be your wife now, with a touch of psychoanalysis?


I had a feeling the righties who post here would not be able to control
their tempers and would engage in personal insulting even if the usual
"object" of their hatred (me, of course :) ) refrained from those same
sort of personal insults. Thank you for proving me correct. At least a
half dozen of you righties, many of whom complain about the "tone" in
rec.boats, are perpetuating the tone you claim you don't like.

None of which has any bearing on the post you made which I deemed '****'.


This, by the way, is not a venue of journalism in which people who are
paid to write are paid for what they write here, so therefore I think
your attempts to make comparisons to Ms. Logan or Mr. Kilpatrick (never
heard of him, actually) are invalid.

Look him up. Both wrote ****, and both were called for it.

As for *your* country...it is *my* country, too, and I would like my
country to do a better job of what most people would find important.

Then treat your country with some respect. It does a hell of a lot better than 90% of the other
countries in the world. Don't denigrate the entire country based on a one-sided view of a problem.


Oh, and I shall continue to not engage in personally insulting other
posters here, and simply observe the hypocrisy of "the right."

Good. That's suitable. Remember, when you proudly announce the members of your 'bozo bin' along with
the 'reasons' for entry thereto, you're insulting those folks also.

As always, have a wonderfully terrific day.

DITTO!!!!

What a great country, eh?
 

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 08:56:39 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/2/2014 7:50 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/2/14, 7:33 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/2/2014 2:35 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 19:15:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

That means the "country" did not fail
her, as presented by out resident liberal in chief and general
anti-establishment advocate. :-)

===

Unfortunately his twisted mind probably considers that a compliment.



I don't know about twisted minds but I think many "progressive liberals"
are a little befuddled due to living in La-La land too long.



Perhaps we can add "Americans who get sick" to the list of groups and
concepts upon which Republicans are making war...let's see...women,
gays, latinos, people who have sex, blacks, peace, students, the poor,
the middle class, non-christians, immigrants. the environment, the
unemployed...I'm sure there are more.

Here's something to think about:

Many studies have shown that abortion rates drop dramatically when
contraception is free and easily accessible.

So, why do so many self-described pro-lifers oppose
free and accessible birth control?

Is the answer that they really do not care about babies but, rather,
they want to punish women for having sex, even forced sex?

The Republican war on women is real and happening now.



In your mind maybe.

In my mind here are the fundamental differences between conservatives
and liberal "progressives":

Conservatives believe in personal choice, (within the limits of
reasonable laws) personal responsibility and personal accountability
for one's actions in life.

Progressives believe that too many people lack personal responsibility
and accountability for their own actions and therefore the government
should step in and solve all their problems ... or the problems they
create.

I will concede that there is an ultra-right faction that for religious
reasons or whatever would like to see things laws like Roe vs Wade
overturned but they don't represent the majority of conservative
thinking. Most I know are like myself ... I personally don't believe in
abortions for *all* reasons but respect the right of others to think
otherwise.

Conservative men aren't waging a war on women. We love women.
How many conservative gays do you know? :-)


Uh, does 'flip-flopping' count?