Send a Message
to SarahFrances

Comments

211

Joined

Oct 25, 2007

SarahFrances's Favorites

SarahFrances Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Smoking

Ohio approves state smoking ban

No. No one forced you to buy the car.  (Dec 15, 2010 | post #70719)

Representative Kathy Castor

Town hall meeting on health care turns ugly

Exactly!  (Aug 16, 2009 | post #1502)

Smoking

Moss blasted for smoking near daughter

Let me see. She smoked in a well ventilated area. Can't get more ventilated than the great out doors. What does she teach her kid about smoking? Is it better to hide it like dirty secret? If she stepped over to the other side of the yacht would it have made a difference? Even if "Mum" hides it and never addresses the issue the child will find out and do it anyway. Meet the issue head on as the kid grows older. Most kids adopt the "Quick Smoking Mom (Dad) Campaign." When they learn the adverse health effects.  (Aug 14, 2009 | post #9)

Barack Obama

Obama: Health Care Reform is No Longer a Luxury

Actually my insurance is provided by my employer & I also have a teenager I will be paying private major medical coverage for out of pocket soon.  (Jul 15, 2009 | post #6346)

Barack Obama

Obama: Health Care Reform is No Longer a Luxury

Very well said. Another good view point.  (Jul 13, 2009 | post #6136)

Barack Obama

Barack Obama, our next President

Unfortunately they are loosely related to me. Although they have had jobs sometimes, they like their welfare check, foodstamps, and medicare way too much. What do I do with them? Little as possible anymore. They are working on birthing the third generation of welfare addicts all living in one house. The worse part is at one time they had the chance to be responsible productive citizens. Two of them had jobs and a house with a mortgage and a 100K + inheritance that they promptly spent. Lost their house, and ended up living with relatives again.  (Jul 12, 2009 | post #13104)

Barack Obama

Obama: Health Care Reform is No Longer a Luxury

Doesn't he realize that the 3% increase in tax could possibly cost us more than we gain? It's like anything else. You earn less you spend less. Whether it's in goods or services, or if the person owns a business it results in possibly less employment, lower raises, and any other decisions to increase the persons income to keep his income at a desired level. And as for those that say "He doesn't need to by that xxxx (Car, Boat, Plane, Trip, etc). Or "He can spend less on (Food, Shelter, Clothing, Cigars, Gas, Etc..)." Where the hell do you think we get our jobs? Just because someone doesn't directly higher workers for their company doesn't mean their spending habits don't effect the economy.  (Jul 12, 2009 | post #6001)

Barack Obama

Obama: Health Care Reform is No Longer a Luxury

Actually I read a news article somewhere that says Obama is actually thinking about taxing our health care premiums. Although when McCain proposed the idea Obama was against it.  (Jul 12, 2009 | post #6000)

Barack Obama

Barack Obama, our next President

Unfortunately I do know some who voted for Obama. Some did simply because they were democrats. The others like their free ride as opposed to working for a living. The other bought into the BS that he was going to make our lives better. They didn't bother to look further than his pretty speeches and think for themselves. Since taking office he has backed more bills that put our lives under government control.. FDA - Tobacco Control, Produce Control, Meat Control, Health Care Control, National ID, etc... Those are the only ones I've actively researched. I'm sure there are more.  (Jul 12, 2009 | post #13083)

Barack Obama

Tax on wealthiest earners is favored to pay much of bill ...

Not to mention when the do hit the rich with these taxes the middle and lower classes will suffer for that. In the form of layoffs, decreased income, and no new jobs. This is before we're hit with new taxes middle class taxes by Obama.  (Jul 12, 2009 | post #17)

Barack Obama

Obama: Health Care Reform is No Longer a Luxury

I do not want the government making my health care decisions. Been there got the T-shirt. Waiting 2 Months for a Dr. appointment, 8 months for an MRI, 2 weeks for a sick baby appointment. And I did it in the Good Ole US of A. I'm not going to read all 5700+ posts btw. But I will say this. We do need Health care reform. Just not the way the government wants to do it. If the insurance companies were smart they'd be spending that millions on restructuring and making their companies more efficient and lowering the costs of health care where they can for the insured and un-insured. Insurance companies & Government programs are one of the reasons health care is so high. Encourage competition. Allow clinics and doctors to accept sliding scale payments for un-insured and under insured instead of penalizing them by requiring them to accept no less than insurance & medicare reimbursements. I'm sure there are plenty more ideas out there that are either like mine or better to solve this problem. We don't need a new system. We need to fix the one we've got and make insurance & government programs more cost effective. We need to encourage more competition. And in some respects we need to go back to a time when a doctor is allowed to accept what he wishes for services rendered. I personally would happily pay my doctor in Padron's & Opus X's. <Grin> And he'd be thrilled.  (Jul 12, 2009 | post #5992)

Barack Obama

Tax on wealthiest earners is favored to pay much of bill ...

Who has the most disposable income that pays for goods and services that keep us all employed? The so called "rich people" are just like us. The less money they earn, the less money they spend. I see that personally every day. There are a few who in the past had no problem purchasing $30,000 a year from us now spend $15,000 to $20,000 a year. And that is only a few customers. You raise taxes on a rich person by $8 million a year per say. That person will probably spend between $4-8 million less in goods and services. Depending on what he or she deems necessary. If that person owns a business. They may not give raises to employees to increase their salary to maintain their lifestyle. Quit playing robin hood. Find more jobs and encourage the rich to open more businesses, higher more workers, pay more to employees that live in higher than average cost of living areas. Because of separation of church and state and loss of religious beliefs, churches are no longer efficient as outreach programs. Find and fund private non-profits that provide services to the poor. Encourage (require) the healthy unemployed (never employed) to work for their welfare benefits. Staff these non-profits with unemployed to teach them skills and learn the value of earning a living. What is wrong with us that we treat them like children giving them an allowance in money, food, & rent and expect nothing in return. They learn no value in working. We continue to encourage them to be lazy, bear more children, and be non-productive. The system penalizes them if they get a job. They get a job making less than their benefits and they loose ALL benefits in certain cases. Quite trying to create more problems. Fix the ones we have. And think before you get behind your state and federal government legislation. Once enacted you can be sure that %99 of the time it will never go away. Even if it is a detriment to our society. Government will not get smaller, and the way we are working at it, we will be a government union eventually. Or worse once the government goes to far the people will rebel.  (Jul 12, 2009 | post #15)

Smoking

Policing cigarettes

How about those Hot Dogs? We're feeding our kids cancer sticks on a regular basis and they love them! Wonder when they will start taxing and policing them?  (Jul 11, 2009 | post #2191)

Smoking

FDA may get new authority over tobacco products

This applies here also: First of all, there are many who live into their 90's that have smoked most of their lives. There are others that die long before that. Like any other disease cancer is based on contributing factors. Including genetics. Do we really want the government to police our adult lives? It does not stop at tobacco. Today we have lobbyist and representatives voting for bills that will tax & try to control other aspects of our lives. Coffee, Fast Food, Alcohol, ect.. The FDA bill bans Cloves and other artificially flavored & naturally flavored cigarettes because they claim they are marketed to children. BS. I do not see any tobacco ads for these items except in trade magazines and industry periodicals. The bill states that 80% of underage smokers smoke the 3 most advertised brands. Those 3 brands are not flavored. However, those 3 brands will gain market share when they push all other cigarette companies out of business. It will not reduce underage smoking as much as they want because the big 3 are still in control. That is why they backed this bill. They will either gain more market share by eliminating the smaller competition, or they will profit from the pharmaceutical side selling stop smoking aids. Unlike one article I read, this will not hurt "BIG Tobacco". It will weed out their competition. Another spin, they now have created another source of revenue for the floundering overburdened FDA. They will be able to collect a "fee" from any tobacco company to fund this new FDA oversight committee on tobacco. Thus passing the burden onto tax payers yet again.  (Jun 27, 2009 | post #70)

Smoking

Policing cigarettes

First of all, there are many who live into their 90's that have smoked most of their lives. There are others that die long before that. Like any other disease cancer is based on contributing factors. Including genetics. Do we really want the government to police our adult lives? It does not stop at tobacco. Today we have lobbyist and representatives voting for bills that will tax & try to control other aspects of our lives. Coffee, Fast Food, Alcohol, ect.. The FDA bill bans Cloves and other artificially flavored & naturally flavored cigarettes because they claim they are marketed to children. BS. I do not see any tobacco ads for these items except in trade magazines and industry periodicals. The bill states that 80% of underage smokers smoke the 3 most advertised brands. Those 3 brands are not flavored. However, those 3 brands will gain market share when they push all other cigarette companies out of business. It will not reduce underage smoking as much as they want because the big 3 are still in control. That is why they backed this bill. They will either gain more market share by eliminating the smaller competition, or they will profit from the pharmaceutical side selling stop smoking aids. Unlike one article I read, this will not hurt "BIG Tobacco". It will weed out their competition. Another spin, they now have created another source of revenue for the floundering overburdened FDA. They will be able to collect a "fee" from any tobacco company to fund this new FDA oversight committee on tobacco. Thus passing the burden onto tax payers yet again.  (Jun 27, 2009 | post #2038)

Q & A with SarahFrances