wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:29:27 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:
Geez, dude - I had no idea your dad was such a mean ol' *******...

geez, I should have said, 'my entire adult life'. But, still, you dance
around the facts and, as Wolfie pointed out, the obvious method by which
insurance policies work.

OK - and to whom should the costs be passed on?

And I'm not disagreeing with the general concept that the "stronger" can
and
should help the "weaker" - or, if one prefers, the more able help the less
able
- I do take exception to the use of "fortunate" helping the
"less-fortunate"
because quite often "the fortunate" are so because of hard work and "the
less-fortunate" are so because of the lack of it. Which is one of my
points -
in this "social compact," do you feel any need to help, via your and your
family's hard work, those who simply won't work?

sorting out the extremely few who 'won't work' from those who cannot, or who
do work and cannot afford it would be a waste of time and money.

I know folks who have kept jobs that
they didn't particularly like (but could do without any negative effects
whatsoever) because of healthcare and retirement benefits.

as have I, and in most cases, it would seem to be a drag on overall
productivity, forcing folks to work in positions in which they are less than
ideal, to hold onto benefits. Can you at least concede that, in theory,
allowing folks to decide their careers based on interest and enthusiasm
might work better for a society than the current system?

Tom