Comments by Eric

Page 1

Eric on November 4, 2009 at 11:06 p.m.

Posted on November 4 at 11:06 p.m.

The solution seems simple to me. Six months in jail will teach these kids some respect. Meaningless sentences from the juvenile justice system just guarantees that these kids will be moving on to bigger crimes in a few years. And we wonder why there is so much crime?


Eric on October 24, 2009 at 5:46 p.m.

Posted on October 24 at 5:46 p.m.

I don't see how internet use has anything to do with where sex offenders live. It is very difficult for sex offenders to find employment, so probably the reason Poland only has 1 is because sex offenders can't afford to live in Poland. Just because neighbors might know about a sex offender moving in doesn't mean they can stop it. Sex offenders can live anywhere they want as long as they are in compliance with state laws.


Eric on October 23, 2009 at 12:04 a.m.

Posted on October 23 at 12:04 a.m.

A prank like this actually isn't all that unusual in college...one time the guys in my hall "pennied" me in (pennies are stuck in the door jam, preventing the door from opening). I ended up having to get out through the window. Of course I wasn't too happy about it, but I would never have pushed for criminal charges to be filed against them. The bad thing about those charges isn't the fine, but that they now have a criminal record that could bar them from many jobs.


Eric on September 29, 2009 at 9:48 a.m.

Posted on September 29 at 9:48 a.m.

Regardless of the girl's status when she was a minor, she is now an adult. As such, I would think the primary factor now is where she is a resident, not where her mother is. She has lived in Ohio for over 2 years and has a driver's license here, thus she is an Ohio resident. She therefore qualifies for Ohio education benefits, be it for public high school or if she chooses to go to a state college. I don't see how Boardman has any case for an appeal.


Eric on September 23, 2009 at 11:11 a.m.

Posted on September 23 at 11:11 a.m.

Okay, let's take a step back at the controversy surrounding John Holdren. I obtained a copy of the book he co-authored over 30 years ago and read the passages referring to forced abortions. He was describing population measures to control growth that may have been used elsewhere or discussed by commentators, including forced abortions. He never advocated or recommended them. There is a difference.

In fact, at his Senate Confirmation Hearing, Holdren REJECTED the idea of government efforts at population control (yes, including forced sterilization and abortions). Holdren may support access to abortions, but that is much different than forced abortions.


Eric on September 23, 2009 at 10:47 a.m.

Posted on September 23 at 10:47 a.m.

Quail and Freethinker, thank you for being the two people on this board who approach this topic with a clear mind.

borylie, I seem to have missed the easy question you asked. Please repost it and I will gladly answer it.

Now, ProAmerican,

"ERIC, YOU LIE! Yes the money has to come from somewhere. Do you know who provides the source of income, such as sales tax, FICA, Soc. Sec. Medicare, etc. The Tooth Fairy?"

What am I lying about? Of course the money has to come from somewhere. What do you mean?

"Your health care is partially paid for by your employer? How do you like the idea of it being taxed by the Bamster? Those lying, corrupt, socialist rulers want to tax you benefits...You people were orgasmic when you thought someone else would be robbed of their income so you couldl have a freebee."

I take great offense at you referring to me as "You people." Every day I put in an honest days' work, am loyal to my employer, and am fortunate I have a job. I'm not asking for anything for free. At least Freethinker understood the point of my previous post.

Socialism is nothing new to this country; that is the idea behind our decades-old progressive tax system. People who make more income have always devoted a higher percentage of their income to tax, because of the idea that they could afford it. As a country we need to decide what values we want to embrace. If we feel that those who have much have no responsibility for helping those who have little, let's go to a flat tax, get rid of Medicaid and subsidized housing, and let the poor fend for themselves on the street.


Eric on September 22, 2009 at 6:24 p.m.

Posted on September 22 at 6:24 p.m.

ProAmerican, I am trying to figure out where you got your Norway income tax rate. I did some web research, and the closest I got was around 28%. Norway has a progressive system like the US, so the rate varies depending on income. In discussing tax rates it is necessary to include other taxes, such as FICA, state taxes, local tax, sales tax, etc. This is important because the money has to come from somewhere-for example, Tennessee has no state income tax, but most counties have sales tax of 9.25%. The best comparison I found is at http://ic.pressflex.com/249.pressflex.ne... It is dated, but it does show that Norway's all inclusive rate is only a few points above the US's.

Another factor to consider is the amount of an employee's pay that is devoted to paying health insurance premiums. My employer pays a monthly health insurance premium of about $360 for every employee to United Healthcare (this is for a single person, and is after employee portions). That works out to be 10-15% of most employees' pay. If I was instead given that $360/month and paid a bit more in tax, I would probably end up with more money in my pocket. Most people don't realize how much of their compensation package is used for health coverage.


Eric on September 22, 2009 at 11:35 a.m.

Posted on September 22 at 11:35 a.m.

A managed care company can't be sued for malpractice-the physician is the one who has to be sued. Where do you get the 15M for the number without health insurance? That is sure the lowest I've ever seen. ProAmerican, you frequently throw around facts and figures. I would appreicate it if, just for once, you would cite your sources.

Data from a 2000 WHO study has rebuffed the idea that the USA has the best health care in the world. This is based on more than just the USA's poor performance in life span and infant mortality. True, you picked one health indicator where the US does very well-breast cancer. But, Australia beats the US in treatments of both cervical and colorectal cancer. And, if a Canadian needs a liver or kidney transplant, they best stay in their own country-the success rates there by far beat the USA's.

My point here is that different countries excel in different areas. That doesn't mean one healthcare system is necessarily superior to another's. People love to compare the USA to the UK, but other countries, especially Australia, have much stronger socialized health care systems. Just because the UK has a bad system doesn't mean that all socialized healthcare systems are bad. I'm not an advocate of bringing socialized healthcare to the USA, but I also always look at other options with an open mind.


Eric on September 22, 2009 at 3:52 a.m.

Posted on September 22 at 3:52 a.m.

Quail is right, there is no "death panel" that would cut off care to critically ill patients. Palin incorrectly called it that and sparked all kinds of unnecessary controversy. The health care plan simply allowed Medicare to pay for consultations of patients with their physicians concerning end of life issues, such as pain management and appropriate treatments for aggressive diseases.

Let's be honest-all of us will die. I worked in long-term care for many years, and I, as well as my former coworkers, can immediately testify to the value of such a service. That is why AARP supports the measure. Patients need to be able to have open and honest discussions with their physicians about the appropriate treatments of diseases that will ultimately end their life. Anyone who equates this type of discussion to a "death panel" is just ignorant.


Eric on September 11, 2009 at 10:56 p.m.

Posted on September 11 at 10:56 p.m.

I am always one of the first to criticize police for abusing their power, but here it sounds like Poland Police just did their job. And Viewpoint is correct. Poland is the one place where I don't have to worry about speeding cars weaving in and out of traffic, crashing red lights, and in general causing chaos for law-abiding drivers. What is the point of the law if it is not enforced? Follow the posted speed limits and keep your vehicle legal and there is no problem. If you feel the speed limits are unreasonably slow, take it up with city council. I have driven through Poland for years and have never had a problem. However, I have seen other cars pulled over, generally after flying past me on 224 like I was standing still. And I applauded the Poland police every time.


Page 1
News
Opinion
Sports News
Entertainment News
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Submission Forms

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseContact
© 2009 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Sponsored Links: