Canadian Healthcare from a Canadian...

The founders also probably didn't envision any man willingly living on the streets with so many opportunities available to him. Tell me why it is that an immigrant can come into this country and begin making a life for himself almost immediately. Meanwhile, you have a homeless man on the corner, who is a citizen and has had most of the same opportunities available to him as the majority of the population.

1. He either makes a great living being homeless. (There are a lot of professional bums around here.)
Or
2. He is so used to society handing him everything that he does not have the intestinal fortitude to make something of himself. Essentially he is lazy.

Either way it is pitiful, yet we tolerate it.

To clarify something else: I am not referring to the guy who is trying and just down on his luck. If he lost his job and lost his house and still making an asserted effort, then he is not who I am talking about.

After the Immigration Act of 1917, customs began to filter out peoples with undesirable traits. Being a career beggar or homeless person was considered an undesirable trait; in which case they were not allowed into the country.
1917 Immigration Act (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAE1917A.htm)

Why was it OK then and not OK now? I believe that 100 years ago lawmakers were better able to determine what the vision of our forefathers was.

Even during the Great Depression, FDR wanted people to work their way out of depression as opposed to accepting handouts from the government. I happen to agree with him.

A man who is too lazy to get out and make something of himself would be better off in prison. He would eat 3 meals a day, be provided adequate shelter, clothing, and healthcare. He would have no choice but to sober up and perform some type of job within the prison walls. Hell, he might just get rehabilitated.

I understand that some Vagrancy Laws are considered Unconstitutional because in certain circumstances they were abused. However, they are necessary to some extent and they should be revised. As long as the end result is the same, which is the removal of bums from the streets; it doesn't matter how we accomplish it. It just needs to be done for the betterment of man and society.

My ideas might get frowned upon, but they would work. I see no one else making an asserted effort to actually make changes. All we do is sit back and argue political ideas without actually compromising and making something happen. Most of the time both sides become close minded to each other. I have an idea. Why don't we just make a immediate decision that works and implement it? Once we later come to a compromise of what should stay and what should be thrown out, revisions could be made to the law. Any decision, regardless of varying opinions of it, is better than no decision.

I do not understand why you have a hard time following my discussions as I write them in plain, modern day, Americanized English.

Maybe it is pitiful but it's not illegal. The punishment for being homeless is that you don't get to live in a house. I don't think we need indefinite jailing as an additional punishment!! Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness includes the right to be a loser, as pathetic as that choice might seem to someone like yourself.

It's not your English that I have trouble following Angry, it's your loopy logic. It reminds me of when I used to take acid in high school and write in my diary. I'm still not really sure what your point is, but evidently locking up bums is the solution. Anyway, good luck with all that. See you!

i have learned alot from this. i didn't realize that all poor people are lazy, and just looking for handouts.

Not all, but most. And it also depends how you define poor. If you can afford anything more than the basic needs in life, then you're not poor, at least in my book.

i learned that alot of my fellow warpathers are all for one, and one for all. at least as long as that one is ME.

That's the very nature of capitalism, everyone looks out for themselves. And it's in my best interest to make sure everyone has shelter, food, water, and heat. Otherwise they'll start stealing and selling drugs just to meet their basic needs. I don't care about these people enough to see that they get any more than what they need to survive. If they want anything beyond the basic needs, they can earn it just like I am.

i learned that people that don't have health care should not own anything, even cable, until they can supply themselves with coverage.

That's called just being smart. Why would you buy cable before paying for healthcare? Isn't that just a stupid thing to do? If you have a heart attack and need open heart surgery, you won't get the surgery if you don't have coverage. Why on earth would you do that? Seems like the only intelligent decision is to ditch cable and pay for some coverage, even if it's only to cover the catastrophic illnesses like heart disease or getting hit by a bus.

Yes, that's a real disease. It's called Getting Hit By a Busitis.

Eesh. Jsarno, my condolences. The only accredidation that matters, when it comes to business degrees and MBAs, is the AACSB. These regional commissions, like the one you linked to, are parts of for-profit companies designed to funnel students towards non-AACSB accredited programs. They're in it for the money.

I actually have an open position in my department right now for which we're searching for candidates with MBAs, and we've already dismissed a few candidates with "MBAs" from non-accredited schools. I won't even interview them.

I know this isn't easy to hear, and believe me I'm taking no pleasure in telling you, but in my opinion those schools are practically scams. PM me if you want to discuss it further.

Ouch, that hurts.

i have learned alot from this. i didn't realize that all poor people are lazy, and just looking for handouts. i learned that alot of my fellow warpathers are all for one, and one for all. at least as long as that one is ME. i learned that people that don't have health care should not own anything, even cable, until they can supply themselves with coverage. i learned i can get a degree for 25.00 a month. but i also learned that the poor people( which are all lazy) don't want to farther their education. they would rather remain poor, and stupid. thanks for enlightening me guys

This thread has taken some interesting turns hasn't it? I'm quite amused myself for a variety of reasons.

As far as the homless issue goes, I want more money for prisons to put the homless in jail (not give them handouts). They can either become a contributing, working, member of society or rot in jail. Either way they are off of the streets. Money doesn't always have to go to a person, it can fund the cause in other ways as well. I refer to it as helping man with a little "tough love", otherwise known as motivation provided by negative reinforcement.

Let's just kill them, and be done with it. :doh:

In Florida, there is a program called Bright Futures. Any high-school student who meets the following criteria receives 75% tuition paid for any school in Florida:

Merit Scholarship-
1.) Meet attendance requirements
2.) 3.0 or greater cumulative high-school GPA
3.) 970 or better on the SAT

In addition, if you meet this criteria you receive 100% tuition paid, plus $600 per semester for other expenses (i.e.: books):

Full Academic Scholarship-
1.) Meet attendance requirements
2.) 3.5 or greater cumulative high-school GPA
3.) 1270 or better on SAT

The program will pay your tuition for up to 6 years, or 140 credits. It's probably the best education program in the state of Florida, and possibly the whole nation.

I moved to Florida after my Junior year in high-school, and since I met the requirements, I qualified for the Merit Scholarship. I don't have my Bachelor's degree yet, but I did get 118 college credits and only had to pay 25% tuition, plus books. I worked full-time and went to school at night. It was a great opportunity. Of course everyone is granted a high-school education for free, and if you perform there you will have most of your college tuition paid for (if not all of it) -- your income bracket is irrelevant. Poor people have the opportunity to go to college for free in Florida. Literally.

Note: I might be off 10 or 20 SAT points, and the Scholarship might not be 140 credits, but it's definitely really close to that. They also change the rules every now and then, but the basic idea doesn't change: poor people have the opportunity to get a college degree for free (or close to it).

I currently work as a computer programmer. I have no academic credentials that apply to this profession. I learned what I know by reading and learning, which is free. I feel that everyone could do this. All you need is a computer, and you can get access to those for free at the library.

We are always looking for quality programmers, and education is of very little significance. Knowledge and experience are paramount. This is a big industry with lots of opportunities for great pay and benefits, and you don't need a college education -- just the time and desire to learn.

Sorry for getting off-topic. I just thought I would share some of my personal experiences which apply to some of the ideas being discussed here.

I currently work as a computer programmer. I have no academic credentials that apply to this profession. I learned what I know by reading and learning, which is free. I feel that everyone could do this. All you need is a computer, and you can get access to those for free at the library.

We are always looking for quality programmers, and education is of very little significance. Knowledge and experience are paramount. This is a big industry with lots of opportunities for great pay and benefits, and you don't need a college education -- just the time and desire to learn.

Sorry for getting off-topic. I just thought I would share some of my personal experiences which apply to some of the ideas being discussed here.

I'm with GDAS on this. In the Info Tech sector the stuff that matters the most, by a lot, is experience. What do you know? And I have never met anyone who came out of college with a simple college education who was worth hiring to actually do a job. Most of them need real world training and months to finally be able to do well at their jobs. The exceptions are of course the uber dorks who didn't really need a college education in the first place since they had been coding or whatever since they were 9. Anyways my experience is that being successful requires 80% effort and 20% opportunity.

Alright, I did find the info (finally) about the free college.

They no longer do it through the department of labor, they now do it through New Mexico Works. The program is called W.I.A. Workforce Investment Act.

The guy I spoke with wasn't positive it was available in all states, but thinks it's a federally funded program, so I would suggest that anyone that is interested, call your department of labor, or whatever state you're from "works" program and see if you are eligible.

My friend's wife went through the program, and not only did they pay for the college 100%, they gave her $150 a month until she was done with the program, now she's making about $30 an hour as a nurse.

Ouch, that hurts.

Actually it doesn't. After actually looking over the list, the school I got my bachelors from is not on that list, but the school I got my masters from is. Funny how that works. That was what Schneed and I PMed each other about.

I still don't think it really matters unless you're going for an extremely high profile job. As long as the school is accredited, it's fine.