There has been nothing wrong with economic growth. DOW is at an all time high. The problem is the disparity between the incomes of the corps and the incomes of their rank and file. The problem is the value of the dollar with the FED doubling the currency in circulation every decade with nothing backing the dollar.

Absolutely!

I know what would happen. My ex would call off work and take our son, who would go more than willingly, to get to that operation Tuesday.
There's no way around that for a fact.

To answer your question, when it comes to opioids, it appears to be none.
The so-called "health insurance industry" that doctors these days kowtow to may have much influence on that.
My ex and Daniel's mother, who is still an active nurse, suggested we try the ER to seek the stuff of poppies.
The ER doctor referred to the current opioid epidemic and said he would not work against the decisions of both Daniel's doctor and the neurosurgeon.
For now the non-opioids the ER doctor prescribed has removed much of the pain. Yesterday Daniel twice walked without crutches to the kitchen, though with a slightly crooked posture.

"We're told"
I would use the active voice. "Some person told you," because some person's bad decision is responsible for this problem. I would avoid a hospital that won't treat the pain and/or does not have a pro-active service attitude. They probably won't provide good service is other areas. I would shop other providers. I know most providers seem to mindlessly follow government guidelines, but there are providers who care about their customers. It sucks to have find them while someone's suffering.

I am so sorry to hear it. I think you should politely and firmly tell him five (5) more days in pain is unacceptable. I'm not sure I would be able to maintain the equanimity to do that if my son were suffering.

"In other words, what will it cost us if we fail to provide the right? "
I see it as a good idea but not technically a right. Maybe it's just semantics.
I don't see it as a "right" because it is a service one person provides for another. Calling it a right moves closer to the idea that people have a moral obligation to put others' needs ahead of their own, which I think is evil.

What kind of physician can't see his
Pain and condition? To me it is like they are sacrificing him for the greater good.
You must have shown great restraint from showing those idiots what pain feels like.
Wishing him a successful surgery anda speedy recovery :)

Oops, that was 5/30 for yesterday.

He's hanging in there for us 5/31 yesterday walking from a procedural surgery admittance appointment to the ER where we after waiting for four hours bagged a three-vial syringe loaded steroid shot and two prescriptions for more meds to relieve my son's crippling back pain. No one will pre-op prescribe opiates due to the current opiate junkie epidemic.
We're told opiate medication is usually prescribed after surgery to fix a herniated disk.
I just hope and pray for my son to need nothing for pain or be lying about in bed after his surgery this coming Tuesday.
Right now Daniel can stand at times on or off his crutches or lie across a car's back seat thus without a seat belt en route to a medical appointment but he can't sit straight up in the chair of a waiting room. So he wearily stood on crutches in that ER for four hours to end up doing particularly good tonight. I can hear him in his room having a good time with his PC, but he's still in bed lying on one side.

Thanks Dino,
How is Daniel doing?

Thanks for making my case for me. Capitalism has been strangled by government.

Economic growth in the United States has, on average, been slowed by 0.8 percent per year since 1980 owing to the cumulative effects of regulation:

If regulation had been held constant at levels observed in 1980, the US economy would have been about 25 percent larger than it actually was as of 2012.
This means that in 2012, the economy was $4 trillion smaller than it would have been in the absence of regulatory growth since 1980.
This amounts to a loss of approximately $13,000 per capita, a significant amount of money for most American workers.
That my friend is enough to pay for a child's healthcare and dental along with private education.
Even with those shackles on our economy people still risk their lives to come to America

"The best way to have access to high quality Healthcare or increase the standard of living is for a govt. to allow laissez fare capitalism to enrich the community. Period. " Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the economy since 1980. If What you call "laissez fare capitalism" is what we have had since Reagan, you should be able to recognize that what it has produced is a Pottersville where every Bedford Falls used to be. Two people can't produce the lifestyle choices for their family that one person could produce 60 years ago. The Capitalism that we are enduring right now is enriching some major corporations, their owners and some of their shareholders. It isn't enriching any community that I can think of. Not in the USA anyway. But I believe that payday loan check cashing centers are thriving and the credit card companies are doing quite well on the consumption/debt based import economy that has been forced upon us to replace the manufacturing export economy that we once had..

We were the most successful country in the world once and we used to be able to boast innovation thanks to a superior educational standard. We can hardly make those boasts today.

The question isn't about your (personal) responsibility to care for other people's kids. It is a parent's job to care for their kids. But the question is why does one child have more right to health and education than another? And please don't suggest that the opportunity to access either is equal for all children.

Well said, Dobrien. I've been staying out of this particular fully unexpected quarrel because I really don't have time for it despite this a thread I created.

You sound like the evil hag and her "It takes a village to raise a child".

If an individual chooses to trade value for value i.e. Be an employee he is a producer in my book. The taxes and how he is required to report it is theft by collectivists. I never said anyone or business should get special rights.

My wife and I had 3 children by the time we were 27 .We both choose to sacrificed our own personal interests and time to provide for them , we paid from our own work our earnings to house,educate, feed, and we paid for their healthcare and dental and never got a dime from the state or federal govt. We never expected any either. My wife had her tubes tied after the third because we understood the responsibility to care for our own and are ability to do so.

You are right that it is in all our best interests that children are cared for! The best way to have access to high quality Healthcare or increase the standard of living is for a govt. to allow laissez fare capitalism to enrich the community. Period.

You ,who claim to have such an interest in the 100 -200 year history of the definition of socialism would be better served to study the 200 year history of the most successful
Country in the world in terms of standard of living progress , innovation rather than promote ideas that are destroying the USA's ability.

It is not my responsibility to care for anyone else's children , I do choose to donate to St Joseph's Indian School in So. Dakota .That school , solely on donations provides for room and board , education and healthcare. The kids are asked to do chores and to Learn. I have also volunteered my time working with kids as well as mentoring many young adults.

I gave you a point +1 with the hope you will understand the flaw of your philosophy and Because you like kids.

And I'm sorry to learn that you are apparently afraid or unwilling to think (for yourself).

You might as well "define" the United States of America with a one or two line entry when it is constantly evolving. You could take a snapshot every 20 years and wonder if you were looking at the same country.

If you file your taxes with only W2s as proof of income, ie, you are an employee, you are NOT a producer. You are a consumer. The U S constitution does NOT give any special rights of citizenship to business owners. To argue that it should is bullshit. It is in the best interest of every town in America (and the world) for the children in those towns to grow up with access to high quality preventive medical and dental care. ALL of the children in EVERY town.

You would say that a non producer should have the same health care as someone who earned the money to pay for his own needs. To rectify this so called inequity you would steal from someone else.
That is bull shit!
As for education you probably were for Bernies Free college . When something is free it is worth
less, your socialist collectivists have already ruined the public education system. All to make sure the test scores from the no study no effort kids are similar to the kids who do the work.
Your kind is winning but that doesn't make it right.

I was sorry to learn that you do not deserve an answer.

"If we have a right to education, does that mean if gov't can't find the money to pay for education, it is violating our rights as badly as if it made on popular speech illegal or banned basic weapons?" This is exactly the sort of question around which the debates will revolve. This question seems to be from a Risk Management point of view rather than from an Equal Rights point of view. In other words, what will it cost us if we fail to provide the right? I prefer the Equal Rights point of view - If His/her child has access to basic education and basic health care, why doesn't mine? This is what the discussion will ultimately be - that these things are, in fact, rights.

Socialism is not merely a noun. It is an idea that has been evolving for nearly 200 years. It is addressed in novels like Les Miserables by Victor Hugo, published a little over 150 years ago. Only infantile minds seek to define such a profound concept with a one or two line dictionary entry. Even the editors of Merriam Webster's 1915 Dictionary understood this and referenced the encyclopedia Britannica for more in depth understanding. It is interesting that influences since then have caused a description of Soviet Communism to appear as the current "definition" of Socialism. Dig deeper. https://www.britannica.com/topic/soci...

To trogwolf
socialism: noun; a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned and regulated by the community as a whole.
Compact Oxford English Dictionary, Revised edition 2003.
Please do not forget that all communist tyrants called themselves socialists.
Also, please do not forget that all aspiring socialists tried to hide themselves behind more benign sounding labels, like liberals, progressives, democrats, etc. in an effort to hide from ignorant voters what they really have in mind for the future, if they get to hold power.
"Regulated by the community" really means by the individuals that wheel the power in the name of the "community".
When I was a university student in a communist tyranny in the '50s, we joked that the definition of the automobile was "the means by which the people transport themselves through their representatives".
That is socialism, by any name.
What you describe that socialists want is UTOPIA.
EDIT: added addressee and rearranged mistaken order of lines

"the constitution calls for equal access to all rights and privileges of citizenship. That means Education, Health Care, Protection of the law, etc"
Does the Constitution guarantee access to education and health care? I don't think it mentions health care, although maybe this was less of an issue at the time it was written because there weren't expensive treatments available. I have an issue with sanctifying services people provide one another, like health care, as "rights". We have the right to free speech, meaning the gov't won't stop us from speaking. If it does, it violates our rights. If we have a right to education, does that mean if gov't can't find the money to pay for education, it is violating our rights as badly as if it made on popular speech illegal or banned basic weapons?

Being a NY State employee and thinking ahead about promotional prospects I was always a registered D. I came of age in 1969 and have never cast a vote for a D in my life except in some local elections. I think there are many people who register in the party most beneficial for their careers but who vote opposite. I started reading AS while in the USN during Vietnam and have never finished it. Bought the DVD first part when it came out and have the set now wishing there were more.

I'm not sure that I have posted enough times in this forum for anybody to accurately conclude that I have any "entrenched preconceptions". Anybody reaching such a conclusion would necessarily have to be drawing on their own eps..

I forgot that people still used the word shibboleth. It is funny that you use it here. Based on this definition: "A shibboleth is (either) a saying that people repeatedly cite that is wrong" the commonly used definitions of liberal and socialism/st are the most often repeated shibboleths I can think of. Speaking of people who would rather turn over their right to think to some organizational label and use labels to categorize others, because it is too much work to think for themselves and consider ideas on their merit, that is.