Man, John Stossel is so awesome. He always attempts to challenge the status quo in terms of "conventional wisdom". I just watched last Friday's episode online, and it sure got me riled up.
A few valid points:
1) Why should tax payers have to pay for the rescue missions for people who take stupid risks? 20/20 interviewed a few of those people, and of course they all refuted the idea of an individual having to pay for his/her own rescue. I definitely think it should be circumstantial. They interviewed this guy who laughed and admitted he was hiking in flip-flops and was ultimately stuck on the mountain with no way down. When he was billed $2,000, he refused to pay because he supposedly didn't "ask" to be rescued, even though he did phone a friend to get help... That fuckin' idiot. People should certainly be accountable for their own stupid behavior.
2) The law currently protects pregnant women from losing their jobs, but is that fair for employers? Women certainly shouldn't be discriminated for being pregnant, but they do miss work for doctor's appointments and maternity leave. In the time that they're absent, other people have to pick up the slack (and they don't get paid more). I do agree with job protection to a degree, but I think it's pretty dumb that employers are not allowed to even hint at the topic during job interviews. Personal experience: When my boss interviewed this one lady to be on our sales team, he distinctively asked her if she was able to travel for business. She said yes. At the time, she didn't appear to be pregnant - just a bit curvy maybe, so it didn't cross any of our minds. However, about a month and a half later, when she was finally hired, she had started to show. She was already 4-5 months along! She was certainly not okay to travel, and that was not acceptable for her job position. And I remember feeling so much resentment because the law protected her, even though she was dishonest. She was eventually terminated within a month, not for being pregnant, but for being vastly incompetent and just not smart.
3) Should Medicare cover elderly people who are financially independent or wealthy? Doesn't it in fact cheat those who are actually in need? "The government spends around $6 on seniors for every dollar it spends on children. And yet the poverty rate among children is far higher than is among seniors." True, these seniors have paid their dues. They themselves have contributed to the Medicare tax almost their entire working lives. HOWEVER, current beneficiaries of Medicare receive 2-3 times more than what they contributed. The government has promised $34 trillion MORE for this program than what is actually funded. Where is that money going to come from? Shouldn't eligibility be more strict and cut off the wealthy? At this rate, it's very possible that Medicare will cease to exist by the time my generation reaches that age. Old people are lucky that they're so damn cute and hard to resist.
I just love that John Stossel questions these things that we're supposed to just accept. He may not always be politically correct, but he is always on the side of fairness. He's got chutzpah! And a sick 'stache.
