RadioBanter - View Single Post - Beware of hams planting dis-information...

June 15th 05, 01:27 PM

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:29:46 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

David T. Hall (N3CVJ) wrote:
The number of
those without health care (seniors included) far outnumber those healthy
workers who get laid off.

Most companies who employ skilled workers,

have some form of healthcare coverage as

part of their benefits package. I've never had a
job without it.

Your personal situation is irrelevant to the majority.

Not really. Most people who are in full time gainfully employed jobs
have some form of health care coverage. Unless you're a part time
worker, chances are you have some coverage.

A growing trend
has been major employers hiring at 32 hours or less to avoid offering
health care benefits.

There are laws to discourage this practice. Just as there are laws to
prevent an employer from paying you a "Salary" instead of an hourly
rate to avoid paying overtime. Look into the federal wage and hour
laws.

Resumption of healthcare coverage is tied to
.the laid-off worker's need to find another job.

So what happens in between when on eneeds prescription medication? When
one is laid off from their job and offered the mandated COBRA, the cost
is always greater than the original. Now, you have people who can not
only pay their bills, but can't afford their medical covereage. What is
your solution?

No one said that life would always be easy. Try growing up during the
great depression in the 30's as my parents did, and then tell me what
hardship is. When I was a kid, all I would hear were stories of how
people did "this and that" to get by. You've probably heard the
stereotypical stories of people walking to school with ratty shoes
full of holes in the snow. Except that these were true. I guess my
perspective is a bit different than yours. To me, the examples you've
given are a speed bump compared to life during the depression.

That way, no one layoff can cripple a
significant portion of the population.

Depends what you consider a significant portion of the population. I can
think of several examples..Reagan importing cheaper metals from the
Asians decimated the steel industry in Pa and Ohio.

I live within an easy drive of 4 different steel
plants. The towns that surrounded them were
dependant on those mills for the majority of
their income. But 20 years later and things
have pretty much recovered. People can get
pretty creative when they need to be.

Recovered from what? You said it couldn't happen, but by invoking the
fact they recovered, you unwittingly admit the towns were indeed
crippled from such layoffs..

Only temporarily. That's the whole point. Life goes on. People adapt
and adjust. Allow them to do that, give them a few tools to help them,
and they will solve their own problem. We don't need the government
mollycoddling us and indoctrinating us into becoming dependant on
them.

My original point was also that having diverse industries in your
locale helps to prevent crippling a town if one of those industries
goes belly-up. The others still go on, and the impact is much less
than a town which grew up around one very large plant.

In many of those
industry towns, this led to the closing of the
mills and a significant layoff of those town's
populations and many of those towns became ghettos or ghost towns
because of that.

Not in my area. The towns (Allentown,
Phoenixville, Fairless Hills, and
Conshohocken) are still going strong, although
the people who live there are forced to
commute to work now.
The towns are going through a revitalization,
where the old factories have been leveled and
in their place have sprung up huge business
campuses.

Those towns were never considered large steel towns or large steel
industy towns.

Tell that to the thousands of people (And Billy Joel) who lived and
worked there and were laid off when the mills closed.

Think Pittsburgh and similar cities in Ohio.
Same can be said with coal
mining and to a certain extent, the auto industry. History repeats
itself.

Yes, as we continue to become more efficient
at manufacture,

Whaaaa? Manufacturing is DOWN, not becoming more efficient.

Down in this country. It's growing strong in other places where it is
cheaper (Hence more efficient) to manufacture things.

the nature of jobs have evolved along with it.
The automobile pretty much ended the
demand for blacksmiths.
But we shouldn't
blame the automobile for causing the demise
of the blacksmith industry. The smart
blacksmith went back to school and learned to
repair cars.

Blacksmiths were never a large industry and the position was never one
of those that most in a city were employed, rendering the example
fruitless and non-related.

It's very much related. A particular vocation doesn't have to be large
to be relevant. The blacksmith example highlight quite accurately what
happens when our society evolves and old skills and crafts are no
longer needed. At the same time newer skills open up as a result of
advancing technology. People need to keep up with the trends so that
the skills they posses are not obsolete.

That's one of the reasons why I still live where
I do. I was once contemplating a move to both
Florida and North Carolina. But the lack of
.diverse skilled jobs and much lower pay
scales pretty much nixed that move.

Lack of diverse skilled jobs?

Excuse me, I should have said diverse high

.paying skilled jobs.

When was the last time you checked the
stats? Florida has led the country in adding new jobs and has not felt
the inflation the country has felt the last so many years. The pay here
was always offset by the lower cost of living.

All that sounds fine and all, but the long and short of it is that for
the field that I am in, the salaries offered were between 20 and 40%
lower than they are here. The employers there (And I interviewed with
quite a few) once they find out where you're from, tell you right up
front not to expect a comparable salary.

That's a myth.

Ok,,in the same manner you claimed one who lived in another state could
not tell you about Pa, what makes you feel you can tell a lifelong
resident of another state about their state?

Because I did some extensive research into it when I was considering
the move there 15 years ago. I walked into a K-Mart and compared
prices of the things that I normally buy with what I pay up here. My
wife was especially knowledgable about clothing prices.

It;s not a myth, Dave. There is no state income tax and prices have
always been lower in Fl,,until recently (last 10 years).

Slightly lower in specific cases, like locally produced goods like
fruit and other food.

Yes, there are certain costs which are lower
in Florida. The homestead exemption saves a
bundle on property tax. Homes are (were)
cheaper. There is no state tax, and utilities are
somewhat lower.

Utilites are higher, especially electric, as the majority of homes do
not have gas.

Actually, when I was checking, I was currently paying 15 cents per
kilowatt hour. In Florida (In Brevard County), the rate was about 8
cents per kilowatt hour. Water rates varied depending on whether you
had "city" water or a privately owned "utility", but they were cheaper
by and large than what I paid up here.

Heat was not an issue as most homes used efficient heat pumps, which
spent most of their times as air conditioners. With insulation ratings
of R34 in most new homes, the cooling costs offset the normal eastern
PA winter heating cost by a considerable margin.

Gas was only recently introduced as a choice for heating
and cooking, and even in most cities, it has to be trucked in (propane).

I prefer electric for cooking (When I'm not grilling). And heating in
Florida is not normally an issue, as you know. A couple of logs on the
fireplace will take the chill off on those few chilly mornings.

Yes, many costs ARE lower to an extent. But
if you try to buy something like a car, gasoline,
or a major appliance or consumer good, the
cost is pretty mush the same as it is in any
other state.

Again,,nope. Auto costs are not only in better condition (speaking of
used, of course) but new cars are somehwta cheaper here, so are most
manufactured goods.

Not according to what I found. I didn't bother with used car pricing
because there is a certain amount of subjective perception. But the
MSRP of new cars there was the same (or very close) as what I see up
here. Sure, no one pays MSRP, but the degree of discount is not going
to be any more significant there than here.

Gasoline was actually more expensive back then than up here. What do
you pay for gas now? Last week, I paid $1.94/gallon

The exceptions are the tourist areas and coastal
regions that are developed. I can get a gallon of milk for 3 bucks here.
I can get a gallon of milk in Chiefland for 2.29. this is the norm, not
the exception.

I can do the same up here. Orange Juice is $2.00 a half gallon (for
the "Not from concentrate" stuff). That's something I would expect to
be much cheaper in Florida.

And at 30-40% less of a salary, for
the same job, that limits one's buying power.

Yep,,salaries for workers who work for another have always been low
compared to the northern states.

Exactly my point. Which limits my buying power.

The only people that have
trouble adjusting are those who live beyond their means.

Living beyond one's means is somewhat
subjective. It depends on where you are living
and what your earning power is.

Your salary has nothing to do with one living beyond their means.

Sure it does. You salary determines what "your means" is.

One
can make 200 bucks a week and live beyond their means, just as one who
makes 2000 bucks a week can live beyond their means. It is also not
linked to geography or earning power.

When one budgets carefully and lives a certain standard of living in
one area and "lives within his means", suddenly up roots and moves
somewhere else, and his salary decreases, he is now living beyond his
means assuming the bills stay relatively the same. Cuts in spending
involve changing your standard of living. Someone used to driving a
BMW might now have to deal with a Chevy. It might not be their idea of
"living".

*People like you
usually get what is coming in the end

Yes, we tend to survive, because we don't
look to other people to blame, or to the
government for help.

What about this job retraining you speak of? Who pays for it?

We do. That's one area of assistance that I'm
very much in favor of. Training enables people
to become self-sufficient.

Yet, govvernment medical care enables people to live and be healthy,
yet, you are against that.

Because it is a widening black hole. As long as there are no attempts
to cap medical costs they will keep spiraling, no matter how much the
government kicks in on our behalf.

That's what self sufficiency and personal
responsibility are all about.

One can not be self sufficient is one is sick and ailing.

People got sick in the 1930's too. And you know what? They went to
work anyway, or there might not be any food on the table that night.

Looking to the government for assistance is perfectly acceptable in many
instances, Dave. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of
people STILL homeless in Fl because of the hurricanes.

Yes, Yes, and YES. I'm totally cool with
hardship TEMPORARY assistance.

Many folks would benefit and live healthier and longer if they were
permitted even temporary medical assistance from the government,,,so are
you for it or against it?

No. Not as long as nothing is done to address the supply side of the
equation. There are many problems in the medical field. Fraud is
rampant, lawsuits are commonplace, everyone looks to wring big bucks
out of the medical industry. Until there is meaningful tort reform,
lessening of malpractice insurance, and someone steps in to run
roughshod over billing practices, I don't want one more penny pumped
into this industry only to encourage it to grow even further in costs.

**Now please 'splain how being self-sufficient and personally
responsible can help these folks who paid their premiums on time
faithfully all those years, had their homes destroyed or damaged to the
point they are rendered unsafe for living conditions, lost all their
possessions, yet still manage to survive by living in tents, can bring
them up out of their hell created by the insurance companies who are
regulated by the federal government.

The insurance companies are obligated to
make good on their claims.

But they AREN'T making good on their claims, Dave, and this is the
problem.

Well, if they aren't because they can't, that's one thing. You can't
get blood from a rock. If they're just dragging their feet, the
government should step in and push on behalf of the residents.

And they should be made to repay the
.government for any "handouts" it had to pay
to house people until the insurance companies
settled.

The government disagrees, this why FEMA was created.

FEMA provides assistance to people displaced due to natural disasters.

.Which they should.

But they AREN'T doing it, and the government is STILL permitting these
companies do write more policies.

So you advocate that the government control aspects of business?
That's socialism. Besides, if the insurance companies don't write more
policies, where are they going to get the money they need to pay the
claims (Other than by raising MY rates for no good reason)?

To suggest these
fine families are anything less than responsible or self-sufficient
shows you haven't a clue, Dave.

I never said anything of the sort. I'm not talking
about temporarily displaced people. I'm talking
about perpetual slackers.

Does being displaced for a year eqaute your idea of temporary?

Yes.

On the contrary, I will lay odds these
folks are illustrating survival skills and grit that you couldn't
handle.

Based on what?

Based on your invoked claims of your material possessions.

Which means what exactly? I grew up in a struggling middle class
family. My parents were both penny pinchers, and I learned it from
them. I'm not rich by any standard, but I pick and choose what things
I spend my money on. I prefer to spend money on a few big things
rather than on a bunch of smaller ones.

Many of these folks have been living out of doors, literally, for almost
a year and cooking on fires or grills.

I do that for fun.

Try this for a year, when all of your equipment enabling you to partake
in this "fun" has been destroyed, then you -may- be qualified to speak
of what these people should and shouldn't do.

The thing is, if I had a member of my family who was displaced from
their home in Florida, I would take a week or two off of work, hook up
the trailer to my truck, load up the generator and drive down. I would
let them live in the trailer until their home was rebuilt. THAT is
what I meant before by leaning on and getting support from family. I
can't believe all those people who lost homes don't have relatives
they can live with, or who can help them in some way. My in-laws had a
fire in 1987. Their home was unlivable for almost a year, while
waiting for insurance claims to settle. I invited them to live with my
wife and I for the time period. It was tight, but that's what you do
for family.

Among a boatload of reasons you ignore...abuse, peer pressure,
self-esteem, curiosity, lies told to them by those who buy into the
government's bull**** war on drugs...etc. It's hypocritical of us to
tell the kids to just say no when we ply them with ritalin from a young
age and mom smokes cigarettes, drinks cup after cup of coffee, and dad
drinks alcohol, even if it's the cocktail with dinner.

Not an issue. Peer pressure is something you have to deal with. I took
a lot of peer pressure abuse when I was a kid. You learn to ignore and
deal with it. You learn that those people are not worth your time, and
when it's all said and done, they'll be serving you fries 20 years
from now.

Provide them with many sorts of creative
avenues to release, and there will be no need
to turn to destructive behavior.

Again,,,bull****.

Not at all.

A kid who plays sports, acts in drama clubs,
plays in the band, participates in the arts, or
has a worthwhile hobby, will be way too busy
to hang out with the slackers.

Your mistake is believing drug use by children is inherent to these you
call "slackers".

Drug use is done mainly as an escape by those who can't handle life.
Mostly this is a result of isolating parents who protected their kids
for too long, and who now have to deal with the ugliness of the real
world. They have self-esteem and social issues. But in their minds
they are perfectly ok, and they try to get other kids to partake as
well, to further bolster the illusion of normalcy that dopers tend to
believe.

Being an alert and supportive parent who can intercede when your kid
starts to have "problems" before they turn to drugs. That's why it's
also important to know their friends.

Giving a kid an activity that they can be proud
to excel at and bolster their self esteem (While
learning what it means to truly EARN it) builds
character.

Yup,,character that is torn down when these suburban kids from loving
families begin using harmful drugs.

If the character is strong, and you believe enough in yourself, you
can just say no. I never did drugs in school. For one thing I never
smoked at all, and the smell of smoke bothered me. Other drugs seemed
silly to me. To me, they were pointless. Plus I never had enough
money to buy them anyway. I spent all my cash on CB radio stuff. I
guess you could say CB was my "drug".

Keep your kids poor! And for God's sake, don't give them a credit
card.

Lastly, never lose communication with them.
Set your ground rules while they are young,
and they become adjusted to them. Let a child
run amuck when they are young, and then try
to reign them in when they hit the teenaged
years, and you've already lost. Talk to them
always. Know all their friends (and their
parents).
Make sure they know that you're
always there for them. Support them in
whatever they do. Show up at their plays,
cheer them on at their games. Listen to their
teachers when you have conferences. Trust
them enough and allow them to make small
mistakes, but keep on the lookout for major
ones. In short, STAY INVOLVED!

All that is great advice, but is irrelevant in the real world.

It is great advice, and it is very relevant in the real world. Not
every kid is a weak, spineless bowl of self esteem goo, that can be
shattered by the taunting of some lowlife idiot. If you build their
confidence and show them their potential, they will know enough to
laugh at the pathetic attempts by the slackers who use peer pressure
to elevate their own pitiful self-esteem at the expense of others.

There are two types of people in the world. Those who excel, and the
ones that those who excel laugh at. I used to laugh a lot when I was
in school. I still do.

I know how my parents raised me. I know from
a child's perspective which disciplines worked,
and which ones didn't.
I use what I learned to my advantage as a
parent.

You ignore the fact that peer pressure is greater today than you can
comprehend

No it's not. It's the same old story done for the same reasons. People
elevate themselves by trying to make other people feel lousy. Once you
understand the psychological forces that drives this, you can defuse
them.

....your advice has been followed time and time again, yet
there are great kids who succumb to drugs every day.

Then that advice was not followed completely.

Dave
"Sandbagger"