| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Jim is full of hisself.
|
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes: Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS? From: (Len Over 21) Date: 12/18/2004 5:43 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: I was representing RCA at NAS Warminster when NADC was in its second year of NAVSTAR test flights. One of the test bed aircraft was an RA-2, shared among two other projects, one of which was SECANT developed by RCA. [circa 1971-1972] You shouldn't bring up Warminster again, Lennie. They didn't like you there, and with good reason. Tsk. Another lying sack of crap. And so close to Christmas, too. :-) All of that eyewitness experience is "no good" in here since all expertise in anything is granted to any Amateur Extra that knows, loves, and cherishes morse code. The "expertise" that outted you in Warminister was not an Extra, barely knows the code, and has a Doctorate in Physics. And the Avenging Angle is a lying sack of crap. :-) Poor Angle, never right, always obtuse, going out on a tangent of fervent imagination. Tsk. Fantasyland thinking in fever pitch, never being able to name names, nor identify anything, but always "accusatory" when the fires grow behind the eyes. :-) That beats your 14 years of night school, I do believe. Tsk. It "beats" nothing. In fact, fantasyland thinking IS nothing. So...let's recap: NADC was flight-testing NAVSTAR. NAVSTAR was the precursor to GPSS, had all the basic elements of GPSS and proved the viability of it. That was about 33 to 34 years ago. The Avenging Angle suddenly brings out one individual's formal schooling as somehow "related" to the thread. Tsk, NOT related. Avenging Angle has injected himself with a hyperbole? Must be. Lay off them hypos. Merry Christmas and good will to all men... :-) |
|
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes: Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS? From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 12/21/2004 4:30 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS? From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 12/20/2004 6:21 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: Snipped... I think you want to avoid the hard facts, Steve. No, Jim...I just don't need the editorializing of past events. We know why Social Security was created... What I wrote wasn't about why SS was created, but about why it could be in trouble in the future. And as Hans, K0HB has pointed out, the 800 pound gorilla problem is the borrowing of money from the SS trust fund. Such borrowing is fine unless and until it's not paid back. I don't think FDR ever imagined it being *******ized such as it has. How is SS *******ized? FDR's New Deal, like the Constitution, wasn't meant to be a static unchanging entity. He said so himself - if a program didn't work, it was to be changed or eliminated. Jim, we are there already. We are where? When we have people "disabled" and collecting Social Security ( or other entitlements which draw against it...) in their 30's without truly being "disabled", then we ARE there. Where? I see it every day. And now we are seeing people in their 20's and sometimes even "teens" who are claiming "disability", yet can drive, socialize, party, and even "work" in other revenue producing pursuits. But the SECOND you threaten that check every month, they suddenly become "sick bay commandos" until the threat has resolved. You mean plain old fraud. Yes, we have that in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits, disability, workmen's comp and various welfare systems too. There's also fraud in private insurance claims. Should all those systems be shut down because some people abuse them? I say no. But the real solution is education and responsibility. The real solution is to restore the program to what it was intended for, Which is? delete the drug abusers and lazy, and restore some basic civic responsibilities. How would you do that? Hmmm? Here's a bit of history: How did I know we were in for this...??? Once upon a time....(I was right...) ...(up until about 40 years ago), there were lots of large state mental hospitals. (Snip to...) Is any of what I wrote inaccurate? Then came a whole bunch of new pharmaceuticals...(And further snip to...) And most of the state mental institutions closed or were radically reduced in size, while the population grew. So a lot of the patients who used to be inside those institutions are now outside, trying to survive. Are they really better off? Are we saving any money? NONE of those mental health facility closings were due to the introduction of new pharmaceuticals, Jim. Yes, they were. At least in part. New pharmacueticals made it possible to de-institutionalize large numbers of people with certain mental illnesses - *if* they took the pharmecuticals as prescribed! Look up how mental health care used to work - say in the 1940s and 50s, before 'modern' pharmecuticals existed. A considerable number of people were simply locked up because nobody knew what else to do. Those closings were due to the interventions of (A) "civil rights" programs which insisted that those poor wretched souls had had their rights denied to them, That was part of it too. Books like "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" were based on the reality of the old systems. and (B) bean counters who thought that those monies could be better spent elsewhere. Those "bean counters" were politicians looking for ways to avoid spending money on mental health care. After all, it *was* cheaper to buy the new pharmecuticals for a mentally ill person than to institutionalize them. Please note that those decisons were made by Administrations wherein a Democrat was in the White House. Who controlled the congress? How much of this was state-level and how much federal? Most of the mental-health hospitals I know of were state operations, not federal. Did it all happen under Kennedy, Johnson and Carter, with none of it under Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan or Bush? Most of all - is any of what I wrote incorrect? How about this: How about we rebuild and reopen all those mental health hospitals, and reallow indefinite involuntary mental-health commitments? Would probably cost less than what we're spending now on other solutions. I do...More so than I ever thought Bill Clinton was... Why? At least under Bill Clinton, the markets were rising, inflation was low and the budget got balanced. Now Shrub is digging an enormous hole of debt and yet giving the rich tax cuts. BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Those "markets" were ALREADY "rising" under Bush the Elder! Sure. The Dow was about 3600 when Clinton took office. E V E R Y stock market indicator was "up" in the last year of Bush the Elders term, Yet he lost the election. Boo hoo hoo. and CLAIMS by the Clinton administration within the first 90 days of his presidency (and before a SINGLE Clintonian plan had been implimented) that the markets were already responding just on the strength of Clinton PROMISES were absolutely ludicrous then, and are absolutely ludicrous today! No more ludicrous than Shrub's claim. And BTW, Jim, at an average of $48 to $53K a year, I have not had my taxes LOWER since before Jimmy Carter! I am HARDLY "rich" ! ! ! ! First off, look at your income vs. inflation. If your income hasn't kept pace with inflation, it's a good bet that some of your taxes will drop. Second, look at your life situation. Were you married, did you own a home, have dependent children, or itemize deductions back in Carter's time? Where in the USA did you live? Changes in all those areas affect some taxes. Third, when you say your taxes are lower, which taxes are you including or excluding? Most people see their federal income tax in big bold numbers because they or their accountant figures it out every year. But what about other taxes? Add up how much you pay in SS, Medicare, sales taxes, excise taxes, real estate taxes, state income and wage taxes, etc. Look at the big picture, not just one item, then see if your taxes are lower. Finally, remember that it's easy to lower taxes if you don't mind piling up debt, and easy to balance the budget if you don't mind raising taxes like crazy. What was the national debt in Carter's time? What is it today? How much of your taxes went to pay the interest on the debt loans then and now? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS? From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 12/21/2004 4:30 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS? From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 12/20/2004 6:21 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: Snipped... I think you want to avoid the hard facts, Steve. No, Jim...I just don't need the editorializing of past events. We know why Social Security was created... What I wrote wasn't about why SS was created, but about why it could be in trouble in the future. And as Hans, K0HB has pointed out, the 800 pound gorilla problem is the borrowing of money from the SS trust fund. Such borrowing is fine unless and until it's not paid back. I don't think FDR ever imagined it being *******ized such as it has. How is SS *******ized? FDR's New Deal, like the Constitution, wasn't meant to be a static unchanging entity. He said so himself - if a program didn't work, it was to be changed or eliminated. Jim, we are there already. We are where? Jim, is there some underlying reason why you feel it necessary to insult me like this? I am waist deep, on a daily basis, with people who are products of entitlement programs gone wild, all of it at the expense of "Social Security". In the past 72 hours at my ER alone FIVE people generated 12 "emergency room" visits for complaints ranging from "headaches", to "chronic back pain", to "weakness" induced by alcohol. One of those five people has FORTY TWO visits to the ED since January 1st. I've got $10 riding on her making it to 50 before 2359 on 31 December. The pot is up to a couple hundred bucks already. One of the five has 28 visits since Janaury 1st. Wanna bet he makes it to 30? Mr 28 and one of the others made their arrivals via EMS. Both of Mr 28's visits were chauffered per the county. Again paid for by SSI/Medicare. Mr. 28 is under 40 and "disabled" due an injury that, oddly, prevents him from "working", but not from riding motorcycles, drinking, and otherwise dissapating that check in a hurry. Think I am exaggerating or making this up? You are most cordially invited to join me any weekend that I work and spend the evening. You've got my e mail address...drop me a line. I'll set it up. Social Security and it's ancilliary programs such as SSI and AFDC actually promote single parent households and perpetuate drug seeking behaviour. Since any healthcare facility that accepts Medicare/Medicaid must also accept their rules, these "patients" are allowed to continue these abuses almost unabated. Why "work" when all they have to do is get pregnant, get "the check" coming, and then their "insurance card" follows...Nice deal. Or find an MD who will certify them as "disabled"...There's a whole Cottage Industry of trial lawyers who jump a the chance to help these poor souls get thier checks rolling in. The recipients will get "back pay" checks going back to the first day they filed an applcation for "benefits". The backpay can be as much as $12K to $20K once the lawyers play with it for a while since these negotiations can go on for a couple of years. (Which begs to ask how is it they managed to get along without the monies!) By the way, YOU are paying for it. Furthermore, any healthcare facility that accepts federal entitlement payees (and 95% of all facilites must, if they want to "do business") must also accept federal regulations...Not a bad idea you say? Federal rules are the reason most hospitals must charge $2.00 for a Tylenol and $20 for a simple gauze dressing from people with "real" insurance. Medicare says "we will pay you "this much" and you WILL accept it, sorry if it's not enough to cover your real expenses... So, Jim, please do NOT presume to ask me "where" we are in reference to the current state of Social Security... I see it every day. You're welcome to join me for a shift if you're really, REALLY prepared to leave mad... 73 Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: N2EY wrote: In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS? From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 12/21/2004 4:30 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS? From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 12/20/2004 6:21 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: Snipped... I think you want to avoid the hard facts, Steve. No, Jim...I just don't need the editorializing of past events. We know why Social Security was created... What I wrote wasn't about why SS was created, but about why it could be in trouble in the future. And as Hans, K0HB has pointed out, the 800 pound gorilla problem is the borrowing of money from the SS trust fund. Such borrowing is fine unless and until it's not paid back. I don't think FDR ever imagined it being *******ized such as it has. How is SS *******ized? FDR's New Deal, like the Constitution, wasn't meant to be a static unchanging entity. He said so himself - if a program didn't work, it was to be changed or eliminated. Jim, we are there already. We are where? Jim, is there some underlying reason why you feel it necessary to insult me like this? I didn't mean to insult you, Steve, I just didn't know what you meant. I am waist deep, on a daily basis, with people who are products of entitlement programs gone wild, all of it at the expense of "Social Security". In the past 72 hours at my ER alone FIVE people generated 12 "emergency room" visits for complaints ranging from "headaches", to "chronic back pain", to "weakness" induced by alcohol. One of those five people has FORTY TWO visits to the ED since January 1st. I've got $10 riding on her making it to 50 before 2359 on 31 December. The pot is up to a couple hundred bucks already. One of the five has 28 visits since Janaury 1st. Wanna bet he makes it to 30? Mr 28 and one of the others made their arrivals via EMS. Both of Mr 28's visits were chauffered per the county. Again paid for by SSI/Medicare. Mr. 28 is under 40 and "disabled" due an injury that, oddly, prevents him from "working", but not from riding motorcycles, drinking, and otherwise dissapating that check in a hurry. So what you've got are people who manipulate the system and use the ER for things that should be cared for by a primary care physician - or just good ol' common sense. How do we fix the problem? Shut down all entitlements because some people abuse them? Think I am exaggerating or making this up? Not at all! You are most cordially invited to join me any weekend that I work and spend the evening. You've got my e mail address...drop me a line. I'll set it up. What percentage of ER visits would you estimate are legitimate, and what percentage are manipulations of the system? Social Security and it's ancilliary programs such as SSI and AFDC actually promote single parent households You mean because the benefits for two single people are greater than those of a married couple? I agree 100%. Note that the income taxes a married couple pay when both work are greater than the sum of the income taxes of two single working people making the same money and living together. and perpetuate drug seeking behaviour. How? Since any healthcare facility that accepts Medicare/Medicaid must also accept their rules, these "patients" are allowed to continue these abuses almost unabated. Why "work" when all they have to do is get pregnant, get "the check" coming, and then their "insurance card" follows...Nice deal. Or find an MD who will certify them as "disabled"...There's a whole Cottage Industry of trial lawyers who jump a the chance to help these poor souls get thier checks rolling in. The recipients will get "back pay" checks going back to the first day they filed an applcation for "benefits". The backpay can be as much as $12K to $20K once the lawyers play with it for a while since these negotiations can go on for a couple of years. (Which begs to ask how is it they managed to get along without the monies!) I agree that they are all abuses of the system. But how do we fix them? Do we just shut down SS? By the way, YOU are paying for it. I've been paying for it longer than you, Steve ;-) Furthermore, any healthcare facility that accepts federal entitlement payees (and 95% of all facilites must, if they want to "do business") must also accept federal regulations...Not a bad idea you say? Federal rules are the reason most hospitals must charge $2.00 for a Tylenol and $20 for a simple gauze dressing from people with "real" insurance. Medicare says "we will pay you "this much" and you WILL accept it, sorry if it's not enough to cover your real expenses... It's called "cost shifting". The people who pay don't just pay for themselves, they pay for those who don't pay anything. Here in metro Philly, it is not too unusual for an addict in labor to show up at a major hospital. Delivery is complicated by many factors and baby has multiple problems, all traceable to substance abuse. Mom and baby get good medical care, probably saving both their lives - at a cost of a quarter million or so in medical costs alone. Then mom signs herself out AMA and abandons baby to the care of the state. Often baby leaves hospital by way of the morgue because the multiple problems are simply too much and too many. And in a year or two, if she's still alive, mom is back in the same or worse condition. And we all pay for it. Now - how do we fix it? So, Jim, please do NOT presume to ask me "where" we are in reference to the current state of Social Security... I see it every day. You're welcome to join me for a shift if you're really, REALLY prepared to leave mad... You are lumping all entitlement programs together, as if they're all the same. They're not. It's clear that *some* people manipulate and abuse the systems. They obviously need fixing. But how do we fix them? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article .com, "K4YZ"
writes: N2EY wrote: Jim, is there some underlying reason why you feel it necessary to insult me like this? Ought to be obvious considering some of the replies from the Avenging Angle. Little Yiddish words such as "Putz" for one example. :-) I am waist deep, on a daily basis, with people who are products of entitlement programs gone wild, all of it at the expense of "Social Security". Have you considered wearing waders? Fishermen like those... In the past 72 hours at my ER alone FIVE people generated 12 "emergency room" visits for complaints ranging from "headaches", to "chronic back pain", to "weakness" induced by alcohol. One of those five people has FORTY TWO visits to the ED since January 1st. I've got $10 riding on her making it to 50 before 2359 on 31 December. The pot is up to a couple hundred bucks already. Ah, yes, all those are TENNESSEEANS who were busy "kicking out Albert Gore, Jr. :-) One of the five has 28 visits since Janaury 1st. Wanna bet he makes it to 30? Mr 28 and one of the others made their arrivals via EMS. Both of Mr 28's visits were chauffered per the county. Again paid for by SSI/Medicare. Mr. 28 is under 40 and "disabled" due an injury that, oddly, prevents him from "working", but not from riding motorcycles, drinking, and otherwise dissapating that check in a hurry. Tsk, tsk. All those nasty Tenneesseans such as those "laid off" by military medical discharges and unable to continue the rigors of military life "serving the president." Must be a rough life. Think I am exaggerating or making this up? You are most cordially invited to join me any weekend that I work and spend the evening. You've got my e mail address...drop me a line. I'll set it up. "Exaggerating?" You've told us a MILLION TIMES not to do that! :-) Social Security and it's ancilliary programs such as SSI and AFDC actually promote single parent households and perpetuate drug seeking behaviour. Since any healthcare facility that accepts Medicare/Medicaid must also accept their rules, these "patients" are allowed to continue these abuses almost unabated. Would it be any different if everyone had to learn morse code? Why "work" when all they have to do is get pregnant, get "the check" coming, and then their "insurance card" follows...Nice deal. Or find an MD who will certify them as "disabled"...There's a whole Cottage Industry of trial lawyers who jump a the chance to help these poor souls get thier checks rolling in. The recipients will get "back pay" checks going back to the first day they filed an applcation for "benefits". The backpay can be as much as $12K to $20K once the lawyers play with it for a while since these negotiations can go on for a couple of years. (Which begs to ask how is it they managed to get along without the monies!) Tsk. Federal government (through the Department of Defense) not paying the Avenging Angle enough on that disability check? By the way, YOU are paying for it. Tsk. Don't bite the hands that feed you... Furthermore, any healthcare facility that accepts federal entitlement payees (and 95% of all facilites must, if they want to "do business") must also accept federal regulations...Not a bad idea you say? Federal rules are the reason most hospitals must charge $2.00 for a Tylenol and $20 for a simple gauze dressing from people with "real" insurance. Medicare says "we will pay you "this much" and you WILL accept it, sorry if it's not enough to cover your real expenses... So, Jim, please do NOT presume to ask me "where" we are in reference to the current state of Social Security... I see it every day. You're welcome to join me for a shift if you're really, REALLY prepared to leave mad... Tsk. The Avenging Angle leaves work very angry? Ah, that may explain his taking out his frustrations on everyone else in here. --- Hmmm...I've looked and looked, stretched imagination to the breaking point and can't find a single mention of "boaters," "APRS" or even amateur radio! Certainly not about amateur radio policy... :-) |
In article . com,
writes: It's clear that *some* people manipulate and abuse the systems. They obviously need fixing. But how do we fix them? I thought the "fix" was obvious from all the previous postings... make everyone take a morse code test! If they show an "interest" in radio, make them take an amateur radio license examination! First, before doing anything else... :-) did dit, |
Steve, one of my sons had a bad accident and his leg was broken in two
places. After spending a night in the e-room and a day in the hospital, he went to work finding a new job. He had been cheffing, but its hard to chef from a wheelchair, and he had bills to pay. So I kept bringing him newspapers and he started calling around to jobs that sounded like "sit-down" jobs. He sold magazines by telephone for a week, then he got on at a window/siding place. He started making OK money - more than cheffing paid even though he loved cheffing. He met another salesman on the job, and they talked a little. The guy lived for free with his "girlfriend" and her two children in sec 8 housing. You see, she has asthma and can't work. But she can have wild, passionate sex and get pregnant, then go through childbirth at least twice. Not bad for a person who can't work. Well, my son in a wheelchair and pins in his leg read this guy the riot act. He almost got fired for being "prejudiced." I listened to a guy who called in on 700/WLW one night. He was a workman's comp investigator. Funniest two minute call I've ever heard. He called in while actually having someone under surveillance, and said that he wished they were listening to the program so they would start acting injured again. He'll probably get fired for that, and the faker will get a lifetime of freebies. bb |
"bb" wrote You see, she has asthma and can't work. But she can have wild, passionate sex and get pregnant, then go through childbirth at least twice. Are you saying that asthma sufferers should not be allowed to have wild, passionate sex or become parents? How about cancer patients or blind people or amputees? You are indeed one strange man, Brian! 3's, de Hans "I invented Billy Beeper", K0HB |
Steve, one of my sons had a bad accident and his leg was broken in two
places. After spending a night in the e-room and a day in the hospital, he went to work finding a new job. He had been cheffing, but its hard to chef from a wheelchair, and he had bills to pay. So I kept bringing him newspapers and he started calling around to jobs that sounded like "sit-down" jobs. He sold magazines by telephone for a week, then he got on at a window/siding place. He started making OK money - more than cheffing paid even though he loved cheffing. He met another salesman on the job, and they talked a little. The guy lived for free with his "girlfriend" and her two children in sec 8 housing. You see, she has asthma and can't work. But she can have wild, passionate sex and get pregnant, then go through childbirth at least twice. Not bad for a person who can't work. Well, my son in a wheelchair and pins in his leg read this guy the riot act. He almost got fired for being "prejudiced." I listened to a guy who called in on 700/WLW one night. He was a workman's comp investigator. Funniest two minute call I've ever heard. He called in while actually having someone under surveillance, and said that he wished they were listening to the program so they would start acting injured again. He'll probably get fired for that, and the faker will get a lifetime of freebies. bb |
Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: Date: 12/27/2004 12:12 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: . com K4YZ wrote: N2EY wrote: Jim, is there some underlying reason why you feel it necessary to insult me like this? I didn't mean to insult you, Steve, I just didn't know what you meant. How can you not? This very same topic has been front page stuff in Newsweek, Time, etc, for years. Mr 28 and one of the others made their arrivals via EMS. Both of Mr 28's visits were chauffered per the county. Again paid for by SSI/Medicare. Mr. 28 is under 40 and "disabled" due an injury that, oddly, prevents him from "working", but not from riding motorcycles, drinking, and otherwise dissapating that check in a hurry. So what you've got are people who manipulate the system and use the ER for things that should be cared for by a primary care physician - or just good ol' common sense. And why should they? They've had "consumer advocate groups" led by the ACLU, NAACP, etc etc telling them this was their "right" to do for decades now. How do we fix the problem? Shut down all entitlements because some people abuse them? Almost...yes. The only thing that would clean this up is to do a complete survey of everyone receiving SSI or Medicaid. Just because you're not able to leap tall buildings in a single bound doesn't mean you can't work at all. Think I am exaggerating or making this up? Not at all! You are most cordially invited to join me any weekend that I work and spend the evening. You've got my e mail address...drop me a line. I'll set it up. What percentage of ER visits would you estimate are legitimate, and what percentage are manipulations of the system? Better than 30% are truly inappropriate uses. More on occassions. This past weekend we saw an average of 60 persons per day. On both days "cold or flu symptoms" were the leading chief complaint. Social Security and it's ancilliary programs such as SSI and AFDC actually promote single parent households You mean because the benefits for two single people are greater than those of a married couple? I agree 100%. I mean because all you ahve to do is get pregnant without a spouse and "you're in". Note that the income taxes a married couple pay when both work are greater than the sum of the income taxes of two single working people making the same money and living together. and perpetuate drug seeking behaviour. How? Because they have "insurance" that allows them to go to almost any ER unfettered. Federal regulations under HIPPA, The Health Insurance Portability and Protection Act, enforces astronomical fines for healthcare workers who cross-communicate information about patients without their consent. These "patients" know that they can go to the ER, complain of "back pain", and in all likelyhood will get an Rx for atleast 3 days worth of Lortab just to get them out of the ER, and it's technically illegal for us to warn other ER's that Joe Schmo is getting drugs here. I work in four different ER's within a 65 mile radius, Jim, and I personally know of at leat 12 people who frequent all four of them for the same "complaint". Oh...yes...JCAHO, the Joint Commission for the Accredidation of Healthcare Organizations, has made it mandatory that we post signs telling people it's their right to demand pain medicine. There's nothing on those same "notices" that says the healthcare provider has the right to say "no" after having examined you and determined that narcotics are not in your best interest. Lastly, every Medicare/Medicaid participating facility is required by law to post signs in the ER that tell the world that it is again their "right" to receive "free medical examinations regardless of your ability to pay". These facilities have the "right" to demand payment later, of course, but what do they (the "patients") care? They just toss those deamnds in the trash since they are not obligated to pay them. Mr 28 has an outstanding debt to my full time employer of almost $40K just for ER visits alone in the last 3 years. Since any healthcare facility that accepts Medicare/Medicaid must also accept their rules, these "patients" are allowed to continue these abuses almost unabated. Why "work" when all they have to do is get pregnant, get "the check" coming, and then their "insurance card" follows...Nice deal. Or find an MD who will certify them as "disabled"...There's a whole Cottage Industry of trial lawyers who jump a the chance to help these poor souls get thier checks rolling in. The recipients will get "back pay" checks going back to the first day they filed an applcation for "benefits". The backpay can be as much as $12K to $20K once the lawyers play with it for a while since these negotiations can go on for a couple of years. (Which begs to ask how is it they managed to get along without the monies!) I agree that they are all abuses of the system. But how do we fix them? Do we just shut down SS? Get Social Security back to what it was supposed to be..."Security" for people in thier latter years against retirement. Not a freeloaders ticket to the Pot-O-Gold. By the way, YOU are paying for it. I've been paying for it longer than you, Steve. Perhaps. Furthermore, any healthcare facility that accepts federal entitlement payees (and 95% of all facilites must, if they want to "do business") must also accept federal regulations...Not a bad idea you say? Federal rules are the reason most hospitals must charge $2.00 for a Tylenol and $20 for a simple gauze dressing from people with "real" insurance. Medicare says "we will pay you "this much" and you WILL accept it, sorry if it's not enough to cover your real expenses... It's called "cost shifting". The people who pay don't just pay for themselves, they pay for those who don't pay anything. Here in metro Philly, it is not too unusual for an addict in labor to show up at a major hospital. Delivery is complicated by many factors and baby has multiple problems, all traceable to substance abuse. Mom and baby get good medical care, probably saving both their lives - at a cost of a quarter million or so in medical costs alone. Then mom signs herself out AMA and abandons baby to the care of the state. Often baby leaves hospital by way of the morgue because the multiple problems are simply too much and too many. And in a year or two, if she's still alive, mom is back in the same or worse condition. I worked in West Memphis, AR for two years after I left the Gun Club. The first month I was there one of the local baby factories was having her 3rd child in the ED. Had a fourth while I was there, and was pregnant with number five and due just about the time I left. Her primary concern was how long would it take for the new kid's check to get started. And we all pay for it. Now - how do we fix it? Clean house, Jim. A total top-to-bottom survey of every enrollee. And legislation that allows us to cap their benefits or entitlement periods. We have to allow ourselves the freedom to say "NO", and to demand that people carry their own weight. So, Jim, please do NOT presume to ask me "where" we are in reference to the current state of Social Security... I see it every day. You're welcome to join me for a shift if you're really, REALLY prepared to leave mad... You are lumping all entitlement programs together, as if they're all the same. They're not. They're not all the same, but they are all being abused. It's clear that *some* people manipulate and abuse the systems. They obviously need fixing. But how do we fix them? One step at a time. Steve, K4YZ |
Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: "KØHB" Date: 12/27/2004 7:53 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: "bb" wrote You see, she has asthma and can't work. But she can have wild, passionate sex and get pregnant, then go through childbirth at least twice. Are you saying that asthma sufferers should not be allowed to have wild, passionate sex or become parents? How about cancer patients or blind people or amputees? I am again forced to agree with Brian. And not just "asthma" patients, but COPD'ers who smell of cigarette smoke, "back pain" patients who exacerbated their "disabling" back pain while riding their motorcycle or out drinking all night, or diabetics who present in DKA who refuse to comply with their MD's plan-of-care. People who have bonafide needs should get the care they need. Those who have needs but refuse to do what is necessary to "get fixed" yet demand that "we" do "something" to get them better need to be given the boot and a referal to a funeral home director with pre-paid plans. Steve, K4YZ |
bb" wrote
You see, she has asthma and can't work. But she can have wild, passionate sex and get pregnant, then go through childbirth at least twice. I asked Brian N0IMD Are you saying that asthma sufferers should not be allowed to have wild, passionate sex or become parents? Steve K4YZ chimed in with: I am again forced to agree with Brian. OK, folks, there you have it. Brian indicates that asthma sufferers who have "wild, passionate sex" should not be eligible for SS benefits, and health-care professional Steve agrees with him. It must be true if these experts say it is. Damn, I sure hope I never contract asthma, or I'll not be eligible for "wild, passionate sex" when I grow old. I wonder who checks on stuff like this? Is there a USSCC (U. S. Sex Cop Corps) which conducts random screening of all asthma patients? Maybe the ARRL Official Observers can get a homeland security grant for training in proper observation/identification of those who are too "wild" or "passionate". This could boost ARRL membership dramatically, because you must be an ARRL member to be an Official Observer. Can grandfathers/mothers be grandfathered/mothered in under the regulations? Should there be bold caution labels affixed to all inhalers warning that "ONLY TAME AND PLATONIC SEX IS ALLOWED WHILE USING THIS PRODUCT"? So many questions! 3's, de Hans ("I invented Billy Beeper"), K0HB |
I'm saying that asthma sufferers can have any kind of sex they want,
but don't tell me that there aren't capable of leading productive, -working- lives. You're on your own with the cancer patients, blind people, and amputees as they were not in my post. 2.5, de bb "I kidnapped Billy Beeper" |
Subject: Problem for asthma patients
From: "KØHB" Date: 12/28/2004 11:05 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: bb" wrote You see, she has asthma and can't work. But she can have wild, passionate sex and get pregnant, then go through childbirth at least twice. I asked Brian N0IMD Are you saying that asthma sufferers should not be allowed to have wild, passionate sex or become parents? Steve K4YZ chimed in with: I am again forced to agree with Brian. OK, folks, there you have it. Brian indicates that asthma sufferers who have "wild, passionate sex" should not be eligible for SS benefits, and health-care professional Steve agrees with him. Of course that wasn't the context in which the comments were made, but hey, it's Hans we're talking about, and any chance Hans gets to make himself out to be better than anyone else is to be expected. You're still an idiot, Hans. Accept it...Embrace it... Steve, K4YZ |
Hans, go ahead and contract any medical condition that you desire; your
"wild passionate sex" days are long gone. |
Steve Robeson K4YZ wrote: Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS? From: Date: 12/27/2004 12:12 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: . com K4YZ wrote: N2EY wrote: Jim, is there some underlying reason why you feel it necessary to insult me like this? I didn't mean to insult you, Steve, I just didn't know what you meant. How can you not? I just didn't understand your statement. Nothing more or less. That's all, now it's clearer. This very same topic has been front page stuff in Newsweek, Time, etc, for years. I don't read those mags. Philly Inquirer makes them look like tabloids. Mr 28 and one of the others made their arrivals via EMS. Both of Mr 28's visits were chauffered per the county. Again paid for by SSI/Medicare. Mr. 28 is under 40 and "disabled" due an injury that, oddly, prevents him from "working", but not from riding motorcycles, drinking, and otherwise dissapating that check in a hurry. So what you've got are people who manipulate the system and use the ER for things that should be cared for by a primary care physician - or just good ol' common sense. And why should they? They've had "consumer advocate groups" led by the ACLU, NAACP, etc etc telling them this was their "right" to do for decades now. How do we fix the problem? Shut down all entitlements because some people abuse them? Almost...yes. The only thing that would clean this up is to do a complete survey of everyone receiving SSI or Medicaid. That's not a shutdown at all, just a review. Sounds like a good idea to me. Just because you're not able to leap tall buildings in a single bound doesn't mean you can't work at all. I agree 100%. Think I am exaggerating or making this up? Not at all! What percentage of ER visits would you estimate are legitimate, and what percentage are manipulations of the system? Better than 30% are truly inappropriate uses. More on occassions. This past weekend we saw an average of 60 persons per day. On both days "cold or flu symptoms" were the leading chief complaint. Social Security and it's ancilliary programs such as SSI and AFDC actually promote single parent households You mean because the benefits for two single people are greater than those of a married couple? I agree 100%. I mean because all you ahve to do is get pregnant without a spouse and "you're in". IOW, a "marriage penalty". Exists in the income tax system, too. Note that the income taxes a married couple pay when both work are greater than the sum of the income taxes of two single working people making the same money and living together. Which was partly fixed by Carter and then unfixed by Ronald "family values" Reagan. and perpetuate drug seeking behaviour. How? Because they have "insurance" that allows them to go to almost any ER unfettered. Federal regulations under HIPPA, The Health Insurance Portability and Protection Act, enforces astronomical fines for healthcare workers who cross-communicate information about patients without their consent. Now that's just plain wrong, because medical personnel need as much pertinent data as possible, for purely medical reasons. These "patients" know that they can go to the ER, complain of "back pain", and in all likelyhood will get an Rx for atleast 3 days worth of Lortab just to get them out of the ER, and it's technically illegal for us to warn other ER's that Joe Schmo is getting drugs here. Is that one way Rush Limbaugh got his Oxycontin? I work in four different ER's within a 65 mile radius, Jim, and I personally know of at leat 12 people who frequent all four of them for the same "complaint". How is Doc B supposed to avoid prescribing a med that is incompatible with meds prescribed by Doc A if Joe S. won't release medical info? Whenever I go to the doc, there's always a form allowing release of medical info to other healthcare personnel and institutions "just in case". I always agree and sign it, on the theory they should have the info and I have nothing to hide. Oh...yes...JCAHO, the Joint Commission for the Accredidation of Healthcare Organizations, has made it mandatory that we post signs telling people it's their right to demand pain medicine. There's nothing on those same "notices" that says the healthcare provider has the right to say "no" after having examined you and determined that narcotics are not in your best interest. That's messed up, too. I guess nobody could say "no" to Rush, either... Lastly, every Medicare/Medicaid participating facility is required by law to post signs in the ER that tell the world that it is again their "right" to receive "free medical examinations regardless of your ability to pay". Examinations, or complete care? These facilities have the "right" to demand payment later, of course, but what do they (the "patients") care? They just toss those deamnds in the trash since they are not obligated to pay them. Mr 28 has an outstanding debt to my full time employer of almost $40K just for ER visits alone in the last 3 years. Because the ER can't toss anybody out. Since any healthcare facility that accepts Medicare/Medicaid must also accept their rules, these "patients" are allowed to continue these abuses almost unabated. Why "work" when all they have to do is get pregnant, get "the check" coming, and then their "insurance card" follows...Nice deal. Or find an MD who will certify them as "disabled"...There's a whole Cottage Industry of trial lawyers who jump a the chance to help these poor souls get thier checks rolling in. The recipients will get "back pay" checks going back to the first day they filed an applcation for "benefits". The backpay can be as much as $12K to $20K once the lawyers play with it for a while since these negotiations can go on for a couple of years. (Which begs to ask how is it they managed to get along without the monies!) I agree that they are all abuses of the system. But how do we fix them? Do we just shut down SS? Get Social Security back to what it was supposed to be..."Security" for people in thier latter years against retirement. Not a freeloaders ticket to the Pot-O-Gold. What about people who really are disabled? By the way, YOU are paying for it. I've been paying for it longer than you, Steve. Perhaps. Furthermore, any healthcare facility that accepts federal entitlement payees (and 95% of all facilites must, if they want to "do business") must also accept federal regulations...Not a bad idea you say? Federal rules are the reason most hospitals must charge $2.00 for a Tylenol and $20 for a simple gauze dressing from people with "real" insurance. Medicare says "we will pay you "this much" and you WILL accept it, sorry if it's not enough to cover your real expenses... It's called "cost shifting". The people who pay don't just pay for themselves, they pay for those who don't pay anything. Here in metro Philly, it is not too unusual for an addict in labor to show up at a major hospital. Delivery is complicated by many factors and baby has multiple problems, all traceable to substance abuse. Mom and baby get good medical care, probably saving both their lives - at a cost of a quarter million or so in medical costs alone. Then mom signs herself out AMA and abandons baby to the care of the state. Often baby leaves hospital by way of the morgue because the multiple problems are simply too much and too many. And in a year or two, if she's still alive, mom is back in the same or worse condition. I worked in West Memphis, AR for two years after I left the Gun Club. The first month I was there one of the local baby factories was having her 3rd child in the ED. Had a fourth while I was there, and was pregnant with number five and due just about the time I left. Her primary concern was how long would it take for the new kid's check to get started. And we all pay for it. Now - how do we fix it? Clean house, Jim. A total top-to-bottom survey of every enrollee. And legislation that allows us to cap their benefits or entitlement periods. We have to allow ourselves the freedom to say "NO", and to demand that people carry their own weight. That's a start. But who gets to make the critical judgements, as in Person A is really disabled but Person B isn't? How do you *make* people "carry their own weight"? So, Jim, please do NOT presume to ask me "where" we are in reference to the current state of Social Security... I see it every day. You're welcome to join me for a shift if you're really, REALLY prepared to leave mad... You are lumping all entitlement programs together, as if they're all the same. They're not. They're not all the same, but they are all being abused. It's clear that *some* people manipulate and abuse the systems. They obviously need fixing. But how do we fix them? One step at a time. I agree 100% with your first step. -- Here's one way abuse in a related area was stopped big-time: The local transit agency *used to be* a target for injury claims. A bus with capacity of 65 people would get in a midday minor accident, and they'd get 90 injury claims from alleged riders. Etc. Couple years ago they got tough in various ways. One was the installation of cameras in various vehicles that would show who was onboard. Of course not all the cameras were real - but who would take a chance? They also sent out plainclothes investigators to follow people with hard-to-disprove injuries like "back pain". Then they'd go after fakers for fraud, like the guy with back pain who couldn't work at all but could singlehandedly unload his new bigscreen TV from the car and carry it up a flight of steps into his house - while wearing the soft collar. Both collar and TV paid for by guess who. Most of all, they made a point of publicizing their efforts and successes. Not only did folks lose their payments - some were sued successfully for fraud. OTOH, their efforts have actually helped people with real injuries file successful claims. And the claims have dropped substantially. Of course the initial efforts cost serious $$ and were not 100% successful. But the long-term results were impressive. And it did not take changes in the laws. Maybe something like that is step two. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: Date: 12/28/2004 1:59 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: .com Steve Robeson K4YZ wrote: Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS? From: Date: 12/27/2004 12:12 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: . com K4YZ wrote: N2EY wrote: The only thing that would clean this up is to do a complete survey of everyone receiving SSI or Medicaid. That's not a shutdown at all, just a review. Sounds like a good idea to me. I don't believe I ever said "shut them down"...I beleive my words were to the effect of getting Note that the income taxes a married couple pay when both work are greater than the sum of the income taxes of two single working people making the same money and living together. Which was partly fixed by Carter and then unfixed by Ronald "family values" Reagan. Yeah...fixed by Mr. 15% Inflation Carter. Uh huh...I remember. He enacted a 17.5% one time parity raise for the Armed Forces, then taxed the bee-jeebers out of us. and perpetuate drug seeking behaviour. How? Because they have "insurance" that allows them to go to almost any ER unfettered. Federal regulations under HIPPA, The Health Insurance Portability and Protection Act, enforces astronomical fines for healthcare workers who cross-communicate information about patients without their consent. Now that's just plain wrong, because medical personnel need as much pertinent data as possible, for purely medical reasons. Well...This was how Mrs Clinton was going to "fix" healthcare. It was the one and only bit of legislation to get through These "patients" know that they can go to the ER, complain of "back pain", and in all likelyhood will get an Rx for atleast 3 days worth of Lortab just to get them out of the ER, and it's technically illegal for us to warn other ER's that Joe Schmo is getting drugs here. Is that one way Rush Limbaugh got his Oxycontin? I work in four different ER's within a 65 mile radius, Jim, and I personally know of at leat 12 people who frequent all four of them for the same "complaint". How is Doc B supposed to avoid prescribing a med that is incompatible with meds prescribed by Doc A if Joe S. won't release medical info? Exactly. Again, it's part of the tail that the healthcare hound dog get's to chase. And MANY of the "maladies" that patients suffer is due to seeing "Doc A" about one problem and "Doc B" for another. Whenever I go to the doc, there's always a form allowing release of medical info to other healthcare personnel and institutions "just in case". I always agree and sign it, on the theory they should have the info and I have nothing to hide. That's because you're smarter than the average bear, BooBoo, and probably have "real insurance" that requires your PMD to manage your care. I spent this afternoon at a surgeon's office and will have to go to sugery soon...but all the Doc's know who is doing what. Oh...yes...JCAHO, the Joint Commission for the Accredidation of Healthcare Organizations, has made it mandatory that we post signs telling people it's their right to demand pain medicine. There's nothing on those same "notices" that says the healthcare provider has the right to say "no" after having examined you and determined that narcotics are not in your best interest. That's messed up, too. I guess nobody could say "no" to Rush, either... Basically. Lastly, every Medicare/Medicaid participating facility is required by law to post signs in the ER that tell the world that it is again their "right" to receive "free medical examinations regardless of your ability to pay". Examinations, or complete care? It becomes complete care. Under Medicare/caid laws, the facility must "address" the problem, which means do it for free or else. It just becomes cheaper to write the person a script and sent them on their way. Of course it's usually narcotics...You can always tell the real abusers...They eat the narcs like M&M's, then wind up stopping the intestinal tract. Then they develop a bowel obstrcution for which they ahve to go to surgery. And of course surgery means more meds...See where this goes...??? These facilities have the "right" to demand payment later, of course, but what do they (the "patients") care? They just toss those deamnds in the trash since they are not obligated to pay them. Mr 28 has an outstanding debt to my full time employer of almost $40K just for ER visits alone in the last 3 years. Because the ER can't toss anybody out. One facility I worked at performed "Triage" for a while...Local MD's would allocate "X" number of appointments in the day for ER referals. We actually did "just" what the Medicare rules required, examined the patients, then gave them an appointment referal to participating MD's. Inappropriate ER usage dropped by 53% and collections improved by a quantum leap because we weren't wasting time on what were charity cases. No one didn't get to see a doctor, either, since the local docs would work out payments for the truly indigent. Then the ACLU got involved. We were "inconvieniencing" the patients. Get Social Security back to what it was supposed to be..."Security" for people in thier latter years against retirement. Not a freeloaders ticket to the Pot-O-Gold. What about people who really are disabled? What about them? Have I said "No Social Security for ANYone", Jim? Clean house, Jim. A total top-to-bottom survey of every enrollee. And legislation that allows us to cap their benefits or entitlement periods. We have to allow ourselves the freedom to say "NO", and to demand that people carry their own weight. That's a start. But who gets to make the critical judgements, as in Person A is really disabled but Person B isn't? Medical Review Boards. Make these people show up at a prescribed time with copies of their records in hand. How do you *make* people "carry their own weight"? That's what has to be worked out. Me? You get "x" weeks of benefits as "benefit of the doubt", after that, you have to prove you need long term care...and that long term care is more than one MD's opinion. Also, your disability is "scored". Below a certain level, you go to work or you go without. Your choice. So, Jim, please do NOT presume to ask me "where" we are in reference to the current state of Social Security... I see it every day. You're welcome to join me for a shift if you're really, REALLY prepared to leave mad... You are lumping all entitlement programs together, as if they're all the same. They're not. They're not all the same, but they are all being abused. It's clear that *some* people manipulate and abuse the systems. They obviously need fixing. But how do we fix them? One step at a time. I agree 100% with your first step. -- Here's one way abuse in a related area was stopped big-time: The local transit agency *used to be* a target for injury claims. A bus with capacity of 65 people would get in a midday minor accident, and they'd get 90 injury claims from alleged riders. Etc. Couple years ago they got tough in various ways. One was the installation of cameras in various vehicles that would show who was onboard. Of course not all the cameras were real - but who would take a chance? They also sent out plainclothes investigators to follow people with hard-to-disprove injuries like "back pain". Then they'd go after fakers for fraud, like the guy with back pain who couldn't work at all but could singlehandedly unload his new bigscreen TV from the car and carry it up a flight of steps into his house - while wearing the soft collar. Both collar and TV paid for by guess who. Most of all, they made a point of publicizing their efforts and successes. Not only did folks lose their payments - some were sued successfully for fraud. OTOH, their efforts have actually helped people with real injuries file successful claims. And the claims have dropped substantially. Of course the initial efforts cost serious $$ and were not 100% successful. But the long-term results were impressive. And it did not take changes in the laws. Maybe something like that is step two. Step three might be "bounties" for persons accused of and subsequently found guilty of fraud. Personally, I am all for "all of the above". I would add a whole section of the Sunday paper with a full color mug shots of those convicted of bilking assistance programs because that's stealing from you and I. Peer pressure and a bit of humiliation go a long way towards modifying undesired behaviour. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
"bb" wrote: You see, she has asthma and can't work. But she can have wild, passionate sex and get pregnant, then go through childbirth at least twice. and then he wrote: I'm saying that asthma sufferers can have any kind of sex they want, but don't tell me that there aren't capable of leading productive, -working- lives. You're the one who said "she has asthma and can't work." Which is it? If you say she can't work in one post, and in a later post you say that she should lead a "productive, -working- life", then there is some disconnect in your thought process. Can she have sex or not? Will you dispatch Official Observers to monitor how wild and passionate it is? If she gets pregnant, is it OK for her to give birth, or should she hold it in until she gets a job? So many questions! 3's, de Hans, "I invented Billy Beeper", K0HB |
"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote bb" wrote You see, she has asthma and can't work. But she can have wild, passionate sex and get pregnant, then go through childbirth at least twice. I asked Brian N0IMD Are you saying that asthma sufferers should not be allowed to have wild, passionate sex or become parents? Steve K4YZ chimed in with: I am again forced to agree with Brian. OK, folks, there you have it. Brian indicates that asthma sufferers who have "wild, passionate sex" should not be eligible for SS benefits, and health-care professional Steve agrees with him. ...... any chance Hans gets to make himself out to be better than anyone else is to be expected. But, but, but..... I wasn't "making myself out to be" anything. I was making you and Brian out to be 67% of the Three Stooges for suggesting "wild passionate sex" ought to be banned for asthma sufferers. No matter what context you attach, that's still exactly what you said you were "forced to agree with", Steve. Twist, spin, or misdirect your way out of that one. (Consulting with Len is not allowed.) 3's, de Hans, K0HB |
KØHB wrote:
"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote bb" wrote You see, she has asthma and can't work. But she can have wild, passionate sex and get pregnant, then go through childbirth at least twice. I asked Brian N0IMD Are you saying that asthma sufferers should not be allowed to have wild, passionate sex or become parents? Steve K4YZ chimed in with: I am again forced to agree with Brian. OK, folks, there you have it. Brian indicates that asthma sufferers who have "wild, passionate sex" should not be eligible for SS benefits, and health-care professional Steve agrees with him. ...... any chance Hans gets to make himself out to be better than anyone else is to be expected. But, but, but..... I wasn't "making myself out to be" anything. I was making you and Brian out to be 67% of the Three Stooges for suggesting "wild passionate sex" ought to be banned for asthma sufferers. At the chance of interjecting something of use into this sorry thread, the oil components of citrus fruits has been found to stave off asthma attacks. Then they can engage in whatever wild passionate sex they see fit to, as long as it's legal. Orange you glad you know that now? bestest 7 10's and 3's - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote Then they can engage in whatever wild passionate sex they see fit to, as long as it's legal. What sort of sex should not be legal (presuming employed non-asthmatic consenting adults in the privacy of their own Studebaker)? 73, de Hans, K0HB |
KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote Then they can engage in whatever wild passionate sex they see fit to, as long as it's legal. What sort of sex should not be legal (presuming employed non-asthmatic consenting adults in the privacy of their own Studebaker)? I'm not too judgemental, but I think people should confine their activities to the same species.......... 8^P - Mike KB3EIA - |
She can work as a prostitute.
|
prolly most of the sex that you engaged in as a sailor.
|
bb wrote:
prolly most of the sex that you engaged in as a sailor. How very profound, "bb". I never engaged in sex as or with a sailor. Perhaps you'll want to revise your minimalists posts to include complete thoughts and enough of a quote so that we'll have at least some idea of what you're talking about. Dave K8MN |
N2EY wrote:
In article t, "KØHB" writes: "Mike Coslo" wrote Then they can engage in whatever wild passionate sex they see fit to, as long as it's legal. What sort of sex should not be legal (presuming employed non-asthmatic consenting adults in the privacy of their own Studebaker)? Pretty much anything, I would think. However, I can well understand the outrage of those who have to pay and pay for the consequences of others' irresponsible behavior. Do you have some insider knowledge of irresponsible behavior on the part of sexually active asthma sufferers? Dave K8MN |
N2EY wrote:
In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: snip Yeah...fixed by Mr. 15% Inflation Carter. Uh huh...I remember. He enacted a 17.5% one time parity raise for the Armed Forces, then taxed the bee-jeebers out of us. WHOA! Let's look at exactly what happened in that time period! First off, the govt. started deficit spending in the '60s to pay for LBJ's "Great Society", the Vietnam war, and the "space race". This deficit spending and other fiscal changes resulted in rising inflation and interest rates. Nixon and Ford tried to fight inflation with price and wage controls. (Remember "WIN buttons"?). Didn't work - all that it did was delay the problem and make it worse. Isn't it amusing that the most left-wing socialist utterly failed fiscal policy was implemented by *which party*? In 1973 we got the OPEC boycott, and when it ended gasoline prices were doubled. Which affected *all* energy costs, and all businesses that use energy, and fed inflation like - throwing gasoline on a fire. Carter inherited that mess from his Republican predecessors - who had inherited the elements that started the mess from their Democrat predecessors. Taxes were raised to keep the deficit from going even higher. At a time of high interest rates, a high deficit can cause a runaway situation because you need more and more money just to pay the interest on the loans. You don't necessarily need high interest rates, Jim. They can suppress the inflation for a little bit, but only a year or two. I'm noticing inflation nipping at the edges of my purchases. Where I get Breakfast at McD's they have raised the prices by 10 percent this week. My XYL's flooring suppliers have announced a 20 percent hike effective 1/1/2005. People that think that we can support a virtually unlimited deficit coupled with tax cuts *without* inflation are the same people that thought that there was a new paradigm afoot in the stock market during the late 90's. If you continue to spend more than you make, you eventually go bankrupt. It's that simple. Despite all we do, all the adjustments, all all of it, we can not ignore a fundamental rule. And in 1979 we got another OPEC boycott and another doubling of gasoline prices. So don't blame Jimmy Carter without also blaming those who came before him. Blaming Carter for high inflation is simply so incorrect. Here is another case of words and actions differing. Here you have an honest and honorable man who was president at a difficult time in American history, when we struggled to pay back those Moonshot and War expenses, and yet he is ridiculed as a weak and ineffective president. So much for "Character counts" !!! History will probably be much kinder to JC than so many of us are now. And the fact remains that married couples who both work pay *more* federal income taxes than if they weren't married. That "marriage penalty" was partly fixed by Carter and then unfixed by Reagan. If the Republicans are truly for "family values", why is the penalty still there? It amounts to serious money, not just a few dollars. When actions and words differ, I rely on actions. Unfortunately, it seems too many people rely on the words these days. Makes 'em very easy to manipulate. snip Of course it's usually narcotics...You can always tell the real abusers...They eat the narcs like M&M's, then wind up stopping the intestinal tract. Then they develop a bowel obstrcution for which they ahve to go to surgery. And of course surgery means more meds...See where this goes...??? Round and round.... I think that maybe it is Darwinism in action. Too bad we have to foot the bill. snip Personally, I am all for "all of the above". I would add a whole section of the Sunday paper with a full color mug shots of those convicted of bilking assistance programs because that's stealing from you and I. Peer pressure and a bit of humiliation go a long way towards modifying undesired behaviour. That's a bit hazardous. If someone was convicted of fraud but then later won on appeal, they'd go after the paper and the agencies in a big way for "distress" and "defamation". Steve, does your mug shots include people who steal money from the Social security program? And someone willing to play the game might not be that humiliated. It won't work. In this day and age, there are people willing to humiliate themselves to get on programs such as Jackass, The Swan, Survivor, (pick a theme) Jerry Springer, or any of the other television shows that allow idiots to get their visage on TV. There might be people lined up to do this. I recall that in some places there were anti-prostitution efforts that focused on the *customers* rather than the *workers*, so to speak. Pictures and names in the paper and all. I dunno how well those programs fared. This usually fails. Some of the people who frequent those prostitutes have deeep pockets, and aren't in a position to be affected by public shame. There was a so-called Christian group semi-locally who were taking pictures of license plates of people parked at adult book stores (do they actually sell any books?) That usually goes on until they get sued, and of course invariably someone is caught that ends up being an embarrassment to the fundies. This all relates to amateur radio in a very basic way: The abuses mentioned by Steve and I are all the result of a mindset that focuses on "rights" to the exclusion of *responsibilites*. Many of us see proposed reductions in the standards of the ARS as a form of that mindset. Jim, that is a *major* stretch, almost as if I were to say that *any* message here is on topic, as well as any reply I make because my primary mode is PSK31, which involves typing, and all these messages are typed! 8^) You and Steve will never change each others minds about this political stuff. If nothing else, you two have brought out that neither party has a lock on fiscal responsibility, ethics, honesty, big picture thinking or any of the other qualities we (should) look for in our leaders. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Then maybe you're not Hans.
Best of luck living vicariously through other peoples activities. |
|
wrote Didja see my stuff about which states have the highest and lowest divorce rates, and how that correlates to red vs. blue? Might be because in order to get a divorce from your cousin, first ya gotta marry her? ;-) (After the divorce is she still your cousin?) 73, de Hans, K0HB |
wrote
(btw, when did the word "date" become a euphemism for "have sex with"?) In the Garden of Eden. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
wrote Consider the presidential elections since 1979... In each case, did the candidate who demonstrated the most intelligence win? I say no - not in *any* case. Oh, I think Hillary Clinton was a lot smarter than Elizabeth Dole, and besides her husband didn't need Viagra after the election. ;-) 73, de Hans, K0HB |
In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes: a lot of guru-type expostulation and exhortation on economics and socio-political behavior omitted... This all relates to amateur radio in a very basic way: Unfortunately, it does NOT. All it points out is that you are using this newsgroup as a general chat room to talk about ANY subject instead of focussing on amateur radio policy. The abuses mentioned by Steve and I are all the result of a mindset that focuses on "rights" to the exclusion of *responsibilites*. Many of us see proposed reductions in the standards of the ARS as a form of that mindset. Many of "you" want to enforce your personal desires on everyone else and think "you" are some kind of Keepers of a Covenant (of some imagined god-inspired "service"). All because you met some test requirements long ago, established by other Keepers of an even older Covenant and are firm Believers in the Church of St. Hiram. As usual, you olde-tymers are caught in the territorial imperative emotionalism of a personal activity and want to enforce your personal mindsets on all others. Not a good thing since the FCC is not chartered by law to be a reflection on "your" personal desires nor in the maintenance of a living museum of amateur radio antiquity. Insofar as radio regulations go, the "ARS" does not stand for Archaic Radiotelegrphy Service. Removal of the morse test does NOT "dumb anything down" but rather makes the amateur hobby more open, freeing it from all the tight confines of an imagined "amateur profession" with all the rigid, inflexible standards and practices that date back to seven decades ago. "You" don't own anything but your own radio equipment in amateur radio. "You" do not have any "power" to prevent non-amateurs from communicating with their government on federal laws and regulations. "You" olde-tymers have no claim over others on "rights" or anything else. Try to conduct yourself appropriately when faced with reality. |
Dave Heil wrote: N2EY wrote: In article t, "K=D8HB" writes: "Mike Coslo" wrote Then they can engage in whatever wild passionate sex they see fit to, as long as it's legal. What sort of sex should not be legal (presuming employed non-asthmatic consenting adults in the privacy of their own Studebaker)? Pretty much anything, I would think. Oh wait, I think my answer was kind of ambiguous there. I say there are very few if any sex-related things that responsible consenting adults want to do that should not be legal. (note the word "responsible"...) However, I can well understand the outrage of those who have to pay and pay for the consequences of others' irresponsible behavior. Do you have some insider knowledge of irresponsible behavior on the part of sexually active asthma sufferers? Nope! 73 de Jim, N2EY "=2E...not that there's anything wrong with that...." |
K=D8HB wrote: wrote (btw, when did the word "date" become a euphemism for "have sex with"?) In the Garden of Eden. Really? In these parts, "date" used to mean "go out with, having a certain ulterior romantic motive as the hoped-for outcome". It did not mean any sort of committed relationship, nor necessarily anything happening in the Studebaker. But somewhere in there the meaning got changed..... -- Of course that may be a local thing. There are many local Phillyisms and even Delco (Delaware County) isms not well known outside this area. For example, there's "skootch" which can be both a verb and a noun. Also "smack", (as in "don't be a smack"). It refers not to an illegal drug but to an annoying and immature person. "Prune" means a date without the ulterior motive. Platonic, IOW. "Downashore" refers to the Southern New Jersey coastal area. Then there are "shoebies" and "two streeters". And of course sending people to 14th Street. 73 de Jim, N2EY "YO ADRIENNE!" (Adrian is a male name, Adrienne is female). |
K=D8HB wrote: wrote Consider the presidential elections since 1979... In each case, did the candidate who demonstrated the most intelligence win? I say no - not in *any* case. Oh, I think Hillary Clinton was a lot smarter than Elizabeth Dole, and besides her husband didn't need Viagra after the election. ;-) Were they candidates? (I guess they thought they were!) I don't think Hillary was the smarter one. See below. Of course you know the joke that ends with Hillary asking "why are you sitting in my chair?" -- This part's for Steve: While we may suspect that the less-intelligent candidate has won in every presidential election since 1979, Bill Clinton managed to *prove* it for us in his case. Even after other presidential hopefuls like Gary Hart had their careers ruined by fooling around on the job, ol' Slick Willy (SW) thought he could do it and get away with it. As if Watergate, Wilbur Mills, Fannie Fox and all the other examples had never happened, and he'd never get caught. The funny thing is that even after the Gennifer Flowers incident, Hillary *believed* him. Now she may have gone to good schools and had a law career and all that, but if she can't tell that SW was playing the same hootchy-kootchy game again, she sure ain't the brightest bulb in the box. You watch - Hillary will try for the presidency in 2008, and unless she's stopped early on, will ruin any chances for the Dems. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
bb wrote:
Then maybe you're not Hans. Best of luck living vicariously through other peoples activities. Great going, "bb". Your few words, posted to r.r.a.p., had no intended recipient mentioned. It'd be hard to live vicariously or otherwise through your posts. You simply don't provide enough information, though of late you've been throwing in plenty of """. Dave K8MN |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:30 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com