Maxprop wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:55:06 -0400, katy said:


From memory didn't it say unemployment was less than 5% and that
although sloppy, the housing market was pretty much stable? And that
durable goods were doing fine?

Jon's hilarious. He's been claiming the economy is in the crapper
constantly
since at least 2002.


I can't wait until we have a (by the Democrat definition) 'recovery.' My
business is immensely prosperous now--it should be off the charts then.

Max


No..ythere will be socialized medicine and you will retire and remember
the good old days...

On 26 Mar 2007 23:07:44 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:
Is this comment similar to your remark of something like "every scientist
worth his salt agrees that global warming is an immediate threat."?

I never said anything close to this. Feel free to show me the post
where I said it was an immediate threat.

There will always be lots of people at or below the poverty level. And
there will always be little or nothing that can be done about it. Some

Sounds sort of defeatist to me. Are you cutting and running from your
responsibility? Actually, it just sounds like you don't care.

people choose not to work. Others choose to follow a lifestyle that leads
to poverty and ruin, rather than one that leads to prosperity. And still
others are simply victims of circumstance. Saying that "we have many more
people at or below the poverty line" is essentially moot. We have far more
people who are living decent lives than we did just two years ago.

There you go. Blame the poor for being poor.

Curious Jon, have you ever been in a position where you've had to
hire a lot of individuals at the entry level, but well over minumum.
It would help me to understand whether you are just blathering or
actually can comment from the experience.


Oops. They're all huge US corps, controlled by right-wing
loyalists. They must be just unpatriotic!

LOL. They all admit to a left-leaning bias. If they are really owned by
right-wingers, the employees should be fired. :-)

Disney is a left-leaning corporation? Don't they have shareholders?

In article ,
katy wrote:
Maxprop wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:55:06 -0400, katy said:


From memory didn't it say unemployment was less than 5% and that
although sloppy, the housing market was pretty much stable? And that
durable goods were doing fine?

Jon's hilarious. He's been claiming the economy is in the crapper
constantly
since at least 2002.


I can't wait until we have a (by the Democrat definition) 'recovery.' My
business is immensely prosperous now--it should be off the charts then.

Max


No..ythere will be socialized medicine and you will retire and remember
the good old days...

Not interested in socialized medicine, but what do you think should be
done about the 47 millions currently without healthcare ins and the
millions more without adequate ins?


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:
Curious Jon, have you ever been in a position where you've had to
hire a lot of individuals at the entry level, but well over minumum.
It would help me to understand whether you are just blathering or
actually can comment from the experience.

I've never hired anyone and paid them just the minimum wage. I've
hired dozens, perhaps approaching 100 in the good old days (pre-Bush
g). We always paid more. It's expensive but you tend to get better
workers. In fact, I can't think of a boss who told me to hire entry
level people and pay them at the minimum.

Much of the cost of having employees these days is the other
costs... ins, workers comp, etc.

But, yes, I'm just blathering of course.
--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

Maxprop wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...


On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:55:06 -0400, katy said:


From memory didn't it say unemployment was less than 5% and that

although sloppy, the housing market was pretty much stable? And that
durable goods were doing fine?

Jon's hilarious. He's been claiming the economy is in the crapper
constantly
since at least 2002.


I can't wait until we have a (by the Democrat definition) 'recovery.' My
business is immensely prosperous now--it should be off the charts then.

Max



No..ythere will be socialized medicine and you will retire and remember
the good old days...


Not interested in socialized medicine, but what do you think should be
done about the 47 millions currently without healthcare ins and the
millions more without adequate ins?


Contained within those numbers are the thousands upon thousands who
receive Medicaid and who also are never refused treatment at hospitals
emergency rooms...yes...there is a problem with health care in this
country...and it is not limited to just the poor...my solution? We
should get rid of health care insurance entirely and go back to paying
doctors out odf pocket...that way the industry would correct
itslef..there would always be charities, as before health insurance, to
pick up for those that cna't pay...I know the amounts that are spent on
our BCBS policy...we pay half out of pocket plus deductibles etc. There
is no way in current history that we spend that amount on "real" actual
health care...instead of paying out 9-12 K/annumto an insurance company
it couldgo into a specialized medical account..one NOT set up by
insurance companies like is currently ptacticed...the price of health
care would level out to where it is reasonable, litigation would stop
driving the prices higher and higher, doctors would no longer have to
order unnecessary tests for fear of litigation...arbitration would take
on a real and active role rather than using the jury system...

On 27 Mar 2007 09:30:47 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:
Curious Jon, have you ever been in a position where you've had to
hire a lot of individuals at the entry level, but well over minumum.
It would help me to understand whether you are just blathering or
actually can comment from the experience.

I've never hired anyone and paid them just the minimum wage. I've
hired dozens, perhaps approaching 100 in the good old days (pre-Bush
g). We always paid more. It's expensive but you tend to get better
workers. In fact, I can't think of a boss who told me to hire entry
level people and pay them at the minimum.

Much of the cost of having employees these days is the other
costs... ins, workers comp, etc.

But, yes, I'm just blathering of course.


That's what I said, entry level but well over minimum wage.

And bosses don't tell you to hire at a minimum unless the job is a
minimum wage job. If it is not you wouldn't get anyone anyway.
Because the economy is good and they don't have to work for minimum.

Those individuals are not considered "poor" as your response
indicated. Yet as one who had to try to hire people, approximately
50-100 per year over a multi-year period to staff my business, I found
your comment on the post ridiculous blathering. There are people who
choose not to work. There are people who choose not to become
educated, even with basic skills. There are people who, when hired,
refuse to be trained to do a job. There are homeless people who
choose to be homeless.

Fortunately, those people are a small percentage, but they make up the
core unemployable. They will always exist. Government can do nothing
about them, unless you are of the mindset that their "choice" should
be supported by tax dollars.

You'll have a hard time talking bad economy around here. We just
bagged a Toyota plant. 2000 new direct jobs and another 2000
supporting. Those bad ole Republicans, Senator, House Representive,
and particularly, Governer had a lot to do with it. Yeah, were ready
to throw them out and change to the Dems.

In article ,
katy wrote:
Contained within those numbers are the thousands upon thousands who
receive Medicaid and who also are never refused treatment at hospitals
emergency rooms...yes...there is a problem with health care in this

While most, but not all, are given treatment, there are fewer and
fewer hospitals equiped to deal with emergency care... care that
wouldn't have be emergencies if they had access to preventative
treatment. ER is very, very expensive, and if the person can't pay, we
pay. Since people don't have ins, they tend to wait until the
situation is dire, which complicates treatment and recovery.

country...and it is not limited to just the poor...my solution? We
should get rid of health care insurance entirely and go back to paying
doctors out odf pocket...that way the industry would correct

How do you expect people who are maybe getting minimum wage or have
3/4 kids to pay out of pocket? It might "correct" itself, but between
now and then, many people would die as a result.

itslef..there would always be charities, as before health insurance, to
pick up for those that cna't pay...I know the amounts that are spent on
our BCBS policy...we pay half out of pocket plus deductibles etc. There
is no way in current history that we spend that amount on "real" actual
health care...instead of paying out 9-12 K/annumto an insurance company
it couldgo into a specialized medical account..one NOT set up by
insurance companies like is currently ptacticed...the price of health
care would level out to where it is reasonable, litigation would stop
driving the prices higher and higher, doctors would no longer have to
order unnecessary tests for fear of litigation...arbitration would take
on a real and active role rather than using the jury system...

We need some sort of single-payer option for people... not mandatory,
but available.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:

On 27 Mar 2007 09:30:47 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

I've never hired anyone and paid them just the minimum wage. I've
hired dozens, perhaps approaching 100 in the good old days (pre-Bush
g). We always paid more. It's expensive but you tend to get better
workers. In fact, I can't think of a boss who told me to hire entry
level people and pay them at the minimum.

Much of the cost of having employees these days is the other
costs... ins, workers comp, etc.

But, yes, I'm just blathering of course.


That's what I said, entry level but well over minimum wage.

I've hired lots of people who were both entry level and who would
otherwise be paid minimum wage. We never did the latter.

And bosses don't tell you to hire at a minimum unless the job is a
minimum wage job. If it is not you wouldn't get anyone anyway.
Because the economy is good and they don't have to work for minimum.

Yes, they do. Bosses tell you the pay range. Lots of places say pay
the minimum. I've never worked nor would I work for such a company.

Those individuals are not considered "poor" as your response
indicated. Yet as one who had to try to hire people, approximately
50-100 per year over a multi-year period to staff my business, I found
your comment on the post ridiculous blathering. There are people who
choose not to work. There are people who choose not to become
educated, even with basic skills. There are people who, when hired,
refuse to be trained to do a job. There are homeless people who
choose to be homeless.

Sorry, but a lot of them are considered poor. Paying more than the
minimum required doesn't ensure they're above the poverty line.

Why should I care whether or not you like my comment. Sure, there are
people who choose not to work or refuse to be trained or whatver, but
most people want to work. That argument is as old as the hills but
continues to be simplistic and inaccurate.

Fortunately, those people are a small percentage, but they make up the
core unemployable. They will always exist. Government can do nothing
about them, unless you are of the mindset that their "choice" should
be supported by tax dollars.

Significant phrase... small percentage... and yes, it's better just to
support them as dead weight than to let them die. It's the right thing
to do... not everything is required to be beholdin to the bottom line.

You'll have a hard time talking bad economy around here. We just
bagged a Toyota plant. 2000 new direct jobs and another 2000
supporting. Those bad ole Republicans, Senator, House Representive,
and particularly, Governer had a lot to do with it. Yeah, were ready
to throw them out and change to the Dems.

Don't know where "around here" is, but in general, the US economy
isn't doing very well... certainly not as well as it could do.




--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

Contained within those numbers are the thousands upon thousands who
receive Medicaid and who also are never refused treatment at hospitals
emergency rooms...yes...there is a problem with health care in this


While most, but not all, are given treatment, there are fewer and
fewer hospitals equiped to deal with emergency care... care that
wouldn't have be emergencies if they had access to preventative
treatment. ER is very, very expensive, and if the person can't pay, we
pay. Since people don't have ins, they tend to wait until the
situation is dire, which complicates treatment and recovery.


Sometimes I wonder what world you live in. I worled in the ehalth care
system on and off all my life. I can tell you that the emergency room is
the most abused medical facility that exists. I don't have the actual
statistics but I can guess that 1 out of every 10 patients is an
emergency. That is one of the major reasons insurance companies will now
no longer pay for the actual ER fee if there is not a procedure done or
an admission...as far as the "we pay" part, we will pay no matter what
for that particular segment of society that can't afford it. We pay
through taxes or through chartible contributions. What does it matter
what form it takes?

country...and it is not limited to just the poor...my solution? We
should get rid of health care insurance entirely and go back to paying
doctors out odf pocket...that way the industry would correct


How do you expect people who are maybe getting minimum wage or have
3/4 kids to pay out of pocket? It might "correct" itself, but between
now and then, many people would die as a result.

The problem is not that there isn't health care, it's that people don;t
know where to go to look for it...there are all sorts of prtograms that
are underused...when I was in HR I had a list of health services that
were available at either a gratis rate or fee based on pay...clinics run
by the county and some run by local churches...yet our employees, for
the most part young black women between 20-30 with 2-3 children (paid
BTW, over $10/hr) would still go to the ER when their kids had colds.
ANd we offered excellent inexpensive HMO insurance which the majority
opted to not buy into...many of the pharmaceutical companies have need
based programs now and I know that there are physicians out there that
will do necessary surgery for those who are desperately in need and
can't pay...Some will die, you say...well, this is going to flame
you...not enough people are dying in this country..the lengths we go to
to keep people alive is ridiculous...when people have to start paying
for 350K heart surgeries at the age of 80 then maybe there will be a
wake up call...you would think the whole country believes its going to
Hell when you look at our fear of dying...Dying is the inevitable end
that is supposed to happen, sooner for some than for others...

In article ,
katy wrote:

While most, but not all, are given treatment, there are fewer and
fewer hospitals equiped to deal with emergency care... care that
wouldn't have be emergencies if they had access to preventative
treatment. ER is very, very expensive, and if the person can't pay, we
pay. Since people don't have ins, they tend to wait until the
situation is dire, which complicates treatment and recovery.

Sometimes I wonder what world you live in. I worled in the ehalth care
system on and off all my life. I can tell you that the emergency room is
the most abused medical facility that exists. I don't have the actual

I live in the real world...

Didn't I just say that in other words? It is highly abused for a
couple of reasons. Certainly, people cheat, but the vast majority of
abuse is because people can't pay for a regular doc.

statistics but I can guess that 1 out of every 10 patients is an
emergency. That is one of the major reasons insurance companies will now
no longer pay for the actual ER fee if there is not a procedure done or

Well, sure... I can't imagine them paying for a checkup, but I'm not
talking about that kind of visit. I'm talking about the heart attacks,
pneumonia cases, serious stuff, that are preventable with decent
healthcare on a regular basis.

an admission...as far as the "we pay" part, we will pay no matter what
for that particular segment of society that can't afford it. We pay
through taxes or through chartible contributions. What does it matter
what form it takes?

It matter quite a bit... we pay far more for ER care that shouldn't be necessary if those
people were covered by ins.

country...and it is not limited to just the poor...my solution? We
should get rid of health care insurance entirely and go back to paying
doctors out odf pocket...that way the industry would correct


How do you expect people who are maybe getting minimum wage or have
3/4 kids to pay out of pocket? It might "correct" itself, but between
now and then, many people would die as a result.

The problem is not that there isn't health care, it's that people don;t
know where to go to look for it...there are all sorts of prtograms that

NO. It's that people can't AFFORD IT! Costs continue to skyrocket with
no end in sight.



--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com