Death Wish?
 

On May 18, 8:11 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message

ups.com...





On May 18, 10:28 am, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message

groups.com...

On May 17, 3:03 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message

m...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message

Yeah, that's the ticket... fire or at least blame the
workers for
_negotiating_ successfully.

the ''workers'', and I use that term loosely, only do / vote
what the mob / union bosses tell them to.

SBV

So what? At this point, who's going to be harmed, according to Joe's
post...
the boss' or the workers?

--
"j" ganz -Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Jon. In case you have not noticed the Americaqn auto industry is
in deep trouble because of all the dead weight the unions strapped
them with. The American auto industry spends more money on heathcare
for RETIRED employees than they spend on steel. Just how is any
company going to make a profit when they are forking out so much? The
only way they can compete in a world market is to start over without
the dead weight.

Joe

Agreed. However, 100s of 1000s are dependent on the agreements that were
reached when the industry was healthy. You can't cut people off at the
knees, so something needs to be worked out... gee, here's a solution...
universal healthcare. Everyone is then covered and the auto industry can
recover. Sorry... I know that's pretty liberal of me. g

--
"j" ganz -Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well the union people and bean counters had billions to invest and
manage to cover the cost of heathcare ect and did a **** poor job of
it. When you retire you have the option of taking all your stock and
selling it and investing in other forms of retirement. Let's face it,
the days of 20 years with a company and a gold watch retirement party
and lifetime pensions are over. If you wan't anything for your
retirement you better leverage your career now and plan for your own
retirement.

Here is the choice (reality) for for the American auto industry.
1. Start over without all the dead weight, so we can compete on a
world market.
2. No USA auto makers.

Joe

I guess that begs the question... do we need GM if Toyota builds cars in the
US?

--
"j" ganz - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll never buy a toyata, or any other jap mobile.
Having a strong industrial base is what made our country great, you
may be happy building Japan, but Id rather support Americans.

If I had my way, I'd impose a trade tariff that would level the field
with the japs and preserve the retirements that our mfgr's bear the
burden of. 40-50% import tax. And no country would be able to sell us
more than we sell them.


Joe

Death Wish?
 

On 18 May 2007 20:10:10 -0700, Joe wrote:

On May 18, 8:11 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message

ups.com...





On May 18, 10:28 am, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message

groups.com...

On May 17, 3:03 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message

m...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message

Yeah, that's the ticket... fire or at least blame the
workers for
_negotiating_ successfully.

the ''workers'', and I use that term loosely, only do / vote
what the mob / union bosses tell them to.

SBV

So what? At this point, who's going to be harmed, according to Joe's
post...
the boss' or the workers?

--
"j" ganz -Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Jon. In case you have not noticed the Americaqn auto industry is
in deep trouble because of all the dead weight the unions strapped
them with. The American auto industry spends more money on heathcare
for RETIRED employees than they spend on steel. Just how is any
company going to make a profit when they are forking out so much? The
only way they can compete in a world market is to start over without
the dead weight.

Joe

Agreed. However, 100s of 1000s are dependent on the agreements that were
reached when the industry was healthy. You can't cut people off at the
knees, so something needs to be worked out... gee, here's a solution...
universal healthcare. Everyone is then covered and the auto industry can
recover. Sorry... I know that's pretty liberal of me. g

--
"j" ganz -Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well the union people and bean counters had billions to invest and
manage to cover the cost of heathcare ect and did a **** poor job of
it. When you retire you have the option of taking all your stock and
selling it and investing in other forms of retirement. Let's face it,
the days of 20 years with a company and a gold watch retirement party
and lifetime pensions are over. If you wan't anything for your
retirement you better leverage your career now and plan for your own
retirement.

Here is the choice (reality) for for the American auto industry.
1. Start over without all the dead weight, so we can compete on a
world market.
2. No USA auto makers.

Joe

I guess that begs the question... do we need GM if Toyota builds cars in the
US?

--
"j" ganz - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll never buy a toyata, or any other jap mobile.
Having a strong industrial base is what made our country great, you
may be happy building Japan, but Id rather support Americans.

If I had my way, I'd impose a trade tariff that would level the field
with the japs and preserve the retirements that our mfgr's bear the
burden of. 40-50% import tax. And no country would be able to sell us
more than we sell them.


Joe


And you'd end up with high priced junk that no one could afford but
would have to buy because they would not have a choice.

The U. S. Auto industry had all the opportunity in the world to
improve. They could have embraced Demming when he was trying to move
them in the right direction. They wouldn't give him the time of day,
laughed him out of the country. He went to Japan and the rest is
history. Statistical Process Control became the foundation for DOE,
lean manufacturing and all the other innovative methods the Japanese
use to make the highest quality, massed produced products in the
world. They consider him a national treasure. An American.

The playing field with the Japs is level. They build here and have to
endure the same environmental, safety, workers comp foolishness,
litigation environment, potential for labor organization, that the big
three do. Difference is they have adopted methods to do it better,
while the U. S. corporations continue to just pay their executives
higher bonuses and stock options for crappy performance, and boards of
directors go along because they are at the trough too.

As I type, Toyota is building an assembly plant twelve miles, as the
crow flies, from my house. Going to provide 4000 quality jobs. In an
area of the country where all the U. S. Corporations are sending those
"extravagant" $10/hour jobs to china (theres where you have a playing
field that is in full tilt) so they can pay $1/hr to offer you crap
at a price that makes a killing for them. Now, you drive what you
want but who do you think I will support?

Frank

Death Wish?
 

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...

I'll never buy a toyata, or any other jap mobile.
Having a strong industrial base is what made our country
great, you
may be happy building Japan, but Id rather support
Americans.

If I had my way, I'd impose a trade tariff that would
level the field
with the japs and preserve the retirements that our
mfgr's bear the
burden of. 40-50% import tax. And no country would be
able to sell us
more than we sell them.


Joe


And you'd end up with high priced junk that no one could
afford but
would have to buy because they would not have a choice.


Exactly, like Harley D in the 70s-90s.

SBV

Death Wish?
 

On May 19, 8:02 am, Frank Boettcher wrote:
On 18 May 2007 20:10:10 -0700, Joe wrote:





On May 18, 8:11 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message

roups.com...

On May 18, 10:28 am, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message

groups.com...

On May 17, 3:03 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message

m...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message

Yeah, that's the ticket... fire or at least blame the
workers for
_negotiating_ successfully.

the ''workers'', and I use that term loosely, only do / vote
what the mob / union bosses tell them to.

SBV

So what? At this point, who's going to be harmed, according to Joe's
post...
the boss' or the workers?

--
"j" ganz -Hidequotedtext -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Jon. In case you have not noticed the Americaqn auto industry is
in deep trouble because of all the dead weight the unions strapped
them with. The American auto industry spends more money on heathcare
for RETIRED employees than they spend on steel. Just how is any
company going to make a profit when they are forking out so much? The
only way they can compete in a world market is to start over without
the dead weight.

Joe

Agreed. However, 100s of 1000s are dependent on the agreements that were
reached when the industry was healthy. You can't cut people off at the
knees, so something needs to be worked out... gee, here's a solution...
universal healthcare. Everyone is then covered and the auto industry can
recover. Sorry... I know that's pretty liberal of me. g

--
"j" ganz -Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well the union people and bean counters had billions to invest and
manage to cover the cost of heathcare ect and did a **** poor job of
it. When you retire you have the option of taking all your stock and
selling it and investing in other forms of retirement. Let's face it,
the days of 20 years with a company and a gold watch retirement party
and lifetime pensions are over. If you wan't anything for your
retirement you better leverage your career now and plan for your own
retirement.

Here is the choice (reality) for for the American auto industry.
1. Start over without all the dead weight, so we can compete on a
world market.
2. No USA auto makers.

Joe

I guess that begs the question... do we need GM if Toyota builds cars in the
US?

--
"j" ganz -Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll never buy a toyata, or any other jap mobile.
Having a strong industrial base is what made our country great, you
may be happy building Japan, but Id rather support Americans.

If I had my way, I'd impose a trade tariff that would level the field
with the japs and preserve the retirements that our mfgr's bear the
burden of. 40-50% import tax. And no country would be able to sell us
more than we sell them.

Joe

And you'd end up with high priced junk that no one could afford but
would have to buy because they would not have a choice.

The U. S. Auto industry had all the opportunity in the world to
improve. They could have embraced Demming when he was trying to move
them in the right direction. They wouldn't give him the time of day,
laughed him out of the country. He went to Japan and the rest is
history. Statistical Process Control became the foundation for DOE,
lean manufacturing and all the other innovative methods the Japanese
use to make the highest quality, massed produced products in the
world. They consider him a national treasure. An American.

The playing field with the Japs is level. They build here and have to
endure the same environmental, safety, workers comp foolishness,
litigation environment, potential for labor organization, that the big
three do. Difference is they have adopted methods to do it better,
while the U. S. corporations continue to just pay their executives
higher bonuses and stock options for crappy performance, and boards of
directors go along because they are at the trough too.

As I type, Toyota is building an assembly plant twelve miles, as the
crow flies, from my house. Going to provide 4000 quality jobs. In an
area of the country where all the U. S. Corporations are sending those
"extravagant" $10/hour jobs to china (theres where you have a playing
field that is in full tilt) so they can pay $1/hr to offer you crap
at a price that makes a killing for them. Now, you drive what you
want but who do you think I will support?

Frank- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Frank American mfgs use Black belt, Kitzan, ISO, and have pretty much
adopted the same quality control standards as the Japs. But you are
correct Demming was the best. America missed out big time on taking
advantage of what he was teaching.

That's not the issue. The issue is the massive overhead from unions
ect..that the US mfg. have to lug around. GM is 10,000.00 dollars in
the hole before they even start building a car.

And if stock owners and the boards feel they need to pay top money to
attract top talent what's wrong with that? Again no one is going to
leverage your career for you now days, so you need to leverage your
own skills and manage your own retirement.

Joe

Death Wish?
 

On 19 May 2007 07:46:48 -0700, Joe wrote:

On May 19, 8:02 am, Frank Boettcher wrote:
On 18 May 2007 20:10:10 -0700, Joe wrote:





On May 18, 8:11 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message

roups.com...

On May 18, 10:28 am, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message

groups.com...

On May 17, 3:03 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message

m...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message

Yeah, that's the ticket... fire or at least blame the
workers for
_negotiating_ successfully.

the ''workers'', and I use that term loosely, only do / vote
what the mob / union bosses tell them to.

SBV

So what? At this point, who's going to be harmed, according to Joe's
post...
the boss' or the workers?

--
"j" ganz -Hidequotedtext -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Jon. In case you have not noticed the Americaqn auto industry is
in deep trouble because of all the dead weight the unions strapped
them with. The American auto industry spends more money on heathcare
for RETIRED employees than they spend on steel. Just how is any
company going to make a profit when they are forking out so much? The
only way they can compete in a world market is to start over without
the dead weight.

Joe

Agreed. However, 100s of 1000s are dependent on the agreements that were
reached when the industry was healthy. You can't cut people off at the
knees, so something needs to be worked out... gee, here's a solution...
universal healthcare. Everyone is then covered and the auto industry can
recover. Sorry... I know that's pretty liberal of me. g

--
"j" ganz -Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well the union people and bean counters had billions to invest and
manage to cover the cost of heathcare ect and did a **** poor job of
it. When you retire you have the option of taking all your stock and
selling it and investing in other forms of retirement. Let's face it,
the days of 20 years with a company and a gold watch retirement party
and lifetime pensions are over. If you wan't anything for your
retirement you better leverage your career now and plan for your own
retirement.

Here is the choice (reality) for for the American auto industry.
1. Start over without all the dead weight, so we can compete on a
world market.
2. No USA auto makers.

Joe

I guess that begs the question... do we need GM if Toyota builds cars in the
US?

--
"j" ganz -Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll never buy a toyata, or any other jap mobile.
Having a strong industrial base is what made our country great, you
may be happy building Japan, but Id rather support Americans.

If I had my way, I'd impose a trade tariff that would level the field
with the japs and preserve the retirements that our mfgr's bear the
burden of. 40-50% import tax. And no country would be able to sell us
more than we sell them.

Joe

And you'd end up with high priced junk that no one could afford but
would have to buy because they would not have a choice.

The U. S. Auto industry had all the opportunity in the world to
improve. They could have embraced Demming when he was trying to move
them in the right direction. They wouldn't give him the time of day,
laughed him out of the country. He went to Japan and the rest is
history. Statistical Process Control became the foundation for DOE,
lean manufacturing and all the other innovative methods the Japanese
use to make the highest quality, massed produced products in the
world. They consider him a national treasure. An American.

The playing field with the Japs is level. They build here and have to
endure the same environmental, safety, workers comp foolishness,
litigation environment, potential for labor organization, that the big
three do. Difference is they have adopted methods to do it better,
while the U. S. corporations continue to just pay their executives
higher bonuses and stock options for crappy performance, and boards of
directors go along because they are at the trough too.

As I type, Toyota is building an assembly plant twelve miles, as the
crow flies, from my house. Going to provide 4000 quality jobs. In an
area of the country where all the U. S. Corporations are sending those
"extravagant" $10/hour jobs to china (theres where you have a playing
field that is in full tilt) so they can pay $1/hr to offer you crap
at a price that makes a killing for them. Now, you drive what you
want but who do you think I will support?

Frank- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Frank American mfgs use Black belt, Kitzan, ISO, and have pretty much
adopted the same quality control standards as the Japs. But you are
correct Demming was the best. America missed out big time on taking
advantage of what he was teaching.

Joe, almost no one at the executive level understands Lean, Kaizan,
six sigma, SPC, DOE, GD&T. To them they are just buzz words. If you
don't understand and support at the top, it ain't going to work right.
Most U. S. Plants are still running with blue print tolerances and
feature inspection being the key driver for quality.

ISO is a joke, brings nothing to the party. You can become ISO
certified and make a terrible quality product.

That's not the issue. The issue is the massive overhead from unions
ect..that the US mfg. have to lug around. GM is 10,000.00 dollars in
the hole before they even start building a car.

I believe, no I know for sure since I've done it five times over a
fifteen year period, that two parties come to the negotiating table
to get a contract. So why did they agree to that? Complacency?
don't rock the boat for the next twelve quarters and we'll make ours
and get out? That would be my guess. So you blame the Union for
that?

And if stock owners and the boards feel they need to pay top money to
attract top talent what's wrong with that? Again no one is going to
leverage your career for you now days, so you need to leverage your
own skills and manage your own retirement.

No problem with paying for good performance, but, many are paid for
the type of performance that would get the factory floor guy fired.
Individual stockholders don't really have a say unless the
institutional buyers get fed up. And the boards of directors, who
have the power to act, is primarily a good ole boy club full of
conflicts of interest.

Ex CEO at the Corp. I worked for literally destroyed five subsidiary
companys, dropped the stock value by 50% and the board approved a
Million dollars a year for life enhanced retirement for him. And
that's very small potatoes compared to what many get for dismal
performance.

Frank

Joe

Death Wish?
 

"Joe" wrote in message
ps.com...
On May 19, 8:02 am, Frank Boettcher wrote:
On 18 May 2007 20:10:10 -0700, Joe wrote:





On May 18, 8:11 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message

roups.com...

On May 18, 10:28 am, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message

groups.com...

On May 17, 3:03 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message

m...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message

Yeah, that's the ticket... fire or at least blame the
workers for
_negotiating_ successfully.

the ''workers'', and I use that term loosely, only do /
vote
what the mob / union bosses tell them to.

SBV

So what? At this point, who's going to be harmed, according
to Joe's
post...
the boss' or the workers?

--
"j" ganz -Hidequotedtext -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Jon. In case you have not noticed the Americaqn auto
industry is
in deep trouble because of all the dead weight the unions
strapped
them with. The American auto industry spends more money on
heathcare
for RETIRED employees than they spend on steel. Just how is
any
company going to make a profit when they are forking out so
much? The
only way they can compete in a world market is to start over
without
the dead weight.

Joe

Agreed. However, 100s of 1000s are dependent on the agreements
that were
reached when the industry was healthy. You can't cut people off
at the
knees, so something needs to be worked out... gee, here's a
solution...
universal healthcare. Everyone is then covered and the auto
industry can
recover. Sorry... I know that's pretty liberal of me. g

--
"j" ganz -Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well the union people and bean counters had billions to invest
and
manage to cover the cost of heathcare ect and did a **** poor
job of
it. When you retire you have the option of taking all your stock
and
selling it and investing in other forms of retirement. Let's
face it,
the days of 20 years with a company and a gold watch retirement
party
and lifetime pensions are over. If you wan't anything for your
retirement you better leverage your career now and plan for your
own
retirement.

Here is the choice (reality) for for the American auto industry.
1. Start over without all the dead weight, so we can compete on
a
world market.
2. No USA auto makers.

Joe

I guess that begs the question... do we need GM if Toyota builds
cars in the
US?

--
"j" ganz -Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll never buy a toyata, or any other jap mobile.
Having a strong industrial base is what made our country great, you
may be happy building Japan, but Id rather support Americans.

If I had my way, I'd impose a trade tariff that would level the
field
with the japs and preserve the retirements that our mfgr's bear the
burden of. 40-50% import tax. And no country would be able to sell
us
more than we sell them.

Joe

And you'd end up with high priced junk that no one could afford but
would have to buy because they would not have a choice.

The U. S. Auto industry had all the opportunity in the world to
improve. They could have embraced Demming when he was trying to move
them in the right direction. They wouldn't give him the time of day,
laughed him out of the country. He went to Japan and the rest is
history. Statistical Process Control became the foundation for DOE,
lean manufacturing and all the other innovative methods the Japanese
use to make the highest quality, massed produced products in the
world. They consider him a national treasure. An American.

The playing field with the Japs is level. They build here and have
to
endure the same environmental, safety, workers comp foolishness,
litigation environment, potential for labor organization, that the
big
three do. Difference is they have adopted methods to do it better,
while the U. S. corporations continue to just pay their executives
higher bonuses and stock options for crappy performance, and boards
of
directors go along because they are at the trough too.

As I type, Toyota is building an assembly plant twelve miles, as the
crow flies, from my house. Going to provide 4000 quality jobs. In an
area of the country where all the U. S. Corporations are sending
those
"extravagant" $10/hour jobs to china (theres where you have a playing
field that is in full tilt) so they can pay $1/hr to offer you crap
at a price that makes a killing for them. Now, you drive what you
want but who do you think I will support?

Frank- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Frank American mfgs use Black belt, Kitzan, ISO, and have pretty much
adopted the same quality control standards as the Japs. But you are
correct Demming was the best. America missed out big time on taking
advantage of what he was teaching.

That's not the issue. The issue is the massive overhead from unions
ect..that the US mfg. have to lug around. GM is 10,000.00 dollars in
the hole before they even start building a car.

And if stock owners and the boards feel they need to pay top money to
attract top talent what's wrong with that? Again no one is going to
leverage your career for you now days, so you need to leverage your
own skills and manage your own retirement.

Joe

You are 100% correct. Because of liberals and their love of the
socialist agenda, their beloved socialist unions have destroyed the very
fabric of capitalism in the U.S. auto industry. Socialism is a Ponzi
scheme whereby sooner or later one must pay the piper. It just so
happens now IS later as far as the U.S. auto industry goes. You just
can't compete being forced to carry all that dead weight in the form of
retired workers. It ain't gonna happen. But, the handwriting is on the
wall. Even the French are finally getting a clue how bad socialism is
and how it's wrecked the economy in their country.

Wilbur Hubbard

Death Wish?
 

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 18, 8:11 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message

ups.com...





On May 18, 10:28 am, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message

groups.com...

On May 17, 3:03 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message

m...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message

Yeah, that's the ticket... fire or at least blame the
workers for
_negotiating_ successfully.

the ''workers'', and I use that term loosely, only do / vote
what the mob / union bosses tell them to.

SBV

So what? At this point, who's going to be harmed, according to
Joe's
post...
the boss' or the workers?

--
"j" ganz -Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Jon. In case you have not noticed the Americaqn auto industry is
in deep trouble because of all the dead weight the unions strapped
them with. The American auto industry spends more money on heathcare
for RETIRED employees than they spend on steel. Just how is any
company going to make a profit when they are forking out so much?
The
only way they can compete in a world market is to start over without
the dead weight.

Joe

Agreed. However, 100s of 1000s are dependent on the agreements that
were
reached when the industry was healthy. You can't cut people off at the
knees, so something needs to be worked out... gee, here's a
solution...
universal healthcare. Everyone is then covered and the auto industry
can
recover. Sorry... I know that's pretty liberal of me. g

--
"j" ganz -Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well the union people and bean counters had billions to invest and
manage to cover the cost of heathcare ect and did a **** poor job of
it. When you retire you have the option of taking all your stock and
selling it and investing in other forms of retirement. Let's face it,
the days of 20 years with a company and a gold watch retirement party
and lifetime pensions are over. If you wan't anything for your
retirement you better leverage your career now and plan for your own
retirement.

Here is the choice (reality) for for the American auto industry.
1. Start over without all the dead weight, so we can compete on a
world market.
2. No USA auto makers.

Joe

I guess that begs the question... do we need GM if Toyota builds cars in
the
US?

--
"j" ganz - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll never buy a toyata, or any other jap mobile.
Having a strong industrial base is what made our country great, you
may be happy building Japan, but Id rather support Americans.

If I had my way, I'd impose a trade tariff that would level the field
with the japs and preserve the retirements that our mfgr's bear the
burden of. 40-50% import tax. And no country would be able to sell us
more than we sell them.


Not even if they're built in the US, using US labor and parts made in the
US? Hmmm...

And, hate to tell you, but tariff don't work, except possibly in the short
term.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Death Wish?
 

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 May 2007 00:13:19 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Scotty" wrote in message
...
unions are a major contributor to the down fall of this
country.

They certainly contributed significantly to the outsourcing of
manufactured
goods to foreign countries.

Max

Since I may be the only one here who has actually run a large union
organization, negotiated contracts, and sadly, negotiated both the
decision and the effects of a closing contract, I would have to
challenge that statement. The Union in my organization had absolutely
nothing to do with the outsourcing of manufactured goods to foreign
countries, unless you call earning an average of 13.50/hour for
highly productive work, with basic benefits like health care provided
on a cost sharing basis a contributing driver.

UAW members love to quote their "meager" wages of only $22 per hour, plus or
minus. Of course they never volunteer the others aspects of their contract
package that net them somewhere in the $40 to $50 per hour range, like
health care, retirement package, disability income insurance, etc. When a
foreign concern employs workers in the $5 to $8 per hour range, it makes it
really tough for a manufacturer to stick it out with the union workers.


Corporate greed was a driver. The Union and most Unions have no
protection what so ever from outsourcing and they are like a "deer in
the headlights" where it is concerned. And that outsourcing takes
place wether there is a union or not.

It's always "greed," isn't it. Profit is a nasty word, eh? Fact is that no
one, not even you, will work for nothing. Profitability is what business is
all about, and one's shareholders generally want to see earnings on their
investments. If one's labor costs are limiting his profitability, he looks
for cheaper labor, and generally finds it offshore where unions don't exist.


Health care costs was a driver. In my many years of struggle against
cost increase, I could always offset cost of living labor increases
with productivity, impact material costs postively, lower total unit
overhead by consolidation and growth. The only costs I could never
control were health care costs. Double digit percentage increases
every year. No matter what kind of effort I put into changing TPA's,
(we were self insured) negotiating new provider networks and
prescription drug contracts, etc. When I embarked on a way to
"target" potential health risk employees (meaning potential high
dollar heart or cancer cases), not to eliminate them, but to incentify
them into a wellness program, the government stepped in and passed the
latest version of HIPPA, effectivly killing the program.

I won't dispute any of that. It's a problem faced by business and
government. And there are no easy answers. Bear in mind, however, that
third-party carriers (health insurance companies) are, and have been,
recording record profits during the past decade or so. Managed care is
really "managed profits." It's a shame that the bulk of the recent
increases in health insurance costs can be directly attributed to an
industry that in actuality has no relevance in the diagnosis and management
of disease, or wellness.

Certainly there are bad unions and possibly many of the UAW locals
qualify. My experience with the USWA could not be classified as such.
And most locals around the country are more typical of what I
experienced.

No one is foolish enough to believe that all unions are guilty of the greed
that exemplifies the UAW. But that union is a major player and constitutes
much of what is costing jobs in this country. It's a no-brainer to want to
reduce one's labor costs, especially if it can be in the 40% to 50% range,
or more.

Max

Death Wish?
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 17, 3:03 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message

. ..







"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message

Yeah, that's the ticket... fire or at least blame the
workers for
_negotiating_ successfully.

the ''workers'', and I use that term loosely, only do / vote
what the mob / union bosses tell them to.

SBV

So what? At this point, who's going to be harmed, according to Joe's
post...
the boss' or the workers?

--
"j" ganz - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Jon. In case you have not noticed the Americaqn auto industry is
in deep trouble because of all the dead weight the unions strapped
them with. The American auto industry spends more money on heathcare
for RETIRED employees than they spend on steel. Just how is any
company going to make a profit when they are forking out so much? The
only way they can compete in a world market is to start over without
the dead weight.

Joe



Agreed. However, 100s of 1000s are dependent on the agreements that were
reached when the industry was healthy. You can't cut people off at the
knees, so something needs to be worked out... gee, here's a solution...
universal healthcare. Everyone is then covered and the auto industry can
recover. Sorry... I know that's pretty liberal of me. g

Of the 10 or so UAW members that I know personally, about half intend to
retire at age 50 or younger. The others won't work beyond 55. That leaves
an average of 23 years during which those retired employees will be draining
the auto companies' profits with zero productivity.

So you propose so-called "universal health care." Since Hugo Chavez isn't
our leader, and we don't have his oil money to finance this socialist health
care agenda, someone will have to pay for it. Of course business will be
footing the bill (and probably the middle class, as usual). Hillary's plan
in the early 90s assumed that most business would be paying more in taxes to
cover "universal health care" than they were paying for covering their
employees under their current plans. Wow, that makes a lot of sense.

Max

Death Wish?
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 17, 3:03 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message

. ..







"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message

Yeah, that's the ticket... fire or at least blame the
workers for
_negotiating_ successfully.

the ''workers'', and I use that term loosely, only do / vote
what the mob / union bosses tell them to.

SBV

So what? At this point, who's going to be harmed, according to Joe's
post...
the boss' or the workers?

--
"j" ganz - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Jon. In case you have not noticed the Americaqn auto industry is
in deep trouble because of all the dead weight the unions strapped
them with. The American auto industry spends more money on heathcare
for RETIRED employees than they spend on steel. Just how is any
company going to make a profit when they are forking out so much? The
only way they can compete in a world market is to start over without
the dead weight.

Joe



Agreed. However, 100s of 1000s are dependent on the agreements that were
reached when the industry was healthy. You can't cut people off at the
knees, so something needs to be worked out... gee, here's a solution...
universal healthcare. Everyone is then covered and the auto industry can
recover. Sorry... I know that's pretty liberal of me. g

Of the 10 or so UAW members that I know personally, about half intend to
retire at age 50 or younger. The others won't work beyond 55. That
leaves an average of 23 years during which those retired employees will be
draining the auto companies' profits with zero productivity.

So you propose so-called "universal health care." Since Hugo Chavez isn't
our leader, and we don't have his oil money to finance this socialist
health care agenda, someone will have to pay for it. Of course business
will be footing the bill (and probably the middle class, as usual).
Hillary's plan in the early 90s assumed that most business would be paying
more in taxes to cover "universal health care" than they were paying for
covering their employees under their current plans. Wow, that makes a lot
of sense.

Max



We have plenty of money and creativity to find a way to insure the 47
million people. If we can't do that, we don't deserve our status at the top
of the heap.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Death Wish?
 

On Mon, 21 May 2007 04:28:33 +0000, Maxprop wrote:


So you propose so-called "universal health care." Since Hugo Chavez
isn't our leader, and we don't have his oil money to finance this
socialist health care agenda, someone will have to pay for it. Of
course business will be footing the bill (and probably the middle class,
as usual). Hillary's plan in the early 90s assumed that most business
would be paying more in taxes to cover "universal health care" than they
were paying for covering their employees under their current plans.
Wow, that makes a lot of sense.

Who do you think is financing our health care now? That's right
business. Our health care system is running upwards of 15% GDP. Other
countries with "universal health care" pay around 10% GDP, or less. It
seems to me, that 5% is quite a disadvantage in the global market place.
It's no wonder our car companies are expanding their operations in
Canada, where there is "universal health care", at the same time they are
closing plants here.

"Failing to address the health care crisis would be the worst kind of
procrastination, the kind that places our children and our grandchildren
at risk and threatens the health and global competitiveness of our
nation's economy." That wasn't Chavez speaking. That was the CEO of
General Motors.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Feb10.html

Death Wish?
 

On Mon, 21 May 2007 04:20:37 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 May 2007 00:13:19 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Scotty" wrote in message
...
unions are a major contributor to the down fall of this
country.

They certainly contributed significantly to the outsourcing of
manufactured
goods to foreign countries.

Max

Since I may be the only one here who has actually run a large union
organization, negotiated contracts, and sadly, negotiated both the
decision and the effects of a closing contract, I would have to
challenge that statement. The Union in my organization had absolutely
nothing to do with the outsourcing of manufactured goods to foreign
countries, unless you call earning an average of 13.50/hour for
highly productive work, with basic benefits like health care provided
on a cost sharing basis a contributing driver.

UAW members love to quote their "meager" wages of only $22 per hour, plus or
minus. Of course they never volunteer the others aspects of their contract
package that net them somewhere in the $40 to $50 per hour range, like
health care, retirement package, disability income insurance, etc. When a
foreign concern employs workers in the $5 to $8 per hour range, it makes it
really tough for a manufacturer to stick it out with the union workers.


Corporate greed was a driver. The Union and most Unions have no
protection what so ever from outsourcing and they are like a "deer in
the headlights" where it is concerned. And that outsourcing takes
place wether there is a union or not.

It's always "greed," isn't it. Profit is a nasty word, eh? Fact is that no
one, not even you, will work for nothing. Profitability is what business is
all about, and one's shareholders generally want to see earnings on their
investments. If one's labor costs are limiting his profitability, he looks
for cheaper labor, and generally finds it offshore where unions don't exist.

No, profit is what drives the economy. Maybe you don't fully
understand how I define the word "Corporate greed". Go to the "goose
that laid the golden egg" for understanding.

In my case my company was extraordinarily profitable. The U. S.
Operation was extraordinarily profitable. On a proforma basis 12%
return on sales, 34% return on invested capital, great cash flow, 10%
growth per year, all organic, that is all from increased business due
to new products and improved market penetration. And the most
respected product in the industry.

So the corporate whiz kids (ex consultants BTW) determined that they
could do better by consolidating companies and taking it all offshore.
Net result. Company destroyed, stock holders screwed, all those
"greedy" union guys described above out of a job (most in their late
fifties), and the chief perpetrator of debacle eased out at a cool
million bucks a year for life. Those "nasty" union guys get about
$4000 per year when they draw their pensions, and if they haven't
reached 65 and qualify for medicare, they can "buy" their insurance
for $5000 dollars per year per family member. Most have too, because,
ususually at that age someone in the family has some uninsurable
condition.

Your initial post was blanket. I disagree. For every case of Unions
being a cause there are 10 cases like I described above. You just
can't paint them all with the same brush. I'm seeing them all the
time. Union membership is down significantly, not because they think
that management is now "nice", but because they know that they can't
do anything to stop the offshore flow. The "deer in the headlights"
syndrome.

I'm not pro union, would rather manage without one, but I know when
they are getting a bad rap.

Frank


Health care costs was a driver. In my many years of struggle against
cost increase, I could always offset cost of living labor increases
with productivity, impact material costs postively, lower total unit
overhead by consolidation and growth. The only costs I could never
control were health care costs. Double digit percentage increases
every year. No matter what kind of effort I put into changing TPA's,
(we were self insured) negotiating new provider networks and
prescription drug contracts, etc. When I embarked on a way to
"target" potential health risk employees (meaning potential high
dollar heart or cancer cases), not to eliminate them, but to incentify
them into a wellness program, the government stepped in and passed the
latest version of HIPPA, effectivly killing the program.

I won't dispute any of that. It's a problem faced by business and
government. And there are no easy answers. Bear in mind, however, that
third-party carriers (health insurance companies) are, and have been,
recording record profits during the past decade or so. Managed care is
really "managed profits." It's a shame that the bulk of the recent
increases in health insurance costs can be directly attributed to an
industry that in actuality has no relevance in the diagnosis and management
of disease, or wellness.

Certainly there are bad unions and possibly many of the UAW locals
qualify. My experience with the USWA could not be classified as such.
And most locals around the country are more typical of what I
experienced.

No one is foolish enough to believe that all unions are guilty of the greed
that exemplifies the UAW. But that union is a major player and constitutes
much of what is costing jobs in this country. It's a no-brainer to want to
reduce one's labor costs, especially if it can be in the 40% to 50% range,
or more.


In most manufacturing operations, labor makes up about 7-10% of total
cost. Material is about 60% and the rest is manufacturing overhead,
Operations that have paid attention to the world have raised
productivity to that level. In our case the "strategists" went for
the spread between 13.50 plus about 30% benefit load to get that $1.00
fully loaded Chinese labor. No brainer, right? Except real costs
actually went up (rework, air freight for missed schedules, warranty
expense, purchasing overhead, and normal container freight costs) and
the reputation of the product was destroyed. Bottom line, whats left
of the company (and it was sold) is about 20% of its former self.



Max

Death Wish?
 

On Mon, 21 May 2007 04:20:37 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 May 2007 00:13:19 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Scotty" wrote in message
...
unions are a major contributor to the down fall of this
country.

They certainly contributed significantly to the outsourcing of
manufactured
goods to foreign countries.

Max

Since I may be the only one here who has actually run a large union
organization, negotiated contracts, and sadly, negotiated both the
decision and the effects of a closing contract, I would have to
challenge that statement. The Union in my organization had absolutely
nothing to do with the outsourcing of manufactured goods to foreign
countries, unless you call earning an average of 13.50/hour for
highly productive work, with basic benefits like health care provided
on a cost sharing basis a contributing driver.

UAW members love to quote their "meager" wages of only $22 per hour, plus or
minus. Of course they never volunteer the others aspects of their contract
package that net them somewhere in the $40 to $50 per hour range, like
health care, retirement package, disability income insurance, etc. When a
foreign concern employs workers in the $5 to $8 per hour range, it makes it
really tough for a manufacturer to stick it out with the union workers.


Corporate greed was a driver. The Union and most Unions have no
protection what so ever from outsourcing and they are like a "deer in
the headlights" where it is concerned. And that outsourcing takes
place wether there is a union or not.

It's always "greed," isn't it. Profit is a nasty word, eh? Fact is that no
one, not even you, will work for nothing. Profitability is what business is
all about, and one's shareholders generally want to see earnings on their
investments. If one's labor costs are limiting his profitability, he looks
for cheaper labor, and generally finds it offshore where unions don't exist.


Health care costs was a driver. In my many years of struggle against
cost increase, I could always offset cost of living labor increases
with productivity, impact material costs postively, lower total unit
overhead by consolidation and growth. The only costs I could never
control were health care costs. Double digit percentage increases
every year. No matter what kind of effort I put into changing TPA's,
(we were self insured) negotiating new provider networks and
prescription drug contracts, etc. When I embarked on a way to
"target" potential health risk employees (meaning potential high
dollar heart or cancer cases), not to eliminate them, but to incentify
them into a wellness program, the government stepped in and passed the
latest version of HIPPA, effectivly killing the program.

I won't dispute any of that. It's a problem faced by business and
government. And there are no easy answers. Bear in mind, however, that
third-party carriers (health insurance companies) are, and have been,
recording record profits during the past decade or so. Managed care is
really "managed profits." It's a shame that the bulk of the recent
increases in health insurance costs can be directly attributed to an
industry that in actuality has no relevance in the diagnosis and management
of disease, or wellness.

I missed this one on the other post. See that I said I was self
insured. I used a third party administrator who charged $11.00 per
insured family, per month. And kept that same rate for the last 5
years. So the problem I saw was not the insurance companies, I only
bought $100,000 deductible catastrophic. That rate went up once in
five years. The problem was the suppliers and providers, cause that
was all that was left.

Don't get me started (Oh, you already have:~))

Certainly there are bad unions and possibly many of the UAW locals
qualify. My experience with the USWA could not be classified as such.
And most locals around the country are more typical of what I
experienced.

No one is foolish enough to believe that all unions are guilty of the greed
that exemplifies the UAW. But that union is a major player and constitutes
much of what is costing jobs in this country. It's a no-brainer to want to
reduce one's labor costs, especially if it can be in the 40% to 50% range,
or more.

Max

Death Wish?
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 May 2007 18:11:01 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

I guess that begs the question... do we need GM if Toyota builds cars in
the
US?

Jon,

You need to look up the term "begging the question." It's increasingly not
understood and misused.


I believe I used it properly. Why do you think I didn't? (Or, am I begging
another question?)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Death Wish?
 

On May 21, 2:04 pm, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:11:38 -0700, "Capt. JG" said:

You need to look up the term "begging the question." It's increasingly not
understood and misused.

I believe I used it properly. Why do you think I didn't? (Or, am I begging
another question?)

The generally accepted meaning of "begging the question," at least until
recently, has been a logically fallacious technique of argumentation in
which the proposition to be proved is assumed (generally implicitly) in one
of the premises. Of late it has become widely misused to mean "invites the
further question." Perhaps the error has become so widespread that a
descriptivist, at least, would say it's no longer an error.

As I read your statement you were saying, not that Joe was fallaciously
assuming we need a U.S. auto industry (which I don't think he did), but that
Joe's argument invites the further question whether we need a U.S. auto
industry.

Exaclty.....;0) And we do.

Joe

Death Wish?
 

"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 21, 2:04 pm, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:11:38 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

You need to look up the term "begging the question." It's increasingly
not
understood and misused.

I believe I used it properly. Why do you think I didn't? (Or, am I
begging
another question?)

The generally accepted meaning of "begging the question," at least until
recently, has been a logically fallacious technique of argumentation in
which the proposition to be proved is assumed (generally implicitly) in
one
of the premises. Of late it has become widely misused to mean "invites
the
further question." Perhaps the error has become so widespread that a
descriptivist, at least, would say it's no longer an error.

As I read your statement you were saying, not that Joe was fallaciously
assuming we need a U.S. auto industry (which I don't think he did), but
that
Joe's argument invites the further question whether we need a U.S. auto
industry.

Exaclty.....;0) And we do.

Joe



Why?


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Death Wish?
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 17, 3:03 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message

. ..







"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message

Yeah, that's the ticket... fire or at least blame the
workers for
_negotiating_ successfully.

the ''workers'', and I use that term loosely, only do / vote
what the mob / union bosses tell them to.

SBV

So what? At this point, who's going to be harmed, according to Joe's
post...
the boss' or the workers?

--
"j" ganz - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Jon. In case you have not noticed the Americaqn auto industry is
in deep trouble because of all the dead weight the unions strapped
them with. The American auto industry spends more money on heathcare
for RETIRED employees than they spend on steel. Just how is any
company going to make a profit when they are forking out so much? The
only way they can compete in a world market is to start over without
the dead weight.

Joe



Agreed. However, 100s of 1000s are dependent on the agreements that were
reached when the industry was healthy. You can't cut people off at the
knees, so something needs to be worked out... gee, here's a solution...
universal healthcare. Everyone is then covered and the auto industry can
recover. Sorry... I know that's pretty liberal of me. g

Of the 10 or so UAW members that I know personally, about half intend to
retire at age 50 or younger. The others won't work beyond 55. That
leaves an average of 23 years during which those retired employees will
be draining the auto companies' profits with zero productivity.

So you propose so-called "universal health care." Since Hugo Chavez
isn't our leader, and we don't have his oil money to finance this
socialist health care agenda, someone will have to pay for it. Of course
business will be footing the bill (and probably the middle class, as
usual). Hillary's plan in the early 90s assumed that most business would
be paying more in taxes to cover "universal health care" than they were
paying for covering their employees under their current plans. Wow, that
makes a lot of sense.

Max



We have plenty of money and creativity to find a way to insure the 47
million people. If we can't do that, we don't deserve our status at the
top of the heap.

We could probably have insured the masses for decades with the money spent
on the Iraq war. That said, I'm still not in favor of a socialist state.
If I were, I'd move to Venezuela.

Max

Death Wish?
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 May 2007 21:27:02 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote:

We could probably have insured the masses for decades with the money spent
on the Iraq war. That said, I'm still not in favor of a socialist state.
If I were, I'd move to Venezuela.

Max


Please consider moving anyway. You'd fit in better there, and they could
probably use some cheap, ill fitting, contact lenses.

I was thinking Venezuela might be a great place for you, left-winger that
you are. Not to mention that your Whitworth tools will come in handy for
fixing your Yugo (they'll undoubtedly fit the metric and British mishmash on
those cars).

Max

Death Wish?
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:11:38 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

You need to look up the term "begging the question." It's increasingly
not
understood and misused.


I believe I used it properly. Why do you think I didn't? (Or, am I begging
another question?)

The generally accepted meaning of "begging the question," at least until
recently, has been a logically fallacious technique of argumentation in
which the proposition to be proved is assumed (generally implicitly) in
one
of the premises. Of late it has become widely misused to mean "invites the
further question." Perhaps the error has become so widespread that a
descriptivist, at least, would say it's no longer an error.

As I read your statement you were saying, not that Joe was fallaciously
assuming we need a U.S. auto industry (which I don't think he did), but
that
Joe's argument invites the further question whether we need a U.S. auto
industry.

That explanation will be way over BB's head, Dave. Can you put it in middle
school terminology for him?

Max

Death Wish?
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 17, 3:03 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message

. ..







"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message

Yeah, that's the ticket... fire or at least blame the
workers for
_negotiating_ successfully.

the ''workers'', and I use that term loosely, only do / vote
what the mob / union bosses tell them to.

SBV

So what? At this point, who's going to be harmed, according to Joe's
post...
the boss' or the workers?

--
"j" ganz - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Jon. In case you have not noticed the Americaqn auto industry is
in deep trouble because of all the dead weight the unions strapped
them with. The American auto industry spends more money on heathcare
for RETIRED employees than they spend on steel. Just how is any
company going to make a profit when they are forking out so much? The
only way they can compete in a world market is to start over without
the dead weight.

Joe



Agreed. However, 100s of 1000s are dependent on the agreements that
were reached when the industry was healthy. You can't cut people off at
the knees, so something needs to be worked out... gee, here's a
solution... universal healthcare. Everyone is then covered and the auto
industry can recover. Sorry... I know that's pretty liberal of me. g

Of the 10 or so UAW members that I know personally, about half intend to
retire at age 50 or younger. The others won't work beyond 55. That
leaves an average of 23 years during which those retired employees will
be draining the auto companies' profits with zero productivity.

So you propose so-called "universal health care." Since Hugo Chavez
isn't our leader, and we don't have his oil money to finance this
socialist health care agenda, someone will have to pay for it. Of
course business will be footing the bill (and probably the middle class,
as usual). Hillary's plan in the early 90s assumed that most business
would be paying more in taxes to cover "universal health care" than they
were paying for covering their employees under their current plans.
Wow, that makes a lot of sense.

Max



We have plenty of money and creativity to find a way to insure the 47
million people. If we can't do that, we don't deserve our status at the
top of the heap.

We could probably have insured the masses for decades with the money spent
on the Iraq war. That said, I'm still not in favor of a socialist state.
If I were, I'd move to Venezuela.

Max

I don't think there's anyone here who's in favor of that. Still, we should
be able to ensure that all are insured.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Death Wish?
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 May 2007 23:31:49 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

That said, I'm still not in favor of a socialist state.
If I were, I'd move to Venezuela.

Max

I don't think there's anyone here who's in favor of that. Still, we
should
be able to ensure that all are insured.

Many of us would not have a problem with that proposition if "insured"
meant
"insured." It's one thing to protect against unanticipated
catastrophic
costs. It's entirely another thing to prepay the costs of routine
services
that everyone will incur. Unfortunately, when most people talk about
"insuring" in the context of medical expenses, they're talking about
prepayment, and not insurance.

When are these liberals ever going to learn there's no such thing as a
free ride.
Friggin' socialists are lazy, selfish, clueless whining crybabies. I
hate their guts.


"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of
misery." -- Winston Churchill

"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own
sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to
society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to
society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for
the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good." --
Ayn Rand

"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which
debt he proposes to pay off with your money." -- G. Gordon Liddy

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may
be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons
than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may
sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those
who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do
so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C.S. Lewis

Wilbur Hubbard

Death Wish?
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 May 2007 23:31:49 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

That said, I'm still not in favor of a socialist state.
If I were, I'd move to Venezuela.

Max

I don't think there's anyone here who's in favor of that. Still, we should
be able to ensure that all are insured.

Many of us would not have a problem with that proposition if "insured"
meant
"insured." It's one thing to protect against unanticipated catastrophic
costs. It's entirely another thing to prepay the costs of routine services
that everyone will incur. Unfortunately, when most people talk about
"insuring" in the context of medical expenses, they're talking about
prepayment, and not insurance.


So, you think it's prudent to wait until there's a catastrophic situation,
rather than pay for the cost of preventative care?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Death Wish?
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 May 2007 09:59:27 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

I don't think there's anyone here who's in favor of that. Still, we
should
be able to ensure that all are insured.

Many of us would not have a problem with that proposition if "insured"
meant
"insured." It's one thing to protect against unanticipated catastrophic
costs. It's entirely another thing to prepay the costs of routine
services
that everyone will incur. Unfortunately, when most people talk about
"insuring" in the context of medical expenses, they're talking about
prepayment, and not insurance.


So, you think it's prudent to wait until there's a catastrophic situation,
rather than pay for the cost of preventative care?

I think it's a foolish policy that puts the cost to the individual of
predictable small but recurring services at next to nothing. If you stand
on
the corner handing out candy bars for free, you shouldn't be surprised to
see candy bar consumption increase beyond the optimal level.


What's a foolish policy? Preventative care or exclusively catastrophic care?


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Death Wish?
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 May 2007 12:03:47 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

So, you think it's prudent to wait until there's a catastrophic
situation,
rather than pay for the cost of preventative care?

I think it's a foolish policy that puts the cost to the individual of
predictable small but recurring services at next to nothing. If you
stand
on
the corner handing out candy bars for free, you shouldn't be surprised
to
see candy bar consumption increase beyond the optimal level.


What's a foolish policy? Preventative care or exclusively catastrophic
care?

I'm sure that if you puzzle at it a bit more you can figure out what I'm
saying.


So, you refuse to answer in a straightforward way. Got it.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Death Wish?
 

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
news:RDD4i.29850

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings.
The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery." --
Winston Churchill

This statement, along with similar ones from Ronald Reagan, are priceless.
And patently true.

Max

Death Wish?
 

Maxprop wrote:

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
news:RDD4i.29850

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings.
The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery." --
Winston Churchill

This statement, along with similar ones from Ronald Reagan, are priceless.
And patently true.

No it's not. I once defined socialism as the philosophy where we all starved
equally - except for those in charge of distribution planning.

PDW

Death Wish?
 

"PDW" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
news:RDD4i.29850

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
blessings.
The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery." --
Winston Churchill

This statement, along with similar ones from Ronald Reagan, are
priceless.
And patently true.

No it's not. I once defined socialism as the philosophy where we all
starved
equally - except for those in charge of distribution planning.

Got me there, Pete. Can't argue that.

Max

Death Wish? -Plucky Brit cripple succeeds!
 

http://www.personaleverest.com/

On 15 May 2007 06:59:54 -0700, Joe wrote:

Disabled sailor to try again after being thrown from boat

By Will Carson


HELPING HANDS: Geoff is pulled from the Solent after hitting the wave.
Picture by onEdition
A HAMPSHIRE yachtsman has spoken of his "personal heartbreak" at
having to call off his bid to become the first disabled person to sail
singlehanded round Great Britain when he was thrown from his boat.

Quadriplegic sailor Geoff Holt set sail from Hamble on the first leg
of the record-breaking 1,600-mile voyage yesterday.

But disaster struck when waves generated by the dozens of spectator
and press boats caused his 15ft trimaran to become overpowered and he
was thrown into the Solent.

To make matters worse, the 40-year-old's lifejacket didn't inflate
properly, and he lay face down in the water unable to turn himself
over.

One of his rescue team jumped the support boat and flipped Geoff onto
his back, before dragging him to safety.

Today Geoff said that he was fine and well - but his pride had been
hurt.


He said: "What started as one of the most amazing days for me ended
in personal heartbreak.

"I became a victim of our own PR interest by the world's media when
the many spectator boats caused a confused sea and with a following
stiff breeze, my boat broached across the top of one of the washes
from a nearby RIB.

"It flung the boat around, I overbalanced and found myself face down
in the Solent in front of the worlds press.

"Was anyone to blame?

"Of course not, it was just one of those things.

"This is a momentous Challenge and one we hope to restart in the next
few days.

If the challenge goes ahead, Geoff, from Shedfield, will aim to sail
about 50 miles a day on a voyage that will take around 50 days to
complete.