Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas Hanse 400 delivery

For the most part it was an uneventful trip. I'll post some
links to pictures/video's when I get some more time.

Part I was Mystic to Bermuda. I was one of a crew
of four, # 2 on the boat. The last two were students
--out on the ocean for the first time. We left late on
10 November and arrived on the 14th. 650 miles in
~ 4.5 days

Part II was Bermuda to St Thomas. I was the skipper
with a crew of two more. We left at 3:30pm on the 16th
and arrived at 3:30 on the 21st of November. 870 miles in
just over 5 days.


Part I:

The departure was delayed several times due to weather
and last minute boat issues. The second time we
managed to get out, and were ready to sail off, but
could not get down to the swing bridge in time. A 12
hour delay would mean beating into a gale as we
approached Bermuda. We opted to wait two days for
a weather window. Even this looked like we would catch
some big wind, but as it turned out we didn't, just the
remnants of the previous low's swell. Winds were mostly
from the North and pretty cold. I wasn't planning on using
a sleeping bag but decided to use one as me feet got a
bit cold. One of the two students brought "toasty toes"
- chemical warming packs. I put one in each of my two
Ugg boots. [For footwear I bought my Uggs and my Crocs.]
I slept in my cloths for the first two days and started
shedding cloths when we hit the Gulf Stream.

The waters seemed relatively flat so I didn't take any
sea-sickness medicine. I would probably have been
fine, but overconfident I had half a sandwich and two
cups of soup. The soup came up later on and I was
fine after that on the second day, and felt progressively
better as time went on. One of the students got sick
but didn't want to admit it. I don't have a problem
talking about it.

Both students were outstanding on the boat, willing
and active. I hung back and let them do many of the
chores as they so obviously enjoyed it. They reefed,
trimmed up the boat with wind changes and did and
all around excellent job. One fellow was Polish. He
was sharp as a razor, active and intelligent. Clearly
and experienced sailor. The other was an American
that I'd raced with in the St Thomas Invitational Regatta.
He was perhaps a bit more tentative, but very capable
and natural on deck. I'd welcome either one on a future
trip.

I set up a 1 hour watch schedule thinking we might need
it going through the Gulf Stream, but we could hardly tell
we were in the Gulf Stream aside from the dolphins and
water temperature which read 81 in the Gulf Stream. The
idea was we could double up and hang out with our relief
watch. I did it anyway as the sky was remarkably clear
with the new moon. I started counting shooting stars and
reached 51 or more by the last night of the trip. The one
hour watch schedule was actually quite nice. I liked the
fact that it was over so fast. Also, we saw quite a bit of
traffic, especially near the coast the first night out. In fact
I've never seen so much traffic. On one watch I had to
dodge two ships, sailing an S-turn to get around each.

We used the auto pilot quite a bit and it didn't seem to
need much attention. It was a Simrad unit--as were the
instruments, albeit we used a portable Garmin GPS for
navigation. Otto--the auto-pilot was tireless and quite
nice when I was feeling a bit sea sick, although I hand
steered a bit to help get over the initial seasickness I had.
The Hanse's helm was so well balanced that the pilot needed
relatively little power to operate. I later ran the unit on leg 2
for two days straight and the batteries could have easily
handled much more. We also ran the dc chiller non-stop.
That didn't seem to keep the ice box cold and I tossed out
a lot of food on the second leg.

I learned that Gulf Stream Meander rotate contrary to the
way I thought they rotated. That information alone is worth
the trip. This means a warm eddy formed by a meander on
the North side of the Gulf Stream rotates clockwise.

http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor...cs_rings.shtml

As we were closing on the Gulf Stream and the water
temperature jumped from the 57, up to the 70's I spotted
four dolphins and managed to get a few good videos of
them jumping around our bow. We had been motoring in
light wind to make time and I'm sure the sound of our
propulsion attracted them. They stayed with the boat
about 1/2 and hour.

We had no luck fishing on this leg. We lost one lure. I
didn't like our remaining lure much, as I prefer the pink squid
type lures. Then we lost the second lure.

On the third day, two 80+ foot yachts appeared behind us
and overhauled us during the day. A call on the radio to
one confirmed that they left the day after we did from
Newport, and were en-route to Bermuda. After that we
saw only one other ship, and no traffic at all going into
Bermuda the last night. That was unusual also. I
expected to see three or four other lights on the horizon
as it was so clear.

The Bermuda harbor approach might seem a little scary
the first time you go in, but actually it is quite easy.
While the reef is very large, it is well marked and one
steered to the east and zip you are in the St Georges
Cut before you know it. It is a wonderful harbor--with
lots of good holding, but a bit deep in spots--40-45'.
Bermuda is on top of an extinct volcano. It must have
been caused by a meteor impact because there is no
ridge on the bottom nearby. Depths change from quite
deep to soundings in a short distance. Charted depths
are ridiculously (miles) deep. Trying to estimate when
we'd hit soundings I noticed one portion going from 200
meters to 30 meters. This was quite close to the reef.
We knew we were close to running out of fuel, but tried
to motor in with fumes and ran out of fuel just outside
the harbor. An outboard motor squeeze bulb allowed
us to prime the engine and get it restarted in moments.
It is the best $4 you can spend! The next morning we
cleared in among the many mega-yachts.

Part II:

All of the harbor fuel docks were closed. We found a
fuel truck that came to our boat tied up at the quay.
After refueling our main tanks and our one depleted
backup tank, the others in the crew took off to return
to the states. I picked up our other crew and now had
to deal with an approaching front with Southerly winds
gusting to 35 knots. I decided to tie up at the Dinghy
Club so we could run some errands in town. It would
have been better to tie up closer to town. With the winds
picking up club members suggested I bring the boat
inside the seawall. I tried but couldn't fit the boat in
and had to anchor out. During the process I snagged a
stanchion and bent it badly. I used the Fortress anchor
located on the bow and immediately regretted it as the
scope was a bit short. We got caught in a down pour
and ducked inside, whereupon the rain ended.

Fortunately things calmed down and checking with the
weather service found the main front was not due until
the next day, whereupon the winds would shift to the
Northwest--my exit timing strategy. Our anchor held
nicely and I only had to pop out a couple of times to
check our anchor. It was nice to get a relatively
uninterrupted night's sleep on the boat. I crept off to
the bow when I discovered my friend Mike snores
louder than a dinosaur. He wears ear plugs so he
won't wake himself up!

Bermuda weather radio predicted winds would swing
to the Northwest. Instead the morning forecast was for
west winds changing to Northwest in the afternoon.
We hung around until mid afternoon, docking at the
Dinghy Club, and winds picked up, pinning us there
pretty well. I sent my crew off to buy a few more
items and listened to the radio some more. After
a while it lightened up slightly but the winds stayed
in the West. I decided to leave around 3pm. Checking
the engine over, I found 2/5 inches of water in the Racor
water filter. Using a small cup to collect it, and the
squeeze bulb to purge it took only a few minutes
--very cool. I test ran the engine for ten minutes
without a hiccup.

We set out and hoisted the main with a single reef. I
decided against setting the jib, and the winds were
20-25 with gust up to 35 knots. Leaving on a Friday
is supposed to be bad luck, I told myself we left the
previous Saturday. Mike immediately starting feeling
nauseous. He and I had taken Stugereon. I worked
for me, perhaps because I had my sea legs still. Mike
asked for a second one, and I decided to take a second
one. I noticed the recommended dosage was two to
start and then one every 8 hours--or was it 12 hours
(not sure). When he went below, he lasted about ten
minutes and then spent the next hour or so in the head,
being violently sick with dry heaves. I gave him water,
some cough drops, and several barf bags. I moved
over into James' bunk as I was afraid the smell of vomit
would make me sick. This was my first use of Stugereon
and I found it made my slightly sleepy. It was sort of
like Ambien in that it turns your mind off slightly from
thinking about feeling sick, so you can sleep. I was
quite impressed with it and I've tried most sea sickness
medicines. I recommend it, albeit it is not available in
the US. Pick some up in Bermuda--you can find it
there.

So James and I did alternating watches for the next
five days. Typically he'd start the night, I'd take the
graveyard hours to near dawn and turn it over to him.
Later on Mike stood a few watches, but once fell
asleep on watch--****ing off James. After that he
stood only daytime watches.

The winds calmed down and finally went northwest
14 hours after expected. Still later the winds went
east and stayed there for a long time, eventually
going more northerly.

With things calmed down, I installed a new stanchion
and move the fixed jib leads forward. This boat normally
used a self tending car, but for the trip, we had rigged a
pad-eye on the rail to more outboard sheeting. But it
was not set in the right position, so I spent some time
unscrewing Allen hex screws and moving it forward.

We hooked the loch ness monster! Whatever it was, it
ran out 50 yards of 90# line in about 1.5 seconds, and
then snapped five of the seven eyelets on the rod, before
the line snapped at the reel. We later hooked another
fish and lost the line and lure just at the leader. Mike
is a notorious fishing jinx and he proved it again this trip.

At 19 deg 50 minutes north, we crossed the Puerto Rico
Trench. James was just coming on watch, so I didn't
have to wake him. Together, we tossed in the bent
stanchion at a depth of 8032 meters--almost 5 miles
deep! I figure it took 10-12 hours for it to hit bottom.

Problems:

When the winds lightened up, we spotted a tear in the
main. We saw this in the first leg, but it had gotten
much bigger--hooking on the reefing hook when hoisted.
James and I patched this and the sail held the full hoist
the rest of the trip.

I noticed water leaking out of the aft head. Someone had
left the water pressure on. Given that I was the only one
who seemed to remember to shut it off, it must have been
me. It turned out the manual pump seal had been
displaced by the pressure. I removed it, disassembled it,
put it back together properly and reinstalled it.

The only other problem was ice box which never seemed
all the cold. It does have a lower side-opening door and I
suspect my crew opened that way too often. James did
most of the cooking and I don't think he has good ice-box
discipline.

Lessons learned:

The outboard squeeze bulb is something every boat should have.

Gulf Stream Meanders are formed by closing the loop. So the
rotation in such cases is clockwise on the north side, and
counter clockwise on the south side.

The Hanse 400. While I did not sail it upwind in heavy
weather, I found the boat handled great. One friend tells
me it does not handle well in heavy weather upwind.

The rudder is well balance and it has a mechanical linkage
so no chain and quadrant. At a certain point there is a
bit of binding which goes away if you turn it farther. I'd like
to check this out in more detail if I sail the boat again.

Once again I loved the auto pilot. It worked perfect and never
seemed stressed, except the one time I found the brake on
slightly. Aactually it just squeaked, it didn't seem labored at
all.

Storage was good. The hatches sealed well. I'm not a fan
of single line reefing, but that worked well also. The installed
Boom brake worked pretty well, but needs a few modifications
to make it perfect. It chafed along the wood strip on the
cabin top. The teak decks looked nice and offered good
traction. The transom folds open to make a nice pass through
and the wheel is not so big you cannot get around it easily.

I wish the dodger extended back farther. The boat does not
have a good layout for ocean sailing. I'd prefer settees that
convert into bunks, with pilot berths above, like the J-44.
The aft cabin was split into two sea berths with lee boards
made from wire shelving material. It worked, but not that
great. As a double hander I think it would be a great passage
maker. For more than two people it needs a different interior.
But I don't think you need more than two people with an
auto-pilot. I'd rather have some spare parts and one less
person on board.

Bart

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

Bart wrote:
Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas Hanse 400 delivery

For the most part it was an uneventful trip. I'll post some
links to pictures/video's when I get some more time.

Thanks for the report Bart, interesting and informitive as always.

BTW, what were you doing visiting Bermuda, a bit risky considering they
have universal health coverage and all.....;-)

Cheers
Marty

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

On Nov 28, 12:15 pm, Martin Baxter wrote:
Bart wrote:
Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas Hanse 400 delivery

For the most part it was an uneventful trip. I'll post some
links to pictures/video's when I get some more time.

Thanks for the report Bart, interesting and informitive as always.

BTW, what were you doing visiting Bermuda, a bit risky considering they
have universal health coverage and all.....;-)

Cheers
Marty

Jeez Marty, I didn't know they were a communist country!

Bermuda has some advantages. A nice selection of
cigars comes to mind. I liked the place, but I really haven't
spent much time there. They have an Etchells fleet there,
so they can't be all bad. I'd like to spend a week there and
really explore the place.

If it were not for a crew change, I'd generally be in favor
of by-passing Bermuda. On the other hand, it did allow
for a relatively calm passage sitting out the front that
passed through.

My buddy Peter tells me the Hanse's don't handle
big wind close hauled very well. He tells me you can't
shorten sail enough. We had a storm sail rigged and
ready to set on an inner forestay, but no tri-sail. I'd
think it would be easy enough to rig that up.

The latest news I got was that my friend Mike, who
finished straightening out the boat, and left last
--forgot to close the forward hatch. The V-berth got
soaked, and the boat took on a fair amount of water.

The local who normally checks on the boat was off
visiting and not available to check on the boat. I feel
bad that James and I rushed out of there. I offered to
stay an extra day and sort things out and the owner
dissuaded me, wanting me to get home for
Thanksgiving. My mistake was bringing along a
fellow with no ocean experience and not enough
practical experience. he was so eager and had
done fine on several island charters--I thought he
would handle it better.

While James was a pain in the ass at times, I
really liked both his cooking and his iron stomach.
He was pretty good crew, albeit his sail trim needs
some improvement. I've heard some skippers only
choose crew with strong stomach's. It is not a bad
idea to have someone that has been tested a bit.

We all had a few laughs about Mike sea sickness,
even if it was no joke for him. We saw only three
ships, a container ship, a cruise ship and a Very
Large Crude Carrier. Mike looked at the cruise
ship like he wanted to get off. Sick as he was, I bet
he would have paid anything to get on that cruise
ship!

My feeling is you have to stand your watch no
matter how sick you feel. If you fold up and don't
even try, it just gives your mind more time to feel
sorry for yourself and you just feel sicker. It is far
better to puke on your shoes a few times than to
lay in your bunk dizzy and weak.

Next time I plan to bring some Ambien. I think a
mind numbing sleep aid will prevent sea sickness.

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

In article , Martin Baxter wrote:
Bart wrote:
Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas Hanse 400 delivery

For the most part it was an uneventful trip. I'll post some
links to pictures/video's when I get some more time.

Thanks for the report Bart, interesting and informitive as always.

BTW, what were you doing visiting Bermuda, a bit risky considering they
have universal health coverage and all.....;-)

Joking aside, do you have medical insurance for places that don't have automatic coverage?

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article , Martin Baxter wrote:
Bart wrote:
Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas Hanse 400 delivery

For the most part it was an uneventful trip. I'll post some
links to pictures/video's when I get some more time.
Thanks for the report Bart, interesting and informitive as always.

BTW, what were you doing visiting Bermuda, a bit risky considering they
have universal health coverage and all.....;-)

Joking aside, do you have medical insurance for places that don't have automatic coverage


Yes, with limitations. Our health insurance is Federally mandated, but
Provincialy implimented, in my case that's OHIP (Ontario Health
Insurance Program). There are limitations though, generally OHIP won't
pay any more than what they'd pay in Canada, which works fine if you're
in most countries. It is woefully lacking if you get sick in the US;
most people take out additional private coverage if they're journying to
the US for any length of time.

Cheers
Marty

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article , Martin Baxter
wrote:
Bart wrote:
Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas Hanse 400 delivery

For the most part it was an uneventful trip. I'll post some
links to pictures/video's when I get some more time.
Thanks for the report Bart, interesting and informitive as always.

BTW, what were you doing visiting Bermuda, a bit risky considering they
have universal health coverage and all.....;-)

Joking aside, do you have medical insurance for places that don't have
automatic coverage


Yes, with limitations. Our health insurance is Federally mandated, but
Provincialy implimented, in my case that's OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance
Program). There are limitations though, generally OHIP won't pay any more
than what they'd pay in Canada, which works fine if you're in most
countries. It is woefully lacking if you get sick in the US; most people
take out additional private coverage if they're journying to the US for
any length of time.

Cheers
Marty


Don't feel bad. We don't insure sick children either.


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

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

Capt. JG wrote:

Yes, with limitations. Our health insurance is Federally mandated, but
Provincialy implimented, in my case that's OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance
Program). There are limitations though, generally OHIP won't pay any more
than what they'd pay in Canada, which works fine if you're in most
countries. It is woefully lacking if you get sick in the US; most people
take out additional private coverage if they're journying to the US for
any length of time.

Cheers
Marty


Don't feel bad. We don't insure sick children either.

The US spends more, per capita on health than any other industrialized
nation in the world, yet it manages to deliver that health care to a
lower percentage of the population than those same nations. The Infant
mortality rate is alway interesting to look at, US=6.82 per 1000 live
births, Cuba=6.45, Aruba 6.02, Canada 4.82, France 4.31, Czech Republic
3.97, Iceland 3.31........there at least 36 countries that do better
than the US.

Cheers
Marty

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

Don't feel bad. We don't insure sick children either.

Martin Baxter wrote:
The US spends more, per capita on health than any other industrialized
nation in the world, yet it manages to deliver that health care to a
lower percentage of the population than those same nations. The Infant
mortality rate is alway interesting to look at, US=6.82 per 1000 live
births, Cuba=6.45, Aruba 6.02, Canada 4.82, France 4.31, Czech Republic
3.97, Iceland 3.31........there at least 36 countries that do better
than the US.


Yep. It's rather pathetic. However, all the usual rhetoric doesn't
begin to reflect the reality.

The U.S. delivers billions of dollars of free health care to low-
income people... the problem is that much of it is "delivered" via
emergency rooms & tertiary care centers, very very inefficient. And
since it also unreimbursed, the provider has to charge everybody else
more, or go out of business (it's happening... about a dozen big-city
emergency rooms have closed their doors in the past year).

Another issue is that a large percent of U.S. health-care dollars go
to pay lawsuits and insurance against lawsuits. Our legal system makes
more money off "health care" than doctors do; and we've substituted a
winner-take-all lottery for sensible standard-of-care risk management.

And you will never, never, never, hear either of these issues (among
many other root problems) addressed by politicians (who are lawyers
themselves, remember) who want to "fix health care" for you.

Regards
Doug King

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:26:28 -0800 (PST), said:

The U.S. delivers billions of dollars of free health care to low-
income people... the problem is that much of it is "delivered" via
emergency rooms & tertiary care centers, very very inefficient. And
since it also unreimbursed, the provider has to charge everybody else
more, or go out of business (it's happening... about a dozen big-city
emergency rooms have closed their doors in the past year).

In a way that's what happens up here, we pay pretty high taxes on
everything we consume, particularly high on gasoline, tobacco and booze.
Those with any sort of decent income also get to pay a particularly
regressive form of tax called a "Health Care Surcharge", introduced by
our LIBERAL provincial government a few years ago. For a single mother
of two, earning 30k it's about 600 bucks extra on her provincial income
tax, an increase of around 30%, for someone reporting 500k, it maxs out
at 1200, a very small increase: Sound fair to you? Further to the point,
since everybody is going to get health care, it behooves the Provinces
to deliver it to the indigent in a pro-active, preventative manner.

The Feds pay for the biggest chunk of the health care bill, they
transfer billion to the provinces specifically earmarked for health care.

Another issue is that a large percent of U.S. health-care dollars go
to pay lawsuits and insurance against lawsuits. Our legal system makes
more money off "health care" than doctors do; and we've substituted a
winner-take-all lottery for sensible standard-of-care risk management.

Interestingly, the average malpractice settlement/judgment in Canada is
higher than in the US, but we have a lot less of them.


And you will never, never, never, hear either of these issues (among
many other root problems) addressed by politicians (who are lawyers
themselves, remember) who want to "fix health care" for you.

All good points all, Doug. (What's the world coming to that I'm agreeing
with you on something.)

Add to the above the fact that for the last 65 years we've been steadily
throwing more money at doctors in the form of tax benefits and employer
subsidies that remove any incentive whatever to treat a sniffle with chicken
soup rather than a visit to the doctor's office, and you've got a recipe for
financial disaster.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here Dave, very little of your
health care dollar finds it's way into the hands of doctors, about 6%.

Cheers
Marty

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:26:28 -0800 (PST), said:

The U.S. delivers billions of dollars of free health care to low-
income people... the problem is that much of it is "delivered" via
emergency rooms & tertiary care centers, very very inefficient. And
since it also unreimbursed, the provider has to charge everybody else
more, or go out of business (it's happening... about a dozen big-city
emergency rooms have closed their doors in the past year).

In a way that's what happens up here, we pay pretty high taxes on
everything we consume, particularly high on gasoline, tobacco and booze.
Those with any sort of decent income also get to pay a particularly
regressive form of tax called a "Health Care Surcharge", introduced by our
LIBERAL provincial government a few years ago. For a single mother of two,
earning 30k it's about 600 bucks extra on her provincial income tax, an
increase of around 30%, for someone reporting 500k, it maxs out at 1200,
a very small increase: Sound fair to you? Further to the point, since
everybody is going to get health care, it behooves the Provinces to
deliver it to the indigent in a pro-active, preventative manner.

The Feds pay for the biggest chunk of the health care bill, they transfer
billion to the provinces specifically earmarked for health care.

Another issue is that a large percent of U.S. health-care dollars go
to pay lawsuits and insurance against lawsuits. Our legal system makes
more money off "health care" than doctors do; and we've substituted a
winner-take-all lottery for sensible standard-of-care risk management.

Interestingly, the average malpractice settlement/judgment in Canada is
higher than in the US, but we have a lot less of them.


And you will never, never, never, hear either of these issues (among
many other root problems) addressed by politicians (who are lawyers
themselves, remember) who want to "fix health care" for you.

All good points all, Doug. (What's the world coming to that I'm agreeing
with you on something.)

Add to the above the fact that for the last 65 years we've been steadily
throwing more money at doctors in the form of tax benefits and employer
subsidies that remove any incentive whatever to treat a sniffle with
chicken
soup rather than a visit to the doctor's office, and you've got a recipe
for
financial disaster.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here Dave, very little of your
health care dollar finds it's way into the hands of doctors, about 6%.

Cheers
Marty


Dave is blaming the doctors of course!

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

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 23:08:55 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Add to the above the fact that for the last 65 years we've been
steadily
throwing more money at doctors in the form of tax benefits and employer
subsidies that remove any incentive whatever to treat a sniffle with
chicken
soup rather than a visit to the doctor's office, and you've got a
recipe
for
financial disaster.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here Dave, very little of your
health care dollar finds it's way into the hands of doctors, about 6%.

Cheers
Marty


Dave is blaming the doctors of course!

Not at all. If the politicians want to throw money at the doctors I don't
fault the doctors for saying "thank you very much" and sticking the cash
in
their pockets.

Without going into a lengthy history lesson, the point is that we have for
a
long period of time treated medical services differently from other
services
by removing all incentives for the person making the purchasing decision
to
weigh cost against benefit. When the cost to the decision maker of
acquiring
any goods or services goes to near zero, the quantity demanded is going to
go up, and the price increase. It's a classic example of unintended
consequences of the politician's mantra "I'm gonna give you something and
somebody else is gonna pay for it."


I don't think this is applicable. For one thing, you don't have much choice
if you're sick and poor. Secondly, we (as a society) pay much more if
someone doesn't have regular heathcare and has to "opt" for emergency care
only.


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

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

Capt. JG wrote:
services
by removing all incentives for the person making the purchasing decision
to
weigh cost against benefit. When the cost to the decision maker of
acquiring
any goods or services goes to near zero, the quantity demanded is going to
go up, and the price increase. It's a classic example of unintended
consequences of the politician's mantra "I'm gonna give you something and
somebody else is gonna pay for it."


I don't think this is applicable. For one thing, you don't have much choice
if you're sick and poor. Secondly, we (as a society) pay much more if
someone doesn't have regular heathcare and has to "opt" for emergency care
only.



Exactly my point, as I said a few posts ago " Further to the point,
since everybody is going to get health care, it behooves the Provinces
to deliver it to the indigent in a pro-active, preventative manner."


Cheers
Marty

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

Dave wrote:

Dave is blaming the doctors of course!

Not at all. If the politicians want to throw money at the doctors I don't
fault the doctors for saying "thank you very much" and sticking the cash in
their pockets.

I don't think the Government is throwing money at doctors at all, you're
missing the point; doctors are only getting 6% of the health care
dollar. There's huge chunks going to a bloated administrative system,
probably even vaster amounts going to the legal system and all the
people employed therein busy suing the **** out each other, this is
perhaps somewhat euphemistically called "Malpractice Insurance".

Without going into a lengthy history lesson, the point is that we have for a
long period of time treated medical services differently from other services
by removing all incentives for the person making the purchasing decision to
weigh cost against benefit. When the cost to the decision maker of acquiring
any goods or services goes to near zero, the quantity demanded is going to
go up, and the price increase. It's a classic example of unintended
consequences of the politician's mantra "I'm gonna give you something and
somebody else is gonna pay for it."

Funny, it doesn't seem to work that way in the rest of the
industrialized world; we (they} know that health care is not free and is
being paid for by our taxes. As I pointed out in a previous post, the
US already spends more per capita than the rest of the G8, you've just
got to figure out a way to spend the *SAME* amount of money and deliver
health care to everyone. It's been done by lots of other countries, so
it's possible.

Cheers
Marty

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 12:59:48 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

When the cost to the decision maker of
acquiring
any goods or services goes to near zero, the quantity demanded is going
to
go up, and the price increase. It's a classic example of unintended
consequences of the politician's mantra "I'm gonna give you something
and
somebody else is gonna pay for it."


I don't think this is applicable.

I know, Jon. You seem to be among those who insist that whatever their
favorite hobby horse is, the laws of supply and demand don't apply to a
horse of that color.


Apparently, you don't, since you chopped out the rest of the response...
here it is again:

For one thing, you don't have much choice if you're sick and poor.
Secondly, we (as a society) pay much more if someone doesn't have
regular heathcare and has to "opt" for emergency care only.

Nothing to do with supply and demand here.

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

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:08:07 -0500, Marty said:

Not at all. If the politicians want to throw money at the doctors I
don't
fault the doctors for saying "thank you very much" and sticking the cash
in
their pockets.

I don't think the Government is throwing money at doctors at all, you're
missing the point; doctors are only getting 6% of the health care
dollar. There's huge chunks going to a bloated administrative system,
probably even vaster amounts going to the legal system and all the
people employed therein busy suing the **** out each other, this is
perhaps somewhat euphemistically called "Malpractice Insurance".

You miss the point. The question is not whether the money we're throwing
at
medicine is going to the doctors, the nurses, the hospital administrators,
or any of the other cast of characters in your play. The issue rather is
that the decision to spend the money for a particular doctor's visit,
X-ray,
"procedure" or other item is being made in most instances by someone with
no
financial stake in that decision. If you stand on the corner and hand out
free candy bars, people are going to eat a lot of candy, but either you're
gonna run out of candy very quickly or you'll have to stop handing the
candy
out for free.


Potentially being dead isn't a financial stake??

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

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:19:40 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

For one thing, you don't have much choice if you're sick and poor.
Secondly, we (as a society) pay much more if someone doesn't have
regular heathcare and has to "opt" for emergency care only.

Nothing to do with supply and demand here.

I'm sure that if you thought about that for a minute even you would
recognize the absurdity of that statement.


Just like you recognize the absurdity of what you typed...

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

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:20:21 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

You miss the point. The question is not whether the money we're throwing
at
medicine is going to the doctors, the nurses, the hospital
administrators,
or any of the other cast of characters in your play. The issue rather is
that the decision to spend the money for a particular doctor's visit,
X-ray,
"procedure" or other item is being made in most instances by someone
with
no
financial stake in that decision. If you stand on the corner and hand
out
free candy bars, people are going to eat a lot of candy, but either
you're
gonna run out of candy very quickly or you'll have to stop handing the
candy
out for free.


Potentially being dead isn't a financial stake??

If I have a runny nose when I come in from the cold I should immediately
make a doctor's appointment because it might be a deadly form of
pneumonia?


Do you have health insurace?

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

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

wrote in message
...
On 6 Dec 2007 13:53:05 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:20:21 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

You miss the point. The question is not whether the money we're
throwing
at
medicine is going to the doctors, the nurses, the hospital
administrators,
or any of the other cast of characters in your play. The issue rather
is
that the decision to spend the money for a particular doctor's visit,
X-ray,
"procedure" or other item is being made in most instances by someone
with
no
financial stake in that decision. If you stand on the corner and hand
out
free candy bars, people are going to eat a lot of candy, but either
you're
gonna run out of candy very quickly or you'll have to stop handing the
candy
out for free.


Potentially being dead isn't a financial stake??

If I have a runny nose when I come in from the cold I should immediately
make a doctor's appointment because it might be a deadly form of
pneumonia?

Might be your brains leaking!




Might?

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

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 13:43:36 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

If I have a runny nose when I come in from the cold I should immediately
make a doctor's appointment because it might be a deadly form of
pneumonia?


Do you have health insurace?

No. Nor do most Americans. Like most, I have a plan for prepayment of
medical expenses, in my case through my employer. If I want to go see a
doctor about that sniffle, the cost to me individually of that particular
visit is extremely small. That's the problem with the system. A system of
insurance, as opposed to tax subsidized prepayment, would, I suggest, do a
great deal toward reducing overall costs of the system.


Ah, so you have a plan, an employer, and a living wage. Unlike people who
are poor and children, you have choices. Not much of humanitarian I take it.

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

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:08:07 -0500, Marty said:

Not at all. If the politicians want to throw money at the doctors I don't
fault the doctors for saying "thank you very much" and sticking the cash in
their pockets.
I don't think the Government is throwing money at doctors at all, you're
missing the point; doctors are only getting 6% of the health care
dollar. There's huge chunks going to a bloated administrative system,
probably even vaster amounts going to the legal system and all the
people employed therein busy suing the **** out each other, this is
perhaps somewhat euphemistically called "Malpractice Insurance".

You miss the point. The question is not whether the money we're throwing at
medicine is going to the doctors, the nurses, the hospital administrators,
or any of the other cast of characters in your play. The issue rather is
that the decision to spend the money for a particular doctor's visit, X-ray,
"procedure" or other item is being made in most instances by someone with no
financial stake in that decision. If you stand on the corner and hand out
free candy bars, people are going to eat a lot of candy, but either you're
gonna run out of candy very quickly or you'll have to stop handing the candy
out for free.


Nice snipping there Dave, your country is already spending more per
capita that any other industrialized nation on the planet, yet you are
unable to deliver decent health care to your entire populace. All you
seem to be able to say is "It can't be done, it'll cost too much, people
will line up like pigs at the trough....." Yet dozens of other nations
do supply universal health care...

Cheers
Marty

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:20:21 -0800, "Capt. JG" said:

You miss the point. The question is not whether the money we're throwing
at
medicine is going to the doctors, the nurses, the hospital administrators,
or any of the other cast of characters in your play. The issue rather is
that the decision to spend the money for a particular doctor's visit,
X-ray,
"procedure" or other item is being made in most instances by someone with
no
financial stake in that decision. If you stand on the corner and hand out
free candy bars, people are going to eat a lot of candy, but either you're
gonna run out of candy very quickly or you'll have to stop handing the
candy
out for free.

Potentially being dead isn't a financial stake??

If I have a runny nose when I come in from the cold I should immediately
make a doctor's appointment because it might be a deadly form of pneumonia?


For God's sake your being just a tad disingenuous, you can try and make
an appointment for such here, you probably won't get it, nurses and
doctors secretaries are not generally cretins. You can go to an
emergency with such a complaint, but the triage nurse is going to stick
you into the absolute lowest priority available; after you've waited
24hrs you'll probably go home and treat yourself like you should have.

Cheers
Marty

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:05:14 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Ah, so you have a plan, an employer, and a living wage. Unlike people who
are poor and children, you have choices. Not much of humanitarian I take
it.

Ah, the old "ya gotta do it for the po' folks" argument. The politicians
have found that it's hard to get votes by handing out things just to the
po'
folks. The new game is to hand things out to everybody and then explain
that
somebody else (typically "the rich") is going to pay for it. That's how we
got the infamous donut hole.


So, what you're saying is that society should do nothing for the poor...
just let them get sick, and cost the rest of us even more. Makes a lot of
sense.

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

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

wrote in message
...
On 7 Dec 2007 09:30:01 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:04:47 -0500, Marty said:

All you
seem to be able to say is "It can't be done, it'll cost too much, people
will line up like pigs at the trough....."

Marty, it would be rather pointless for me to respond as to the argument
you
imagine I'm making rather than the one I am making. You need to go back
and
read a bit more carefully.

You should have stopped at, "Marty, it would be rather pointless for
me to respond"

Up until that point you were doing great!




Well, not that great, but I see your point.

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

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 09:58:57 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Ah, the old "ya gotta do it for the po' folks" argument. The politicians
have found that it's hard to get votes by handing out things just to the
po'
folks. The new game is to hand things out to everybody and then explain
that
somebody else (typically "the rich") is going to pay for it. That's how
we
got the infamous donut hole.


So, what you're saying is that society should do nothing for the poor...
just let them get sick, and cost the rest of us even more. Makes a lot of
sense.

Nope. What I'm saying is that if you want to give handouts to the po'
folks,
call them handouts, and be forthright about the fact that the rest of us
are
gonna pay for them. Then make those handouts more affordable for the rest
of
us to pay for by reducing the incentive of those who presently pay
virtually
nothing directly for those services to reduce the amount they demand. Make
them have to pony up a bit more each time they use those resources.
Convert
the present system of prepayment into a true system of insurance. Use the
demand curve to reduce the quantity demanded. It's insane when folks
making
in the hundreds of thousands pay $20 per visit to see the doctor.


Why do you believe it isn't obvious who's paying for the supposed handouts?
We've been doing "handouts" since FDR.

I would also like to know how you reduce incentives of those who pay
"virtually" nothing if those people have little or no money to pay more? The
only way I can think of is to make it extraordinarily difficult for them to
get healthcare, and that's certainly what the Bu****s and the other
right-wing nuts have attempted. How much more do you suggest a person of
limited means should pay and to whom should he or she pay it?

Where are you getting this about folks who make 100s of 1000s paying $20 to
see a doctor? The only way this happens is if you're covered by your
companies insurance policy, a policy that I guarantee is going to limit what
is or isn't a legitimate visit. Do you really believe that someone with a
company policy is going to go to the doctor because they have the sniffles?
Companies are paying more and more for coverage for their employees. They
have an incentive to keep people healthy if they can. That they can offer
coverage that's at all affordable to regular employees is many times a
factor of the company's size and thus bargaining ability with the insurance
companies.

Seems like you're changing the argument from don't help poor people to don't
help the rich. Which is it?


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

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:51:57 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I would also like to know how you reduce incentives of those who pay
"virtually" nothing if those people have little or no money to pay more?
The
only way I can think of is to make it extraordinarily difficult for them
to
get healthcare, and that's certainly what the Bu****s and the other
right-wing nuts have attempted. How much more do you suggest a person of
limited means should pay and to whom should he or she pay it?

I think perhaps you're being willfully blind, Jon. The people I'm talking
about who pay "virtually" nothing are not the po' folks. They're people
like
me who are covered what's euphemistically called "insurance" and is
actually
a prepayment plan. Having paid their contribution every month, they can
walk
into the doctor's office and just write a check for $20 when they walk
out.
That's how my plan works, at least. It costs me a significant fixed amount
every month, but having paid, there's no incentive whatever for me not to
use the services it covers on every possible occasion.

You said "It costs me a significant fixed amount every month." So, how is
that a burdon to the rest of us? If don't pay so much upfront, your
incentive to go to the doctor with a real need would be less.


Where are you getting this about folks who make 100s of 1000s paying $20
to
see a doctor? The only way this happens is if you're covered by your
companies insurance policy, a policy that I guarantee is going to limit
what
is or isn't a legitimate visit. Do you really believe that someone with a
company policy is going to go to the doctor because they have the
sniffles?

Absolutely. And I'd be damned surprised if I got any objection from the
insurance company.

Not sure what planet you live on, but here when you go to the doctor, you
typically have to take time off to do it. The company is definitely
concerned about that, and if you keep doing it, you won't be working there
very long.

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

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:05:02 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

You said "It costs me a significant fixed amount every month." So, how is
that a burdon to the rest of us? If don't pay so much upfront, your
incentive to go to the doctor with a real need would be less.

You need to dig out a very basic economics text book and read about supply
and demand. Then you wouldn't have to ask dumb questions like that.


I think I have a bit more knowledge about this, but feel free to continue to
look foolish.

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

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:05:02 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

You said "It costs me a significant fixed amount every month." So, how is
that a burdon to the rest of us? If don't pay so much upfront, your
incentive to go to the doctor with a real need would be less.

You need to dig out a very basic economics text book and read about
supply
and demand. Then you wouldn't have to ask dumb questions like that.


I think I have a bit more knowledge about this, but feel free to continue
to look foolish.

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





Well, what I intended to say was "without" a real need. So there.

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

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:04:47 -0500, Marty said:

All you
seem to be able to say is "It can't be done, it'll cost too much, people
will line up like pigs at the trough....."

Marty, it would be rather pointless for me to respond as to the argument you
imagine I'm making rather than the one I am making. You need to go back and
read a bit more carefully.


Well done Dave, when you can't make a cogent response, walk away.

Cheers
Marty

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

Dave wrote:

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:05:14 -0800, "Capt. JG" said:


Ah, so you have a plan, an employer, and a living wage. Unlike people who
are poor and children, you have choices. Not much of humanitarian I take it.


Ah, the old "ya gotta do it for the po' folks" argument. The politicians
have found that it's hard to get votes by handing out things just to the po'
folks. The new game is to hand things out to everybody and then explain that
somebody else (typically "the rich") is going to pay for it. That's how we
got the infamous donut hole.

The old Gotta do it for the po' argument? Right on, Dave! - Let's all
work together to put down all those bleeding heart arguments. The less
we talk about the poor, the better. - And the happier we all will be.

And if the poor (and middle class) can't afford to pay $30,000 for a
hospital stay, or emergency care, or to save enough (under a tax
shielded pre-payment savings plan) to pay $$$$ for a surgical procedure
or $$$$$$ for long-term cancer treatment, etc., then that's the way the
cookie crumbles in a free enterprise society. (After all, they had the
same OPPORTUNITIES, didn't they?) Or if they don't want to loose their
job or leave their children to wait all day for free or subsidized care,
that's their choice, right? And if they become more seriously ill or
die, as Scrooge told us, perhaps they should "go ahead and do so, and
thereby REDUCE THE SURPLUS POPULATION."

- Best medical care in the world, right Dave? If you have the money,
that is, or if your employer is one of the few still offering
comprehensive coverage, or if you haven't been laid off or downsized.

Yeah, let's get over that "gotta do it fo the poor" (and middle class)
syndrome.

Jim

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:05:15 -0600, JimC said:

- Best medical care in the world, right Dave? If you have the money,
that is, or if your employer is one of the few still offering
comprehensive coverage, or if you haven't been laid off or downsized.

Yeah, let's get over that "gotta do it fo the poor" (and middle class)
syndrome.

A bit late in getting on your soap box on this one, Jim. Did you retire from
being an ambulance chaser because of difficulty in getting your papers in
before the statute of limitations ran?


Wow Dave! I'm sure that Jim will fold up in the face such a
comprehensive and cogent rebuttal; you systematically destroyed every
point of Jim's idiotic statement.

Now I can clearly see why you take such umbrage when others sink to
baseless ad hominem attacks.

Well Done!

Cheers
Marty

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:05:15 -0600, JimC said:

- Best medical care in the world, right Dave? If you have the money,
that is, or if your employer is one of the few still offering
comprehensive coverage, or if you haven't been laid off or downsized.

Yeah, let's get over that "gotta do it fo the poor" (and middle class)
syndrome.

A bit late in getting on your soap box on this one, Jim. Did you retire
from
being an ambulance chaser because of difficulty in getting your papers in
before the statute of limitations ran?


Wow Dave! I'm sure that Jim will fold up in the face such a comprehensive
and cogent rebuttal; you systematically destroyed every point of Jim's
idiotic statement.

Now I can clearly see why you take such umbrage when others sink to
baseless ad hominem attacks.

Well Done!

Cheers
Marty


At least he's not an obstructionist!

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

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

Dave wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:05:15 -0600, JimC said:


- Best medical care in the world, right Dave? If you have the money,
that is, or if your employer is one of the few still offering
comprehensive coverage, or if you haven't been laid off or downsized.

Yeah, let's get over that "gotta do it fo the poor" (and middle class)
syndrome.


A bit late in getting on your soap box on this one, Jim. Did you retire from
being an ambulance chaser because of difficulty in getting your papers in
before the statute of limitations ran?

Better late than never Dave. Always interesting to hear the latest
version of Dickens's satirical "reduce the surplus population." - No one
admits it of course, but it's still applicable to some of the true
believer right-wingers.

Jim

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 02:31:53 GMT, JimC said:

Always interesting to hear the latest
version of Dickens's satirical "reduce the surplus population." -No one
admits it of course, but it's still applicable to some of the true
believer right-wingers.

Malthus is passe these days, Jim. Today Dickens would be lampooning those
who insist on eliminating the carbon footprint of folks like algore..


So, you believe we should increase the carbon footprint? Is that good for
the economy?

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

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

JimC wrote:


Dave wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:05:15 -0600, JimC said:


- Best medical care in the world, right Dave? If you have the money,
that is, or if your employer is one of the few still offering
comprehensive coverage, or if you haven't been laid off or downsized.

Yeah, let's get over that "gotta do it fo the poor" (and middle
class) syndrome.


A bit late in getting on your soap box on this one, Jim. Did you
retire from
being an ambulance chaser because of difficulty in getting your papers in
before the statute of limitations ran?

Better late than never Dave. Always interesting to hear the latest
version of Dickens's satirical "reduce the surplus population." - No one
admits it of course, but it's still applicable to some of the true
believer right-wingers.

Sure that wasn't Swift, "A Solution to the Irish Problem", or something
like that?

Cheers
Marty

Trip Report: Mystic to St Thomas
 

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:26:36 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

Better late than never Dave. Always interesting to hear the latest
version of Dickens's satirical "reduce the surplus population." - No one
admits it of course, but it's still applicable to some of the true
believer right-wingers.
Sure that wasn't Swift, "A Solution to the Irish Problem", or something
like that?

I believe Swift's solution was to eat the children. But Jim was alluding to
one of Scrooge's throw-away lines in A Christmas Carol.


Ahh.. the penny drops, I'd forgotten the Christmas Carol line.


Cheers
Marty