BoatBanter.com

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)
-   General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)
-   -   I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/114934-i-will-pay-more-federal-income-taxes-year-than-exxonmobil.html)

Bill McKee April 12th 10 06:14 AM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their
own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that was
all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is "free"
from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost me
$12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay.
The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a
year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the
insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge).
People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking about a
medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and
treatment.
The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the drug,
the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in the
hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the transaction?


They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't want
a small problem to turn into a big problem.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance cost
would pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather pay lots
more for insurance and not have to budget for a doctors checkup?



Try reading my sentence again. Do you really want to wait for that ingrown
hair to turn into gangrene?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not go to the doctor and pay the bill for that toenail. A lot cheaper
than paying some insurance company to pay the bill for you. Just like auto
insurance. A $250 deductible will cost you about $125 a year more than a
$500 deductible. Go 2-3 years without crashing the car and you are ahead of
the curve financially. A $2000 a year deductible health insurance policy
will cost you at least a $1000 less than a $200 deductible. Pay for
probably one office visit a month for the savings.



nom=de=plume April 12th 10 06:30 AM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:40:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Decrease on car insurance? Where did you pull that factoid from?



From a simple google search. It's projected to RISE to about 17% in 2010.

--

Probably because medical payments will go up that much and that is the
lions share of car insurance liability.


Rise "to 17%" of what?



Uninsured motorists.... next time, read the thread.

--
Nom=de=Plume



nom=de=plume April 12th 10 06:34 AM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:43:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Good GAWD! It's not just about "saving money." We're talking about
people's
health. Sometimes there's a correlation but not always. How would you like
to walk around with an ingrown toenail for a couple of months until it
festered to the point of amputation?


As I said above, I would take care of something that minor myself.
To start with it takes a total lack of grooming to get in ingrown
toenail in the first place. You learn about that in boot camp or any
decent first aid course..



And, for those who haven't in boot camp? I've never seen a mention of it in
any first aid class I've taken. Do they provide scalpels and topical
anesthetic.

--
Nom=de=Plume



nom=de=plume April 12th 10 06:41 AM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at
all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their
own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that was
all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is "free"
from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost me
$12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay.
The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a
year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the
insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge).
People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking about a
medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and
treatment.
The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the drug,
the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in the
hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the transaction?


They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't want
a small problem to turn into a big problem.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance cost
would pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather pay lots
more for insurance and not have to budget for a doctors checkup?



Try reading my sentence again. Do you really want to wait for that
ingrown hair to turn into gangrene?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not go to the doctor and pay the bill for that toenail. A lot cheaper
than paying some insurance company to pay the bill for you. Just like
auto insurance. A $250 deductible will cost you about $125 a year more
than a $500 deductible. Go 2-3 years without crashing the car and you are
ahead of the curve financially. A $2000 a year deductible health
insurance policy will cost you at least a $1000 less than a $200
deductible. Pay for probably one office visit a month for the savings.



That's all really fine, except when you can't pay the doctor for the
treatment. As to the rest, I agree that higher deductibles lower your rates
a bit, which is fine, if you can afford the $2000 a year or whatever. Lots
of people can't. Feel free to blame the poor if that's where you're going.

--
Nom=de=Plume



nom=de=plume April 12th 10 06:42 AM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:45:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

So now you're going to expect people to diagnose their own health
issues???
How about prostate cancer or breast cancer. All these require regular
screening


Yes people can recognize they have a problem themselves. You do breast
exams yourself don't you? Nobody ever said you shouldn't go to the
doctor when you have something that needs a better opinion. The only
question is who pays. If you were not spending $1000 a month for a
cadillac plan you could afford these occasional visits yourself.
If you pay the doctor directly it is a hell of a lot cheaper than
having the insurance company or the government brokering the
transaction.



Actually, recent studies have shown that breast exams don't detect cancer on
a regular basis. Do you do prostate exams yourself?

--
Nom=de=Plume



nom=de=plume April 12th 10 07:19 AM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 22:34:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


As I said above, I would take care of something that minor myself.
To start with it takes a total lack of grooming to get in ingrown
toenail in the first place. You learn about that in boot camp or any
decent first aid course..



And, for those who haven't in boot camp? I've never seen a mention of it
in
any first aid class I've taken. Do they provide scalpels and topical
anesthetic.


They have both at any drug store ... or feed store for that matter.
That is the last place I bought scalpel blades, a whole lot cheaper
than Walgreens. Same blades, in the same package.


Honestly, I think I'd rather have a doctor operate that you.

--
Nom=de=Plume



nom=de=plume April 12th 10 07:20 AM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 17:48:42 -0400, wrote:

A $2000 a year deductible health
insurance policy will cost you at least a $1000 less than a $200
deductible. Pay for probably one office visit a month for the savings.



That's all really fine, except when you can't pay the doctor for the
treatment. As to the rest, I agree that higher deductibles lower your
rates
a bit, which is fine, if you can afford the $2000 a year or whatever. Lots
of people can't. Feel free to blame the poor if that's where you're going.

--

If you can't afford an office visit how will you ever afford a $1000 a
month premium?



?? Where are you getting these numbers? No, don't tell me.

--
Nom=de=Plume



Gnome-del-prune[_2_] April 12th 10 03:56 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:19:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

And, for those who haven't in boot camp? I've never seen a mention of it
in
any first aid class I've taken. Do they provide scalpels and topical
anesthetic.
They have both at any drug store ... or feed store for that matter.
That is the last place I bought scalpel blades, a whole lot cheaper
than Walgreens. Same blades, in the same package.

Honestly, I think I'd rather have a doctor operate that you.


Then pay your money and stop complaining about how much it costs.


She should take her boots off at least once a week to inspect for
potential problems.

hk April 12th 10 04:11 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
On 4/12/10 10:52 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:20:09 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

If you can't afford an office visit how will you ever afford a $1000 a
month premium?



?? Where are you getting these numbers? No, don't tell me.

--


The $1000 a month is what my current bill would be if I took the low
deductible PPO from IBM.
I chose the $3000 deductible plan that they pay for (their side $2000
a year for either according to them)

BTW that is also the cap for the "exchange" in the Obama bill as I
recall.




If I understand your post here, entrée to a low-deductible PPO runs
$14,000 a year, with IBM paying $2000 towards that and the retiree
paying $12,000?



--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

hk April 12th 10 04:37 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
On 4/12/10 11:29 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:11:59 -0400,
wrote:

On 4/12/10 10:52 AM,
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:20:09 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

If you can't afford an office visit how will you ever afford a $1000 a
month premium?


?? Where are you getting these numbers? No, don't tell me.

--

The $1000 a month is what my current bill would be if I took the low
deductible PPO from IBM.
I chose the $3000 deductible plan that they pay for (their side $2000
a year for either according to them)

BTW that is also the cap for the "exchange" in the Obama bill as I
recall.




If I understand your post here, entrée to a low-deductible PPO runs
$14,000 a year, with IBM paying $2000 towards that and the retiree
paying $12,000?


The $12,000 is a fact (rounded up a bit since the real number is $960
a month).
The $2000 IBM contribution is just what we have reported to us from
the various channels.There is always a fairly active discussion over
on the ibmretiree BB at Yahoo but it is like rec boats. Politics has
taken over.



I'm not questioning the number...it's similar to what our local's health
plan costs the members. I'd have to check, but I think it runs $6.00 an
hour for each hour worked, plus, optionally, $2.00 an hour for a
"reserve" that covers the member and family when work is scarce, so the
total for that is about $1200 a month. There's no employer contribution.
The system accommodates a multi-employer system, but, of course, in hard
times, some members and families will lose coverage if they are out of
work for long periods.


--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

nom=de=plume April 12th 10 05:45 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:19:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

And, for those who haven't in boot camp? I've never seen a mention of it
in
any first aid class I've taken. Do they provide scalpels and topical
anesthetic.

They have both at any drug store ... or feed store for that matter.
That is the last place I bought scalpel blades, a whole lot cheaper
than Walgreens. Same blades, in the same package.


Honestly, I think I'd rather have a doctor operate that you.


Then pay your money and stop complaining about how much it costs.



I'm not complaining at all. Please show me where I did. I'm concerned about
my fellow human beings. Some people are, some people are not.

--
Nom=de=Plume



nom=de=plume April 12th 10 05:45 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
"Gnome-del-prune" "No- wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:19:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

And, for those who haven't in boot camp? I've never seen a mention of
it in
any first aid class I've taken. Do they provide scalpels and topical
anesthetic.
They have both at any drug store ... or feed store for that matter.
That is the last place I bought scalpel blades, a whole lot cheaper
than Walgreens. Same blades, in the same package.
Honestly, I think I'd rather have a doctor operate that you.


Then pay your money and stop complaining about how much it costs.


She should take her boots off at least once a week to inspect for
potential problems.



You should remove them from your mouth occasionally.

--
Nom=de=Plume



Bill McKee April 12th 10 06:49 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:40:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Decrease on car insurance? Where did you pull that factoid from?



From a simple google search. It's projected to RISE to about 17% in
2010.

--
Probably because medical payments will go up that much and that is the
lions share of car insurance liability.


Rise "to 17%" of what?



Uninsured motorists.... next time, read the thread.

--
Nom=de=Plume


And if an uninsured motorist will only get his medical payed, and can not
sue for damages and pain and suffering, the rates woul drop a lot more than
17%.



Bill McKee April 12th 10 06:51 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for
lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at
all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their
own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that was
all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is "free"
from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost me
$12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay.
The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a
year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the
insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge).
People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking about a
medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and
treatment.
The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the drug,
the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in the
hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the
transaction?


They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't
want a small problem to turn into a big problem.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance cost
would pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather pay lots
more for insurance and not have to budget for a doctors checkup?



Try reading my sentence again. Do you really want to wait for that
ingrown hair to turn into gangrene?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not go to the doctor and pay the bill for that toenail. A lot
cheaper than paying some insurance company to pay the bill for you. Just
like auto insurance. A $250 deductible will cost you about $125 a year
more than a $500 deductible. Go 2-3 years without crashing the car and
you are ahead of the curve financially. A $2000 a year deductible health
insurance policy will cost you at least a $1000 less than a $200
deductible. Pay for probably one office visit a month for the savings.



That's all really fine, except when you can't pay the doctor for the
treatment. As to the rest, I agree that higher deductibles lower your
rates a bit, which is fine, if you can afford the $2000 a year or
whatever. Lots of people can't. Feel free to blame the poor if that's
where you're going.

--
Nom=de=Plume


If you can save a 1000 a year in insurance costs, would not be long before
you could pay that $2k deductible, and still be putting a $1000 a year in
the bank. But since most of the poor spend all the money they get, not
necessarily wisely, they will spend the $1k and not save it.



nom=de=plume April 12th 10 09:20 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:40:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Decrease on car insurance? Where did you pull that factoid from?



From a simple google search. It's projected to RISE to about 17% in
2010.

--
Probably because medical payments will go up that much and that is the
lions share of car insurance liability.

Rise "to 17%" of what?



Uninsured motorists.... next time, read the thread.

--
Nom=de=Plume


And if an uninsured motorist will only get his medical payed, and can not
sue for damages and pain and suffering, the rates woul drop a lot more
than 17%.


So, when someone is injured through no fault of his/her own, it's ok for the
person who did it to walk away without consequences. Yeah, the rates would
drop, perhaps a bit. But, as usual, you're an idiot citing idiotic "facts"
that don't have any basis in reality.
--
Nom=de=Plume



nom=de=plume April 12th 10 09:30 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for
lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at
all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their
own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that was
all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is
"free"
from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost me
$12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay.
The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a
year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the
insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge).
People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking about
a
medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and
treatment.
The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the
drug,
the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in
the
hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the
transaction?


They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't
want a small problem to turn into a big problem.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance cost
would pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather pay
lots more for insurance and not have to budget for a doctors checkup?



Try reading my sentence again. Do you really want to wait for that
ingrown hair to turn into gangrene?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not go to the doctor and pay the bill for that toenail. A lot
cheaper than paying some insurance company to pay the bill for you.
Just like auto insurance. A $250 deductible will cost you about $125 a
year more than a $500 deductible. Go 2-3 years without crashing the car
and you are ahead of the curve financially. A $2000 a year deductible
health insurance policy will cost you at least a $1000 less than a $200
deductible. Pay for probably one office visit a month for the savings.



That's all really fine, except when you can't pay the doctor for the
treatment. As to the rest, I agree that higher deductibles lower your
rates a bit, which is fine, if you can afford the $2000 a year or
whatever. Lots of people can't. Feel free to blame the poor if that's
where you're going.

--
Nom=de=Plume


If you can save a 1000 a year in insurance costs, would not be long before
you could pay that $2k deductible, and still be putting a $1000 a year in
the bank. But since most of the poor spend all the money they get, not
necessarily wisely, they will spend the $1k and not save it.


Uh huh. And, you get to decide what's wise and unwise spending. Say, buying
clothes for their child or putting food on the table other than rice and
beans. You're such a humanitarian Mr. McGoo.

--
Nom=de=Plume



hk April 12th 10 09:32 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
On 4/12/10 4:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for
lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at
all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their
own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that was
all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is
"free"
from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost me
$12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay.
The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a
year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the
insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge).
People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking about
a
medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and
treatment.
The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the
drug,
the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in
the
hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the
transaction?


They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't
want a small problem to turn into a big problem.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance cost
would pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather pay
lots more for insurance and not have to budget for a doctors checkup?



Try reading my sentence again. Do you really want to wait for that
ingrown hair to turn into gangrene?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not go to the doctor and pay the bill for that toenail. A lot
cheaper than paying some insurance company to pay the bill for you.
Just like auto insurance. A $250 deductible will cost you about $125 a
year more than a $500 deductible. Go 2-3 years without crashing the car
and you are ahead of the curve financially. A $2000 a year deductible
health insurance policy will cost you at least a $1000 less than a $200
deductible. Pay for probably one office visit a month for the savings.



That's all really fine, except when you can't pay the doctor for the
treatment. As to the rest, I agree that higher deductibles lower your
rates a bit, which is fine, if you can afford the $2000 a year or
whatever. Lots of people can't. Feel free to blame the poor if that's
where you're going.

--
Nom=de=Plume


If you can save a 1000 a year in insurance costs, would not be long before
you could pay that $2k deductible, and still be putting a $1000 a year in
the bank. But since most of the poor spend all the money they get, not
necessarily wisely, they will spend the $1k and not save it.


Uh huh. And, you get to decide what's wise and unwise spending. Say, buying
clothes for their child or putting food on the table other than rice and
beans. You're such a humanitarian Mr. McGoo.



You patience in dealing with these right-wing assholes far exceeds mine.
:)

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

nom=de=plume April 12th 10 09:57 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
"hk" wrote in message
m...
On 4/12/10 4:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for
lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance
at
all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and
their
own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal
with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that
was
all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is
"free"
from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost
me
$12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay.
The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a
year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the
insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge).
People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking
about
a
medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and
treatment.
The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the
drug,
the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in
the
hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the
transaction?


They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't
want a small problem to turn into a big problem.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance
cost
would pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather pay
lots more for insurance and not have to budget for a doctors
checkup?



Try reading my sentence again. Do you really want to wait for that
ingrown hair to turn into gangrene?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not go to the doctor and pay the bill for that toenail. A lot
cheaper than paying some insurance company to pay the bill for you.
Just like auto insurance. A $250 deductible will cost you about $125
a
year more than a $500 deductible. Go 2-3 years without crashing the
car
and you are ahead of the curve financially. A $2000 a year deductible
health insurance policy will cost you at least a $1000 less than a
$200
deductible. Pay for probably one office visit a month for the
savings.



That's all really fine, except when you can't pay the doctor for the
treatment. As to the rest, I agree that higher deductibles lower your
rates a bit, which is fine, if you can afford the $2000 a year or
whatever. Lots of people can't. Feel free to blame the poor if that's
where you're going.

--
Nom=de=Plume


If you can save a 1000 a year in insurance costs, would not be long
before
you could pay that $2k deductible, and still be putting a $1000 a year
in
the bank. But since most of the poor spend all the money they get, not
necessarily wisely, they will spend the $1k and not save it.


Uh huh. And, you get to decide what's wise and unwise spending. Say,
buying
clothes for their child or putting food on the table other than rice and
beans. You're such a humanitarian Mr. McGoo.



You patience in dealing with these right-wing assholes far exceeds mine.
:)

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym



Women are generally superior to me except in two ways... upper-body strength
and bug killing techniques.

--
Nom=de=Plume



hk April 12th 10 10:09 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
On 4/12/10 4:57 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
m...
On 4/12/10 4:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for
lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance
at
all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and
their
own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal
with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that
was
all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is
"free"
from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost
me
$12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay.
The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a
year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the
insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge).
People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking
about
a
medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and
treatment.
The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the
drug,
the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in
the
hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the
transaction?


They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't
want a small problem to turn into a big problem.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance
cost
would pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather pay
lots more for insurance and not have to budget for a doctors
checkup?



Try reading my sentence again. Do you really want to wait for that
ingrown hair to turn into gangrene?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not go to the doctor and pay the bill for that toenail. A lot
cheaper than paying some insurance company to pay the bill for you.
Just like auto insurance. A $250 deductible will cost you about $125
a
year more than a $500 deductible. Go 2-3 years without crashing the
car
and you are ahead of the curve financially. A $2000 a year deductible
health insurance policy will cost you at least a $1000 less than a
$200
deductible. Pay for probably one office visit a month for the
savings.



That's all really fine, except when you can't pay the doctor for the
treatment. As to the rest, I agree that higher deductibles lower your
rates a bit, which is fine, if you can afford the $2000 a year or
whatever. Lots of people can't. Feel free to blame the poor if that's
where you're going.

--
Nom=de=Plume


If you can save a 1000 a year in insurance costs, would not be long
before
you could pay that $2k deductible, and still be putting a $1000 a year
in
the bank. But since most of the poor spend all the money they get, not
necessarily wisely, they will spend the $1k and not save it.

Uh huh. And, you get to decide what's wise and unwise spending. Say,
buying
clothes for their child or putting food on the table other than rice and
beans. You're such a humanitarian Mr. McGoo.



You patience in dealing with these right-wing assholes far exceeds mine.
:)

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym



Women are generally superior to me except in two ways... upper-body strength
and bug killing techniques.



Well, I'm glad we're not totally obsolete.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

Bill McKee April 12th 10 11:02 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:40:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Decrease on car insurance? Where did you pull that factoid from?



From a simple google search. It's projected to RISE to about 17% in
2010.

--
Probably because medical payments will go up that much and that is the
lions share of car insurance liability.

Rise "to 17%" of what?



Uninsured motorists.... next time, read the thread.

--
Nom=de=Plume


And if an uninsured motorist will only get his medical payed, and can not
sue for damages and pain and suffering, the rates woul drop a lot more
than 17%.


So, when someone is injured through no fault of his/her own, it's ok for
the person who did it to walk away without consequences. Yeah, the rates
would drop, perhaps a bit. But, as usual, you're an idiot citing idiotic
"facts" that don't have any basis in reality.
--
Nom=de=Plume


Yup, perfectly fair. I did require the responsible party to pay medical
bills. But the 40% of the drivers without insurance are not going to pay
anything anyway. And the other 20% with minimum insurance of about $40k
liability is not going to cover much anyway. Why should they get a big
payday for doing the samething a successful person did? Crash.



Bill McKee April 12th 10 11:04 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for
lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at
all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and
their own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal
with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that was
all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is
"free"
from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost
me
$12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay.
The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a
year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the
insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge).
People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking about
a
medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and
treatment.
The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the
drug,
the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in
the
hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the
transaction?


They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't
want a small problem to turn into a big problem.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance
cost would pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather
pay lots more for insurance and not have to budget for a doctors
checkup?



Try reading my sentence again. Do you really want to wait for that
ingrown hair to turn into gangrene?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not go to the doctor and pay the bill for that toenail. A lot
cheaper than paying some insurance company to pay the bill for you.
Just like auto insurance. A $250 deductible will cost you about $125 a
year more than a $500 deductible. Go 2-3 years without crashing the
car and you are ahead of the curve financially. A $2000 a year
deductible health insurance policy will cost you at least a $1000 less
than a $200 deductible. Pay for probably one office visit a month for
the savings.



That's all really fine, except when you can't pay the doctor for the
treatment. As to the rest, I agree that higher deductibles lower your
rates a bit, which is fine, if you can afford the $2000 a year or
whatever. Lots of people can't. Feel free to blame the poor if that's
where you're going.

--
Nom=de=Plume


If you can save a 1000 a year in insurance costs, would not be long
before you could pay that $2k deductible, and still be putting a $1000 a
year in the bank. But since most of the poor spend all the money they
get, not necessarily wisely, they will spend the $1k and not save it.


Uh huh. And, you get to decide what's wise and unwise spending. Say,
buying clothes for their child or putting food on the table other than
rice and beans. You're such a humanitarian Mr. McGoo.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Unwise spending is paying an extra $1000 a year for insurance when they are
only going to need to spend $300 of that to pay for most office visits that
are required. But you seem to have no reasoning ability.



nom=de=plume April 12th 10 11:21 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:40:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Decrease on car insurance? Where did you pull that factoid from?



From a simple google search. It's projected to RISE to about 17% in
2010.

--
Probably because medical payments will go up that much and that is
the
lions share of car insurance liability.

Rise "to 17%" of what?



Uninsured motorists.... next time, read the thread.

--
Nom=de=Plume


And if an uninsured motorist will only get his medical payed, and can
not sue for damages and pain and suffering, the rates woul drop a lot
more than 17%.


So, when someone is injured through no fault of his/her own, it's ok for
the person who did it to walk away without consequences. Yeah, the rates
would drop, perhaps a bit. But, as usual, you're an idiot citing idiotic
"facts" that don't have any basis in reality.
--
Nom=de=Plume


Yup, perfectly fair. I did require the responsible party to pay medical
bills. But the 40% of the drivers without insurance are not going to pay
anything anyway. And the other 20% with minimum insurance of about $40k
liability is not going to cover much anyway. Why should they get a big
payday for doing the samething a successful person did? Crash.


Fortunately, your draconian solution is never going to happen.

--
Nom=de=Plume



nom=de=plume April 12th 10 11:22 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:57:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Women are generally superior to me ...


Typo or are you trying to tell us something ? ;-)

BTW I do agree women usually have more patience than men if that was
where you were going



Sigh... I think faster than I type. Heh... I'm sure there will be several
people here who will claim that this is definitive proof that I'm Harry. :)

It was...

--
Nom=de=Plume



nom=de=plume April 12th 10 11:24 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for
lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance
at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and
their own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal
with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that
was
all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is
"free"
from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost
me
$12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay.
The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a
year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the
insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge).
People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking
about a
medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and
treatment.
The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the
drug,
the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in
the
hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the
transaction?


They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't
want a small problem to turn into a big problem.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance
cost would pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather
pay lots more for insurance and not have to budget for a doctors
checkup?



Try reading my sentence again. Do you really want to wait for that
ingrown hair to turn into gangrene?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not go to the doctor and pay the bill for that toenail. A lot
cheaper than paying some insurance company to pay the bill for you.
Just like auto insurance. A $250 deductible will cost you about $125
a year more than a $500 deductible. Go 2-3 years without crashing the
car and you are ahead of the curve financially. A $2000 a year
deductible health insurance policy will cost you at least a $1000 less
than a $200 deductible. Pay for probably one office visit a month for
the savings.



That's all really fine, except when you can't pay the doctor for the
treatment. As to the rest, I agree that higher deductibles lower your
rates a bit, which is fine, if you can afford the $2000 a year or
whatever. Lots of people can't. Feel free to blame the poor if that's
where you're going.

--
Nom=de=Plume


If you can save a 1000 a year in insurance costs, would not be long
before you could pay that $2k deductible, and still be putting a $1000 a
year in the bank. But since most of the poor spend all the money they
get, not necessarily wisely, they will spend the $1k and not save it.


Uh huh. And, you get to decide what's wise and unwise spending. Say,
buying clothes for their child or putting food on the table other than
rice and beans. You're such a humanitarian Mr. McGoo.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Unwise spending is paying an extra $1000 a year for insurance when they
are only going to need to spend $300 of that to pay for most office visits
that are required. But you seem to have no reasoning ability.


Unwise spending is always unwise. Unfortunately, even you are not able to
predict the future.

Keep at it though... maybe you should talk to Nancy Reagan's psychic.

--
Nom=de=Plume



Bill McKee April 13th 10 12:35 AM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:02:52 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

So, when someone is injured through no fault of his/her own, it's ok for
the person who did it to walk away without consequences. Yeah, the rates
would drop, perhaps a bit. But, as usual, you're an idiot citing idiotic
"facts" that don't have any basis in reality.
--
Nom=de=Plume


Yup, perfectly fair. I did require the responsible party to pay medical
bills. But the 40% of the drivers without insurance are not going to pay
anything anyway. And the other 20% with minimum insurance of about $40k
liability is not going to cover much anyway. Why should they get a big
payday for doing the samething a successful person did? Crash.


People without car insurance who cause damage or injury should go to
jail. It is illegal in all 50 states and DC.
They will impound the car if you are caught without insurance here.-


We are letting violent criminals out of jail because of overcrowding and
costs. Even if they impound the car, they go buy another $50 clunker. But
they can sue and get $2-3 million settlement if a person with insurance and
assets hit them. Even though they should not be on the road.



nom=de=plume April 13th 10 02:25 AM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:02:52 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

So, when someone is injured through no fault of his/her own, it's ok
for
the person who did it to walk away without consequences. Yeah, the
rates
would drop, perhaps a bit. But, as usual, you're an idiot citing
idiotic
"facts" that don't have any basis in reality.
--
Nom=de=Plume


Yup, perfectly fair. I did require the responsible party to pay medical
bills. But the 40% of the drivers without insurance are not going to
pay
anything anyway. And the other 20% with minimum insurance of about $40k
liability is not going to cover much anyway. Why should they get a big
payday for doing the samething a successful person did? Crash.


People without car insurance who cause damage or injury should go to
jail. It is illegal in all 50 states and DC.
They will impound the car if you are caught without insurance here.-


We are letting violent criminals out of jail because of overcrowding and
costs. Even if they impound the car, they go buy another $50 clunker.
But they can sue and get $2-3 million settlement if a person with
insurance and assets hit them. Even though they should not be on the
road.


I'm betting that there are either zero or close to zero cases like that.
You're just making up bs to support your crazy position.

--
Nom=de=Plume



nom=de=plume April 13th 10 02:26 AM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 16:35:46 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

People without car insurance who cause damage or injury should go to
jail. It is illegal in all 50 states and DC.
They will impound the car if you are caught without insurance here.-


We are letting violent criminals out of jail because of overcrowding and
costs. Even if they impound the car, they go buy another $50 clunker.
But
they can sue and get $2-3 million settlement if a person with insurance
and
assets hit them. Even though they should not be on the road.


What ever happened to being sentenced to "hard labor" and paying the
victim back form that meager salary? ;-)

Oh I forgot, the unions objected.
(actually a fact)



What?? Why would a union have anything to do with a personal injury suit? I
love it... "the unions" all of them?

--
Nom=de=Plume



nom=de=plume April 13th 10 07:21 AM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:26:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What ever happened to being sentenced to "hard labor" and paying the
victim back form that meager salary? ;-)

Oh I forgot, the unions objected.
(actually a fact)



What?? Why would a union have anything to do with a personal injury suit?
I
love it... "the unions" all of them?

--


No the unions are why the state can't use convict labor for much of
anything, including working to pay restitution.
I was in the belly of the beast when I was a state electrical
inspector and I saw a lot of inmate work going on but it was, by law,
all inside the wire and only for DoC.
They couldn't even work for the park system or DoT in any capacity but
the most menial labor (cutting grass, weeding or digging ditches) in
spite of the fact that lots of skilled trades were in jail, mostly for
drugs



Firstly, that's completely untrue. Convicts can volunteer for all sorts of
jobs. Most would relish the opportunity. Secondly, you state "the unions" as
though they're homogeneous which they are not. Why would you want convicts
working for DoT? I think menial labor is probably about right. Finally, I
don't agree with the drug laws.

--
Nom=de=Plume



hk April 13th 10 11:29 AM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
On 4/13/10 12:10 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:26:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What ever happened to being sentenced to "hard labor" and paying the
victim back form that meager salary? ;-)

Oh I forgot, the unions objected.
(actually a fact)



What?? Why would a union have anything to do with a personal injury suit? I
love it... "the unions" all of them?

--


No the unions are why the state can't use convict labor for much of
anything, including working to pay restitution.
I was in the belly of the beast when I was a state electrical
inspector and I saw a lot of inmate work going on but it was, by law,
all inside the wire and only for DoC.
They couldn't even work for the park system or DoT in any capacity but
the most menial labor (cutting grass, weeding or digging ditches) in
spite of the fact that lots of skilled trades were in jail, mostly for
drugs



I see. You want to displace hard-working, law-abiding citizens with
convict laborers earning what, 13 cents an hour? Welcome to the gulag.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

anon-e-moose[_2_] April 13th 10 01:53 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
hk wrote:
On 4/13/10 12:10 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:26:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What ever happened to being sentenced to "hard labor" and paying the
victim back form that meager salary? ;-)

Oh I forgot, the unions objected.
(actually a fact)



What?? Why would a union have anything to do with a personal injury
suit? I
love it... "the unions" all of them?

--


No the unions are why the state can't use convict labor for much of
anything, including working to pay restitution.
I was in the belly of the beast when I was a state electrical
inspector and I saw a lot of inmate work going on but it was, by law,
all inside the wire and only for DoC.
They couldn't even work for the park system or DoT in any capacity but
the most menial labor (cutting grass, weeding or digging ditches) in
spite of the fact that lots of skilled trades were in jail, mostly for
drugs



I see. You want to displace hard-working, law-abiding citizens with
convict laborers earning what, 13 cents an hour? Welcome to the gulag.

Oh please. You are talking about over paid union slackers here. Quit
trying to sugar coat their productivity usefullness.

hk April 13th 10 03:17 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
On 4/13/10 9:42 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 06:29:40 -0400,
wrote:

On 4/13/10 12:10 AM,
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:26:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What ever happened to being sentenced to "hard labor" and paying the
victim back form that meager salary? ;-)

Oh I forgot, the unions objected.
(actually a fact)



What?? Why would a union have anything to do with a personal injury suit? I
love it... "the unions" all of them?

--

No the unions are why the state can't use convict labor for much of
anything, including working to pay restitution.
I was in the belly of the beast when I was a state electrical
inspector and I saw a lot of inmate work going on but it was, by law,
all inside the wire and only for DoC.
They couldn't even work for the park system or DoT in any capacity but
the most menial labor (cutting grass, weeding or digging ditches) in
spite of the fact that lots of skilled trades were in jail, mostly for
drugs



I see. You want to displace hard-working, law-abiding citizens with
convict laborers earning what, 13 cents an hour? Welcome to the gulag.



They were being displaced by a park ranger making $12 an hour, doing
electrical work in areas that were open to the public. I think I would
rather have a journeyman electrician doing it who had the misfortune
of being caught with 3 joints in his sock.


I would rather have a licensed, out of jail, electrician doing
electrical work in areas open to the public, rather than a convict or a
park ranger.



--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

hk April 13th 10 04:50 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
On 4/13/10 11:42 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:17:50 -0400,
wrote:

I see. You want to displace hard-working, law-abiding citizens with
convict laborers earning what, 13 cents an hour? Welcome to the gulag.


They were being displaced by a park ranger making $12 an hour, doing
electrical work in areas that were open to the public. I think I would
rather have a journeyman electrician doing it who had the misfortune
of being caught with 3 joints in his sock.


I would rather have a licensed, out of jail, electrician doing
electrical work in areas open to the public, rather than a convict or a
park ranger.


We all would but, for some reason, nobody wants to give the parks any
money. Now that state budgets are stressed, it will only get worse.
Everyone wants to go to a nice park but they think it should be free.
Even a couple dollar user fee usually draws howls from the public and
that is chump change compared to real operational costs.



A few lawsuits in public facilities resulting from accidents involving
electrical wiring installed by non-licensed "handymen" ought to open
some eyes.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

hk April 13th 10 05:23 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
On 4/13/10 12:16 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:50:59 -0400,
wrote:

On 4/13/10 11:42 AM,
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:17:50 -0400,
wrote:

I see. You want to displace hard-working, law-abiding citizens with
convict laborers earning what, 13 cents an hour? Welcome to the gulag.


They were being displaced by a park ranger making $12 an hour, doing
electrical work in areas that were open to the public. I think I would
rather have a journeyman electrician doing it who had the misfortune
of being caught with 3 joints in his sock.

I would rather have a licensed, out of jail, electrician doing
electrical work in areas open to the public, rather than a convict or a
park ranger.

We all would but, for some reason, nobody wants to give the parks any
money. Now that state budgets are stressed, it will only get worse.
Everyone wants to go to a nice park but they think it should be free.
Even a couple dollar user fee usually draws howls from the public and
that is chump change compared to real operational costs.



A few lawsuits in public facilities resulting from accidents involving
electrical wiring installed by non-licensed "handymen" ought to open
some eyes.


sovereign immunity laws make it pretty hard to sue the state.



For gross negligence? :)


--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

nom=de=plume April 13th 10 05:44 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:21:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:26:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What ever happened to being sentenced to "hard labor" and paying the
victim back form that meager salary? ;-)

Oh I forgot, the unions objected.
(actually a fact)



What?? Why would a union have anything to do with a personal injury
suit?
I
love it... "the unions" all of them?

--

No the unions are why the state can't use convict labor for much of
anything, including working to pay restitution.
I was in the belly of the beast when I was a state electrical
inspector and I saw a lot of inmate work going on but it was, by law,
all inside the wire and only for DoC.
They couldn't even work for the park system or DoT in any capacity but
the most menial labor (cutting grass, weeding or digging ditches) in
spite of the fact that lots of skilled trades were in jail, mostly for
drugs



Firstly, that's completely untrue. Convicts can volunteer for all sorts of
jobs. Most would relish the opportunity. Secondly, you state "the unions"
as
though they're homogeneous which they are not. Why would you want convicts
working for DoT? I think menial labor is probably about right. Finally, I
don't agree with the drug laws.


Inmates don't "get to volunteer" for anything. They live under very
strict rules and they get told what to do. At least that is how it
works in most places. I can't speak for California.
It certainly is not true in Florida and I got that straight from the
DoC people and the DEP people. Inmates can't do any skilled trades
outside the wire, period. The reason cited was that it would be
competing with regular employees. It isn't even a minimum wage
question because DEP said they would be willing to pay minimum wage.
it was simply the "trade groups" (I apologize for saying union since
we are RTW here) putting pressure on the state to eliminate the
competition for state dollars.
Unfortunately that resulted in park rangers and volunteers doing
electrical work that they were not qualified to do.



Why would you want convicts displacing skilled workers "outside the wire"??
That makes no sense, esp. in this economy.

I think you're jumping to lots of conclusions. Trade groups? All trade
groups? How about regular citizens? Perhaps we should let rapists out to
work on grade schools? Come on.

Inmates are not required to work inside. Yet, they volunteer for it all the
time.

--
Nom=de=Plume



nom=de=plume April 13th 10 05:46 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
"anon-e-moose" wrote in message
...
hk wrote:
On 4/13/10 12:10 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:26:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What ever happened to being sentenced to "hard labor" and paying the
victim back form that meager salary? ;-)

Oh I forgot, the unions objected.
(actually a fact)



What?? Why would a union have anything to do with a personal injury
suit? I
love it... "the unions" all of them?

--

No the unions are why the state can't use convict labor for much of
anything, including working to pay restitution.
I was in the belly of the beast when I was a state electrical
inspector and I saw a lot of inmate work going on but it was, by law,
all inside the wire and only for DoC.
They couldn't even work for the park system or DoT in any capacity but
the most menial labor (cutting grass, weeding or digging ditches) in
spite of the fact that lots of skilled trades were in jail, mostly for
drugs



I see. You want to displace hard-working, law-abiding citizens with
convict laborers earning what, 13 cents an hour? Welcome to the gulag.

Oh please. You are talking about over paid union slackers here. Quit
trying to sugar coat their productivity usefullness.



So, the correct wages are $0.14 per hour for union workers? Who contributes
to society more/pay more taxes.. people who are in prison or people getting
$20-$35/hour?

--
Nom=de=Plume



nom=de=plume April 13th 10 05:47 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 06:29:40 -0400, hk
wrote:

On 4/13/10 12:10 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:26:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What ever happened to being sentenced to "hard labor" and paying the
victim back form that meager salary? ;-)

Oh I forgot, the unions objected.
(actually a fact)



What?? Why would a union have anything to do with a personal injury
suit? I
love it... "the unions" all of them?

--

No the unions are why the state can't use convict labor for much of
anything, including working to pay restitution.
I was in the belly of the beast when I was a state electrical
inspector and I saw a lot of inmate work going on but it was, by law,
all inside the wire and only for DoC.
They couldn't even work for the park system or DoT in any capacity but
the most menial labor (cutting grass, weeding or digging ditches) in
spite of the fact that lots of skilled trades were in jail, mostly for
drugs



I see. You want to displace hard-working, law-abiding citizens with
convict laborers earning what, 13 cents an hour? Welcome to the gulag.



They were being displaced by a park ranger making $12 an hour, doing
electrical work in areas that were open to the public. I think I would
rather have a journeyman electrician doing it who had the misfortune
of being caught with 3 joints in his sock.



Wrong again...
http://www.rangercareers.com/parkran...ngersalary.htm

Read the first sentence.

--
Nom=de=Plume



nom=de=plume April 13th 10 05:48 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:50:59 -0400, hk
wrote:

On 4/13/10 11:42 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:17:50 -0400,
wrote:

I see. You want to displace hard-working, law-abiding citizens with
convict laborers earning what, 13 cents an hour? Welcome to the
gulag.


They were being displaced by a park ranger making $12 an hour, doing
electrical work in areas that were open to the public. I think I would
rather have a journeyman electrician doing it who had the misfortune
of being caught with 3 joints in his sock.

I would rather have a licensed, out of jail, electrician doing
electrical work in areas open to the public, rather than a convict or a
park ranger.

We all would but, for some reason, nobody wants to give the parks any
money. Now that state budgets are stressed, it will only get worse.
Everyone wants to go to a nice park but they think it should be free.
Even a couple dollar user fee usually draws howls from the public and
that is chump change compared to real operational costs.



A few lawsuits in public facilities resulting from accidents involving
electrical wiring installed by non-licensed "handymen" ought to open
some eyes.


sovereign immunity laws make it pretty hard to sue the state.



This wouldn't apply to the situation you described.

--
Nom=de=Plume



hk April 13th 10 05:48 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
On 4/13/10 12:46 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
hk wrote:
On 4/13/10 12:10 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:26:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What ever happened to being sentenced to "hard labor" and paying the
victim back form that meager salary? ;-)

Oh I forgot, the unions objected.
(actually a fact)



What?? Why would a union have anything to do with a personal injury
suit? I
love it... "the unions" all of them?

--

No the unions are why the state can't use convict labor for much of
anything, including working to pay restitution.
I was in the belly of the beast when I was a state electrical
inspector and I saw a lot of inmate work going on but it was, by law,
all inside the wire and only for DoC.
They couldn't even work for the park system or DoT in any capacity but
the most menial labor (cutting grass, weeding or digging ditches) in
spite of the fact that lots of skilled trades were in jail, mostly for
drugs


I see. You want to displace hard-working, law-abiding citizens with
convict laborers earning what, 13 cents an hour? Welcome to the gulag.

Oh please. You are talking about over paid union slackers here. Quit
trying to sugar coat their productivity usefullness.



So, the correct wages are $0.14 per hour for union workers? Who contributes
to society more/pay more taxes.. people who are in prison or people getting
$20-$35/hour?



"Anon" is trolling...he can't post under his old handle here, because he
made too much of an ass of himself.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

nom=de=plume April 13th 10 08:51 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:44:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message


Why would you want convicts displacing skilled workers "outside the
wire"??
That makes no sense, esp. in this economy.

They work all the time outside the wire just not in any kind of
skilled trade. You have journeymen tradesmen cutting grass, picking up
trash and weeding along the side of the road.
The state does it because people are not willing to pay the taxes
necessary to hire people and citizens want these inmates to earn their
keep.


Are they displacing skilled workers????? That was the question, which you
seem to acknowledge the answer is no.

I think you're jumping to lots of conclusions. Trade groups? All trade
groups? How about regular citizens? Perhaps we should let rapists out to
work on grade schools? Come on.


It is the trade group that lobbies the state legislature. Which one
would all depend on the trade in question.
They can cut the grass in the playground and pick up trash, they just
can't screw in a light bulb.


So?



Inmates are not required to work inside. Yet, they volunteer for it all
the
time.


They do get to volunteer to work and they do get paid for it but they
have no real control about where they work or what they do beyond
their influence with the super. If you **** him off you might be
cleaning out grease traps all day or you can just go back and sit in
your cell..


And your point?

--
Nom=de=Plume



nom=de=plume April 13th 10 08:52 PM

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:46:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

convict laborers earning what, 13 cents an hour? Welcome to the gulag.

Oh please. You are talking about over paid union slackers here. Quit
trying to sugar coat their productivity usefullness.



So, the correct wages are $0.14 per hour for union workers? Who
contributes
to society more/pay more taxes.. people who are in prison or people
getting
$20-$35/hour?


I believe Florida inmates make at least minimum wage but they do get
their pay docked for room and board.
There was a program that would have allowed them to work and get paid
for it at close to prevailing wage but that was pretty much shot down.

These are by definition minimum security inmates, working outside the
wire, in most cases close to release.

My real question is, if we really expect these people to return to
society, why wouldn't we want to give them a good work ethic for a
reasonable wage? Otherwise, why don't we just kill them?



They have the opportunity in most states to learn new skills.

--
Nom=de=Plume




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com