Health Care
 

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message

Lets not get sidetracked into the health insurance debate for it masks the
underlying problem. The fundamental problem is that our health care
system has been hijacked by corporate powers making healthcare too
expensive.

Nonsense. The main thing that makes it so expensive is that medical
technology marches forward, not backward, and there's always more stuff to
apply to medical problems -- increasingly expensive stuff.

That would be a better argument if not for the fact that US healthcare
is the most expensive in the world. Americans pay 50% more then the
next most expensive industrial nation.

And it marches forward because people will pay for it, as an alternative to
living in misery or dying. There's always a ready market for new drugs and
new medical technology.

Meanwhile Americans have shorter lifespans and higher infant
mortality.

--
Ray Fischer

I'm voting republican because...
 

wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 8:39 am, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 15, 11:29 pm, wrote:

On Sep 15, 11:40 pm, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 15, 9:55 pm, wrote:

The truth of your free health care is that I get to pay for mine
and I
get to pay for yours

which you do now. it's just more expensive now than it would be under
universal care.

I get first dibs at the doctors under the present system. And why
shouldn't I? I'm paying for it.

so you enjoy having average health care for inflated prices?

I enjoy paying my own way.

yep sounds republican.

Yeh, that whole, ummm, personal responsibility thingy really upsets
some folks.

Under the squirrels and the hawkes system, I pay for theirs and I pay
for mine, and some else says who gets dibs on appointments and
treatments.

never heard of an HMO did you? they tell you what doctors you'll go
to, what treatment they'll pay for, etc.

I could have selected the HMO route and paid less. Instead I selected
a Preferred Choice plan.

Under the plan where I pay for my health care and I pay for your
health care, I get less than the HMO. Why would I want that?

you really HAVE swallowed the GOP kool aid, haven't you? you don't
have control over your health care at all. your boss does. your
insurance company does.

As it stands now, I can change plans and I can change bosses.

Under the plan where I pay for me and I pay for you, I have fare fewer
choices because there just isn't enough money to go around.

I guess I should work harder, huh?

you don't.

You don't.

of course, if you lose your job and don't want health care, just
refuse it...for you and your kids. i won't mind

That, in part, is what motivates me to keep working. If only we could
motivate the little squirrel and the little hawke to work...

and if your company decides you and 5000 other folks need to get
canned?

Then I move. There aren't enough jobs in Ohio to soak up another
5,000 unemployed. Or... I could become a short-sale "investor."

oh. you're SO valuable your company would NEVER do that....just like
they didnt at ATT, TI, HP, etc.

Not at all. My neck is on the chopping block right now. I'll
probably know by Christmas. I'm planning on moving should my job
evaporate. Sayonara Ohio, and Ohio can say sayonara to my tax base,
my education, and my earnings capacity. Florida, Texas, or Missouri
would like to have me in their work force.

Come to Illinois, where making money off the brain dead liberals is easy.
Just use words like "green" on your resume. If you print "100% SOY INK" on
the back, this will usually get you hired.

Health Care
 

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message

Lets not get sidetracked into the health insurance debate for it masks
the
underlying problem. The fundamental problem is that our health care
system has been hijacked by corporate powers making healthcare too
expensive.

Nonsense. The main thing that makes it so expensive is that medical
technology marches forward, not backward, and there's always more stuff to
apply to medical problems -- increasingly expensive stuff.

That would be a better argument if not for the fact that US healthcare
is the most expensive in the world. Americans pay 50% more then the
next most expensive industrial nation.

Right. It's the most expensive, and, for those who can afford it, the most
effective. The reason it doesn't look very effective in the statistics is
that a lot of people can't afford it.


And it marches forward because people will pay for it, as an alternative
to
living in misery or dying. There's always a ready market for new drugs and
new medical technology.

Meanwhile Americans have shorter lifespans and higher infant
mortality.

See above. Things are pretty ducky if you have a few million or more. That's
why even heads of state and foreign corporations come here to get some of
their operations. We're especially good at neurosurgery and plastic surgery.
Our nose jobs can't be beat.

--
Ed Huntress

Health Care
 

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
.. .
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message

Lets not get sidetracked into the health insurance debate for it masks
the
underlying problem. The fundamental problem is that our health care
system has been hijacked by corporate powers making healthcare too
expensive.

Nonsense. The main thing that makes it so expensive is that medical
technology marches forward, not backward, and there's always more stuff to
apply to medical problems -- increasingly expensive stuff.

That would be a better argument if not for the fact that US healthcare
is the most expensive in the world. Americans pay 50% more then the
next most expensive industrial nation.

Right. It's the most expensive, and, for those who can afford it, the most
effective. The reason it doesn't look very effective in the statistics is
that a lot of people can't afford it.

Is that an example of right-wing doublethink?

And it marches forward because people will pay for it, as an alternative
to
living in misery or dying. There's always a ready market for new drugs and
new medical technology.

Meanwhile Americans have shorter lifespans and higher infant
mortality.

See above. Things are pretty ducky if you have a few million or more. That's
why even heads of state and foreign corporations come here to get some of
their operations. We're especially good at neurosurgery and plastic surgery.
Our nose jobs can't be beat.

Ah. Social darwinism. Eliminate the poor.

--
Ray Fischer

I'm voting republican because...
 

wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 3:32 am, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:29:20 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
On Sep 15, 11:40 pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 15, 9:55 pm, wrote:

The truth of your free health care is that I get to pay for mine and
I
get to pay for yours

which you do now. it's just more expensive now than it would be under
universal care.

I get first dibs at the doctors under the present system. And why
shouldn't I? I'm paying for it.

Under the squirrels and the hawkes system, I pay for theirs and I pay
for
mine, and some else says who gets dibs on appointments and treatments.

of course, if you lose your job and don't want health care, just refuse
it...for you and your kids. i won't mind

That, in part, is what motivates me to keep working. If only we could
motivate the little squirrel and the little hawke to work...

And you continue to make **** up. What psychedelics do you take?

I don't make up ****. The little squirrel and the little hawke are
short-sale "investors."

What kind of health plan comes with that? None. You guys are waiting
for me to pay for your health care.


See, this guy is just plain dumb. I've told him myself numerous times that
under a universal care program he will only have to pay the same or less
than he's paying now. He can't grasp the concept that we are spending more
than enough to cover everybody but we are doing it so badly and so
wastefully that we don't cover everyone. With all the dough going into
health care there is plenty to cover everyone. Unfortunately, this guy is
willfully ignorant. No matter how many times you correct him he never
understands what's going on. He learned something like an old dog and he
can't learn anything new. Hell, that's a typical republican for you. He
probably still thinks Bush is going to have a budget surplus before his term
in office is over.

Hawke

I'm voting republican because...
 

"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Sep 15, 11:29 pm, wrote:
On Sep 15, 11:40 pm, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 15, 9:55 pm, wrote:

The truth of your free health care is that I get to pay for mine and I
get to pay for yours

which you do now. it's just more expensive now than it would be under
universal care.

I get first dibs at the doctors under the present system. And why
shouldn't I? I'm paying for it.

so you enjoy having average health care for inflated prices?

yep sounds republican.

Under the squirrels and the hawkes system, I pay for theirs and I pay
for mine, and some else says who gets dibs on appointments and
treatments.

never heard of an HMO did you? they tell you what doctors you'll go
to, what treatment they'll pay for, etc.

you really HAVE swallowed the GOP kool aid, haven't you? you don't
have control over your health care at all. your boss does. your
insurance company does.

you don't.


of course, if you lose your job and don't want health care, just
refuse it...for you and your kids. i won't mind

That, in part, is what motivates me to keep working. If only we could
motivate the little squirrel and the little hawke to work...

and if your company decides you and 5000 other folks need to get
canned?

oh. you're SO valuable your company would NEVER do that....just like
they didnt at ATT, TI, HP, etc.

He's just inexperienced. So far he's not had a bad health care problem and
had to deal with health care companies jerking him around, telling him he's
not covered for what he needs, or that they won't pay for this or that
procedure. Just wait. When the day comes that he has a major problem or
someone in his family has cancer and they tell him they won't pay for it or
that they are raising his premium to five grand a month you'll see him
change his tune in a New York minute. So far he's been lucky. Don't worry,
it won't hold and he'll find out how ****ed our system is first hand. Until
then he'll not change his erroneous ideas.

Hawke

Health Care
 

"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:33:16 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

snip

Yes, now I would. I just went through six sessions of laser eye surgery
for PDR. I don't want to do it again. I'll pay for the best control I can
get.

Physicians Desk Reference? Dunno "PDR." Most diabetics would opt for
injections when the pump is out of pocket, except for those in extreme
distress.

Sorry, you seemed to know about diabetes so I used the abbreviation for
proliferative diabetic retinopathy.

As for opting for injections, that's fine if you're lucky enough to have A1c
readings of less than 7.0. Some people's systems just won't allow it, even
if they do multiple blood-glucose tests and inject ten times a day. I test 5
times a day and inject 6 or more separate doses, but my A1c runs around 7.2.
The newest pumps should get someone like me down to something under 6.8.

7.0 will carry you if you have good genes and haven't been diabetic for more
than 10 or 15 years. I have the right genes, but it's 35 years for me. Until
the eye problem I was the only Type 1 (juvenile) diabetic I knew with more
than 30 years on the clock who had no major problems. Now I have one, but,
thanks to advanced medical technology (laser surgery) I may not have the
problem again. Maybe.


Note, I've designed medical instrumentation. One product is not too
dissimilar to your insulin pump, it took a blood sample from a drip line
and tested for lactate acid giving real time results. I am very
familiar with the industry.

Well, maybe I should interview you for an article I've had in the can for
a year. It's about medical-device manufacturing and meeting the FDA and
customer requirements. I have eight interviews done, but I'm losing
energy
for it.

Use my email in the header.

Thanks. I've put this message into the file in case I revive that article. I
have around 50 hours invested in it so I do want to finish it.

snip

True but the root cause is that health care insurance is unavailable at
rational cost. Kaiser for my wife and I would be $1600/month in the USA
and is about $25 in Argentina.

So, Argentina has subsidized or government-run insurance. I'm all for it.

Kinda, sorta both. Immigrants can buy into the state system but each
municipality has an open clinic where the costs are very cheap. A
front/side chest x-ray cost about $13, dental extraction of molar with
abscess cost a friend $6.70, etc. I've bought into private health care
at a local hospital chain. Ambulance service is free, I used it two
nights running when semi-conscious and unable to drive. Heh, I had
_chicken_pox_ at my age... Never knew it could be life threatening...

Being in the seond or third economic tier can produce some wonderful
benefits for a country. For example, you don't have to invent or develop
much of anything. You just use the same stuff that was developed in the
leading countries.

You'll find that the companies selling that stuff can be very compliant to
your political needs. They'll set up an entirely separate accounting system
for dealing with you, one that doesn't have to account for any upfront
costs, because those are all paid for in the leading country. Since your
market is basically a gift to those companies, providing unanticipated sales
on otherwise idle production capacity, they'll be happy to treat you as a
source of marginal sales, and all that their books will show as expense
against their selling price in your country is the marginal manufacturing
costs and shipping. Something that costs $100 in the leading country, where
they're amortizing all of the upfront costs, might cost $2 in your country.
And it will appear on their books as a profitable sale -- because it's a
marginal sale.

Accounting can be a very creative thing. d8-) The problem with being a
second- or third-tier country in those circumstances is that your economy
basically don't exist outside of the orbit of the leading countries. It
creates quite a web of dependencies over which you have no control. But it
sure saves a hell of a lot of money.


There's always a ready market for new drugs and new medical
technology.

True, and sometimes the costs are justified. But recognize that a
full 60% of new drugs are governmentally subsidized through university
research then turned over to pharmaceuticals for manufacture and
distribution with but a bare tithe to the university while Abbott et.
al. gains usuary profits on our own tax dollar.

sigh I'm well aware of how that works. My last job in a medical
communication agency involved a drug on which Sanofi-Aventis had paid
something like $135 million in development costs, and $110 million in
pre-approval marketing costs (which was paying my salary). Then the FDA
decided not to approve the drug. So my company laid half of us off.
d8-)

The basic research on that drug was not from a university, however. I
know that a lot of the basic research is done in universities. What you
may not know is that the testing that the pharma companies have to go
through after some basic-science lab makes a discovery often costs ten
times more than the basic research.

I'm familiar with the problem. The FDA should be an advisory, not
regulatory, agency. All the special interest groups like, encourage,
support, and fund that evil.

I completely disagree about having the FDA become an advisory agency,

We disagree then. I see the FDA as a self-serving bureaucracy controlled
by special interests. I do not like the idea of a governmental agency
telling me what medicines or treatments I can, and can't, have.

The thing is, Curly, that you have no experience of buying or using drugs in
an environment that isn't dictated by the FDA and similar agencies in other
highly developed countries. So you're speculating about how it would work
out.

Those lower-tier economies have an office that sounds like FDA, but it's
usually an empty shell full of rubber stamps, giving supposed approval to
drugs and procedures that have gone through the approval process of the FDA
or the British, French, or German equivalents. And the drugs they sell
over-the-counter are mostly ones that have been vetted, for prescription
sale or otherwise, by the leading countries.

The only direct comparison you can make is to the US before there was an
FDA. It was much harder to get a centralized, reliable count in those days
of how many people were winding up dead from taking the drugs then
available. But the number was substantial. We can tell now, in a lot of
cases, because those drugs have since been run through large clinical trials
in which the results have been measured.


for
the same reason we got the FDA in the first place. Those greedy corporate
types you're complaining about wouldn't mind killing many more people if
they could get away with it. Testing on humans first is the way to make
more money.

That is not what I propose. Let the FDA provide online, honest, data on
drugs and let the buyer comment and beware.

You're proposing a system by which smart people save a few bucks, and
not-so-smart people make minor mistakes and drop dead. I don't really like
the sound of it.


Note that I've actually been through the FDA approval process. Not
responsible but as an independent contractor responsible for adhering
to the requirements on glucose monitors, inhalation dispensers and
patient monitoring systems.

I should point out here that testing a medical device is NOTHING like
testing a drug. It's much simpler, and it's done with much smaller cohorts,
so it's vastly cheaper. You don't see $50 million studies for devices, as
you often do for drugs.


Generics, Canadian, and other sources are often 90% cheaper.

Of course. Generics just ride on the research, testing, post-marketing
studies and marketing that was done for the original drug. All they
have to recover is manufacturing costs and quality-control reporting.
In Canada, they have price controls and just refuse to allow the drug
companies to amortize research and development. The Canadians, and the
French, and the Brits, and everyone else knows that they can collect
those costs in the US.

How long do you think a pharmaceutical should have a monopoly? Is 17
years not enough?

It depends on how you structure it. Some kind of regulated, extended and
mandatory licensing would reduce prices and keep up enough income to
fund big trials. And it's the big clinical trials that cost most of the
money in pharma. Patented medicines are too expensive, but generics are
too cheap.

Precisely why I want to change the FDA to an advisory agency. Today it
costs roughly half a billion dollars to bring a drug to market, that is
irrational and runs the prices up so that the general tax fund must
subsidize use.

But what's the basis on which the FDA would "advise"? The last drug I worked
on as an employee (rimonabant) was being sold in France, Germany, the UK,
and parts of South America before three long-term studies ordered by the FDA
turned up the problems with it. The Europeans got egg on their faces -- and
some dead citizens -- because they didn't require the long-term studies. Now
they're pulling back and black-boxing those drugs. But they never would have
known the problems without those huge studies, which cost something like
$100 million in total to run.

Who pays for that if the FDA doesn't impose it as a requirement for
approval? You're talking about going back to the dark ages of the drug
business, when people died from taking drugs and no one knew the drug was
involved in the deaths. Hell, no one even knew that the people who died had
been taking the drugs.

snip

You are one of the lucky, many cannot get insurance because they are
under employed, unemployed, homeless.

Yeah, we know. I'm very lucky. The year before last I paid insurance out
of my pocket for six months, and it cost me almost $7,000.

How would you change that inequity?

Universal health care, with a single-payer system and optional supplemental
insurance. Take the European and Canadian systems, analyze the good and the
bad in each, and design a better one based on those experiences.

You'll have to re-engineer a lot of the health care business to do it. Tort
reform, reducing redundancies in testing facilities, etc. Very
socialist-sounding. Very politically incorrect. But the only way to reduce
costs and provide health care for everyone at the same time.

The danger with it is not so much a case of limiting coverage (that will
happen no matter what system you use, including our present free-for-all
system), but rather limiting innovation. That part will require very careful
work.

Since the US is the last country of any substance without universal health
care, this is where most of the innovation happens. The Europeans and others
are tuned to our drum; they adjust their systems so they don't look too bad
in the innovation department, given our example. It's hard to say how that
would work if there was no free-for-all system like the US against which to
compare oneself. It is a concern, if every major country has a controlled
system. It's easy to become complacent if there is nothing against which to
compare your results.

I don't expect a universal system to work really well. I just expect it to
produce a better result than we have now, in terms of health statistics.
There is no way that it will produce as much innovation. You pay your money
and take your choice. My choice is universal coverage.


This transitions into the quality of care issue too. Another factor
we've not discussed is the costs caused by AMA monopoly of providers.
Midwives and alternative treatments have essentially been banned to
create a monopoly. Then there is the FDA making many drugs
prescription only. In fact some years ago the FDA stated that they
would have made many current over the counter drugs a prescription item
if they had it to do over. They are now trying to rectify that by
regulating vitamins, minerals and even tobacco.

We Americans have an aversion to reading about dead people who took
drugs they were told were OK.

**** happens. Life is not guaranteed safe. The government is only
permitted to regulate fraud and crime, not what we ingest.

I think the law disagrees with you on that. g Your ideas concerning pharma
are ideological, abstract, and unreal based on what we know about drugs,
Curly. You're laying out a prescription for ignorance and death. No one
would know what drugs are causing what side effects and adverse outcomes;
all you'd have is a collection of rumors, marketing claims, and guesswork.

We've gone beyond that and hardly anyone who knows the issues would want to
go back. Your reactionary approach would result in a meaner and riskier
health care system for everyone. It would be cheap, but it would leave a lot
of bodies and maimed lives in its wake.

--
Ed Huntress

I'm voting republican because...
 

On Sep 17, 2:04*am, "Hawke" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Sep 16, 3:32 am, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:





On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:29:20 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
On Sep 15, 11:40 pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 15, 9:55 pm, wrote:

The truth of your free health care is that I get to pay for mine and
I
get to pay for yours

which you do now. it's just more expensive now than it would be under
universal care.

I get first dibs at the doctors under the present system. And why
shouldn't I? I'm paying for it.

Under the squirrels and the hawkes system, I pay for theirs and I pay
for
mine, and some else says who gets dibs on appointments and treatments..

of course, if you lose your job and don't want health care, just refuse
it...for you and your kids. i won't mind

That, in part, is what motivates me to keep working. If only we could
motivate the little squirrel and the little hawke to work...

And you continue to make **** up. What psychedelics do you take?

I don't make up ****. *The little squirrel and the little hawke are
short-sale "investors."

What kind of health plan comes with that? *None. *You guys are waiting
for me to pay for your health care.

See, this guy is just plain dumb. I've told him myself numerous times that
under a universal care program he will only have to pay the same or less
than he's paying now.

And I'll get less health care. And the presently happy and motivated
health care workers will have to do more and be paid less. What is
the upside for me? What is the upside for happy and motivated health
care workers to do twice the work for the same or lower pay?

He can't grasp the concept that we are spending more
than enough to cover everybody but we are doing it so badly and so
wastefully that we don't cover everyone.

Why can't you grasp the concept of getting your own health care and
quit mooching off of me?

With all the dough going into
health care there is plenty to cover everyone. Unfortunately, this guy is
willfully ignorant.

Not at all. You wish to force force the health care workers to
service twice as many people for the same money just because you don't
want to pay for your own health care.

No matter how many times you correct him he never
understands what's going on. He learned something like an old dog and he
can't learn anything new. Hell, that's a typical republican for you. He
probably still thinks Bush is going to have a budget surplus before his term
in office is over.

Hawke

"Investors" and the unemployed have all the time in the world to visit
their doctors and the specialists their doctors refer them to.
Working people who will be paying for all of the free health care for
miscreant "investors" and unemployed don't have the luxury of sitting
in the doctors office all day. Health care workers will have to see
you far more often once I'm paying for your health care and tehy'll do
it with a smile on their face because they know they are servicing
twice as many people as before for the same or less pay.

I'm voting republican because...
 

On Sep 16, 11:24*pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 16, 8:39*am, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 15, 11:29*pm, wrote:

On Sep 15, 11:40*pm, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 15, 9:55*pm, wrote:

The truth of your free health care is that I get to pay for mine and I
get to pay for yours

which you do now. it's just more expensive now than it would be under
universal care.

I get first dibs at the doctors under the present system. *And why
shouldn't I? *I'm paying for it.

so you enjoy having average health care for inflated prices?

I enjoy paying my own way.

Even if it costs you half again as much.

Sucker.

Just like when I buy a car. I could purchase a hundai or a lexus. Is
anyone driving anything other than a hundai a sucker?

yep sounds republican.

Yeh, that whole, ummm, personal responsibility thingy really upsets
some folks.

If you're so in favor of "personal responsibility" then why don't you
insist on higher taxes?

Why don't you pay your taxes?

Under the squirrels and the hawkes system, I pay for theirs and I pay
for mine, and some else says who gets dibs on appointments and
treatments.

never heard of an HMO did you? they tell you what doctors you'll go
to, what treatment they'll pay for, etc.

I could have selected the HMO route and paid less. *Instead I selected
a Preferred Choice plan.

As opposed to paying your own way?

It is part of my compensation package. There will always be an
additional "co-pay" to keep malingerers from overtaxing the system.

you really HAVE swallowed the GOP kool aid, haven't you? you don't
have control over your health care at all. your boss does. your
insurance company does.

As it stands now, I can change plans and I can change bosses.

And if you get sick or injured and can't work, you can't get any
plan, you can't get any job, and you and your family go broke.

Me? I keep myself employed. I make it a point to do so. I consider
it my "responsibility" to provide for myself and my family.

So should I have a catastrophic injury or health event, I'm covered.

The leading cause of personal bankruptcies is medical emergencies.

And making health care free to everyone who doesn't work is going to
make it better for me who is paying the bills? How?

--
Ray Fischer * * * *

I'm voting republican because...
 

On Sep 16, 11:54*pm, "Jerry" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Sep 16, 8:39 am, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 15, 11:29 pm, wrote:

On Sep 15, 11:40 pm, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 15, 9:55 pm, wrote:

The truth of your free health care is that I get to pay for mine
and I
get to pay for yours

which you do now. it's just more expensive now than it would be under
universal care.

I get first dibs at the doctors under the present system. And why
shouldn't I? I'm paying for it.

so you enjoy having average health care for inflated prices?

I enjoy paying my own way.

yep sounds republican.

Yeh, that whole, ummm, personal responsibility thingy really upsets
some folks.

Under the squirrels and the hawkes system, I pay for theirs and I pay
for mine, and some else says who gets dibs on appointments and
treatments.

never heard of an HMO did you? they tell you what doctors you'll go
to, what treatment they'll pay for, etc.

I could have selected the HMO route and paid less. *Instead I selected
a Preferred Choice plan.

Under the plan where I pay for my health care and I pay for your
health care, I get less than the HMO. *Why would I want that?

you really HAVE swallowed the GOP kool aid, haven't you? you don't
have control over your health care at all. your boss does. your
insurance company does.

As it stands now, I can change plans and I can change bosses.

Under the plan where I pay for me and I pay for you, I have fare fewer
choices because there just isn't enough money to go around.

I guess I should work harder, huh?

you don't.

You don't.

of course, if you lose your job and don't want health care, just
refuse it...for you and your kids. i won't mind

That, in part, is what motivates me to keep working. If only we could
motivate the little squirrel and the little hawke to work...

and if your company decides you and 5000 other folks need to get
canned?

Then I move. *There aren't enough jobs in Ohio to soak up another
5,000 unemployed. *Or... I could become a short-sale "investor."

oh. you're SO valuable your company would NEVER do that....just like
they didnt at ATT, TI, HP, etc.

Not at all. *My neck is on the chopping block right now. *I'll
probably know by Christmas. *I'm planning on moving should my job
evaporate. *Sayonara Ohio, and Ohio can say sayonara to my tax base,
my education, and my earnings capacity. *Florida, Texas, or Missouri
would like to have me in their work force.

Come to Illinois, where making money off the brain dead liberals is easy.
Just use words like "green" on your resume. If you print "100% SOY INK" on
the back, this will usually get you hired.

I moved from the Illinois side of St Louis to Ohio in 2000.

I recall writing letters to Carol Mosley Braun on standard dead-tree
paper and carbon based ink.