K4YZ wrote:
N2EY wrote:
In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:
Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 12/21/2004 4:30 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:
Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 12/20/2004 6:21 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:
Snipped...
I think you want to avoid the hard facts, Steve.
No, Jim...I just don't need the editorializing of past
events.
We know why Social Security was created...
What I wrote wasn't about why SS was created, but about why it
could be in
trouble in the future. And as Hans, K0HB has pointed out, the 800
pound
gorilla
problem is the borrowing of money from the SS trust fund. Such
borrowing is
fine unless and until it's not paid back.
I don't think FDR
ever imagined it being *******ized such as it has.
How is SS *******ized?
FDR's New Deal, like the Constitution, wasn't meant to be a
static
unchanging
entity. He said so himself - if a program didn't work, it was to
be
changed
or
eliminated.
Jim, we are there already.
We are where?
Jim, is there some underlying reason why you feel it necessary to
insult me like this?
I didn't mean to insult you, Steve, I just didn't know what you meant.
I am waist deep, on a daily basis, with people who are products of
entitlement programs gone wild, all of it at the expense of "Social
Security".
In the past 72 hours at my ER alone FIVE people generated 12
"emergency room" visits for complaints ranging from "headaches", to
"chronic back pain", to "weakness" induced by alcohol.
One of those five people has FORTY TWO visits to the ED since
January 1st. I've got $10 riding on her making it to 50 before 2359
on
31 December. The pot is up to a couple hundred bucks already.
One of the five has 28 visits since Janaury 1st. Wanna bet he
makes it to 30?
Mr 28 and one of the others made their arrivals via EMS. Both of
Mr 28's visits were chauffered per the county. Again paid for by
SSI/Medicare. Mr. 28 is under 40 and "disabled" due an injury that,
oddly, prevents him from "working", but not from riding motorcycles,
drinking, and otherwise dissapating that check in a hurry.
So what you've got are people who manipulate the system and use the ER
for things that should be cared for by a primary care physician - or
just good ol' common sense.
How do we fix the problem? Shut down all entitlements because some
people abuse them?
Think I am exaggerating or making this up?
Not at all!
You are most cordially
invited to join me any weekend that I work and spend the evening.
You've got my e mail address...drop me a line. I'll set it up.
What percentage of ER visits would you estimate are legitimate, and
what percentage are manipulations of the system?
Social Security and it's ancilliary programs such as SSI and AFDC
actually promote single parent households
You mean because the benefits for two single people are greater than
those of a married couple? I agree 100%.
Note that the income taxes a married couple pay when both work are
greater than the sum of the income taxes of two single working people
making the same money and living together.
and perpetuate drug seeking
behaviour.
How?
Since any healthcare facility that accepts
Medicare/Medicaid must also accept their rules, these "patients" are
allowed to continue these abuses almost unabated.
Why "work" when all they have to do is get pregnant, get "the
check" coming, and then their "insurance card" follows...Nice deal.
Or
find an MD who will certify them as "disabled"...There's a whole
Cottage Industry of trial lawyers who jump a the chance to help these
poor souls get thier checks rolling in. The recipients will get
"back
pay" checks going back to the first day they filed an applcation for
"benefits". The backpay can be as much as $12K to $20K once the
lawyers play with it for a while since these negotiations can go on
for
a couple of years. (Which begs to ask how is it they managed to get
along without the monies!)
I agree that they are all abuses of the system. But how do we fix them?
Do we just shut down SS?
By the way, YOU are paying for it.
I've been paying for it longer than you, Steve ;-)
Furthermore, any healthcare facility that accepts federal
entitlement payees (and 95% of all facilites must, if they want to
"do
business") must also accept federal regulations...Not a bad idea you
say? Federal rules are the reason most hospitals must charge $2.00
for
a Tylenol and $20 for a simple gauze dressing from people with "real"
insurance. Medicare says "we will pay you "this much" and you WILL
accept it, sorry if it's not enough to cover your real expenses...
It's called "cost shifting". The people who pay don't just pay for
themselves, they pay for those who don't pay anything.
Here in metro Philly, it is not too unusual for an addict in labor to
show up at a major hospital. Delivery is complicated by many factors
and baby has multiple problems, all traceable to substance abuse. Mom
and baby get good medical care, probably saving both their lives - at a
cost of a quarter million or so in medical costs alone. Then mom signs
herself out AMA and abandons baby to the care of the state. Often baby
leaves hospital by way of the morgue because the multiple problems are
simply too much and too many.
And in a year or two, if she's still alive, mom is back in the same or
worse condition.
And we all pay for it.
Now - how do we fix it?
So, Jim, please do NOT presume to ask me "where" we are in
reference to the current state of Social Security... I see it every
day. You're welcome to join me for a shift if you're really, REALLY
prepared to leave mad...
You are lumping all entitlement programs together, as if they're all
the same. They're not.
It's clear that *some* people manipulate and abuse the systems. They
obviously need fixing. But how do we fix them?
73 de Jim, N2EY