Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 12/29/2004 6:04 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:
Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From:
Date: 12/28/2004 1:59 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: .com
Steve Robeson K4YZ wrote:
Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From:
Date: 12/27/2004 12:12 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . com
K4YZ wrote:
N2EY wrote:
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.
Which was partly fixed by Carter and then unfixed by Ronald "family
values" Reagan.
Yeah...fixed by Mr. 15% Inflation Carter. Uh huh...I remember. He
enacted
a 17.5% one time parity raise for the Armed Forces, then taxed the
bee-jeebers out of us.
WHOA!
Let's look at exactly what happened in that time period!
First off, the govt. started deficit spending in the '60s to pay for LBJ's
"Great Society", the Vietnam war, and the "space race". This deficit spending
and other fiscal changes resulted in rising inflation and interest rates.
Nixon and Ford tried to fight inflation with price and wage controls.
(Remember
"WIN buttons"?). Didn't work - all that it did was delay the problem and make
it worse.
Ironic, then, that the last time the federal budget was balanced was
during the Nixon administration, isn't it...???
In 1973 we got the OPEC boycott, and when it ended gasoline prices were
doubled. Which affected *all* energy costs, and all businesses that use
energy,
and fed inflation like - throwing gasoline on a fire.
We see that now...Price a gallon of milk or a pound of a decent cut of
beef lately?
Exactly. Again, it's part of the tail that the healthcare hound dog
get's
to chase. And MANY of the "maladies" that patients suffer is due to seeing
"Doc A" about one problem and "Doc B" for another.
I'm not in the health care field, but even I know about drug interactions.
Whenever I go to the doc, there's always a form allowing release of
medical info to other healthcare personnel and institutions "just in
case". I always agree and sign it, on the theory they should have the
info and I have nothing to hide.
That's because you're smarter than the average bear, BooBoo, and
probably have "real insurance" that requires your PMD to manage your care.
Naw, just common sense.
THERE'S your problem! (said with a wink and an acknowledging grin) YOU
actually USE it...These other folks are just looking to get what they can just
BECAUSE they can.
Of course it's usually narcotics...You can always tell the real
abusers...They eat the narcs like M&M's, then wind up stopping the
intestinal
tract. Then they develop a bowel obstrcution for which they ahve to go to
surgery. And of course surgery means more meds...See where this goes...???
Round and round....
Getting dizzy yet?
I have always believed that if I am to be the kind of Nurse that I want to
be, I must advocate for the patient, but I must also educate the patient as to
what is in their best interests (realizing, of course, that you can't make that
horse drink...) even when I am telling them something they may not want to
hear.
I am absolutely amazed at the numbers of people (even many "educated"
people) who will look you in the eye as you're trying to give them the
information they need to make the best decision, yet will start if off with
somethig like "Yeah, well, My Aunt Jenny said...". Of course Aunt Jenny's NOT
a health care person, but since what Aunt Jenny said IS what they want to hear,
the effort was just wasted...Of course Mr Nephew or Ms Neice will be back in
the ER in short order wondering why they aren't feeling any better.
Inappropriate ER usage dropped by 53% and collections improved by a
quantum leap because we weren't wasting time on what were charity cases. No
one didn't get to see a doctor, either, since the local docs would work out
payments for the truly indigent.
Then the ACLU got involved. We were "inconvieniencing" the patients.
@#$%^!
Much better! =)
Of course you were inconveniencing them! Being responsible for oneself is
inconvenient!
I don't know why...! ! ! ! (In reality, I do, but I'd "offend" a lot of
those idiots who won't do it!)
Get Social Security back to what it was supposed to
be..."Security" for
people in thier latter years against retirement. Not a freeloaders
ticket to
the Pot-O-Gold.
What about people who really are disabled?
What about them?
Have I said "No Social Security for ANYone", Jim?
No, but your statement above limits it to retired/elderly people only. No
mention of the disabled.
What were you saying a few lines back about common sense, Jim...?!?!
I believe all my comments were about getting the UNDESERVING off the
dole...NOT those with a legitimate need.
Clean house, Jim. A total top-to-bottom survey of every
enrollee. And
legislation that allows us to cap their benefits or entitlement
periods. We
have to allow ourselves the freedom to say "NO", and to demand that
people
carry their own weight.
That's a start. But who gets to make the critical judgements, as in
Person A is really disabled but Person B isn't?
Medical Review Boards. Make these people show up at a prescribed time
with copies of their records in hand.
Makes sense. Of course those Boards will be under constant attack and
lawsuits
by those denied benefits. A cottage industry will arise to specifically
challenge their rulings.
No doubt.
Step three might be "bounties" for persons accused of and subsequently
found guilty of fraud.
I think that was done, too.
I think a bounty of 10% on cheaters would be an adequate incentive.
Personally, I am all for "all of the above". I would add a whole
section
of the Sunday paper with a full color mug shots of those convicted of
bilking
assistance programs because that's stealing from you and I. Peer pressure
and
a bit of humiliation go a long way towards modifying undesired behaviour.
That's a bit hazardous. If someone was convicted of fraud but then later won
on
appeal, they'd go after the paper and the agencies in a big way for
"distress"
and "defamation".
I am sure that we could establish adequate parameters to ensure that those
with reasonable doubt could be excluded.
And someone willing to play the game might not be that humiliated.
I know I would be. I feel bad enough getting pulled over for having a
heavy foot! (Thank God for "Emergency" tags and that Star-of-Life insignia!)
I recall that in some places there were anti-prostitution efforts that
focused
on the *customers* rather than the *workers*, so to speak. Pictures and names
in the paper and all. I dunno how well those programs fared.
--
This all relates to amateur radio in a very basic way:
The abuses mentioned by Steve and I are all the result of a mindset that
focuses on "rights" to the exclusion of *responsibilites*. Many of us see
proposed reductions in the standards of the ARS as a form of that mindset.
Point and set.
73
Steve, K4YZ