In article .com, "bb"
writes:

N2EY doesn't mind at all. Gives him an excuse for not answering the
hard questions.

With respect to GPS, it is not a "free market." The Department of
Defense developed it. One of the capabilities built in is Selective
Availability which injects an error into the unencrypted signals. This
is so that the military can continue to use it, and deny the best
accuracy to an enemy on the battlefield. Another capability is to
encrypt the signal, and turn off the unencrypted signal denying access
to an enemy on the battlefield. No free market about it. now we've
got Hans saying "It's my right, It's my right to have free access to a
DoD weapons system!"

Boo, hoo, hoo.

Perhaps the excuse for whining is that the USN began the
development of GPSS under the original NAVSTAR project
acronym? [Hans was a USN super chief] :-)

I was representing RCA at NAS Warminster when NADC was
in its second year of NAVSTAR test flights. One of the test
bed aircraft was an RA-2, shared among two other projects, one
of which was SECANT developed by RCA. [circa 1971-1972]

All of that eyewitness experience is "no good" in here since all
expertise in anything is granted to any Amateur Extra that
knows, loves, and cherishes morse code.

Jim, what are the right problems to focus on? Who is the right enemy?

So you answered for N2EY that the trade deficit caused by petroleum
imports is the enemy and the problem that we should focus on.

I love those focussed discussions on amateur radio policy matters.

Too bad there aren't any to be found in here...

snip

Jim, what are the right problems to focus on? Who is the right
enemy?

The "right enemy" is anyone advocating the elimination of the
morse code test for any AMATEUR radio operator license. :-)

Jim is full of hisself.

In article .com, "bb"
writes:

Jim is full of hisself.

Not quite in my estimation. He doesn't "mind if anyone jumps in,"
but gets all riled up if those jumping in don't agree with him. If
they disagree with him they are "wrong!"

Merry Christmas and good will to all... :-)

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:

Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 12/18/2004 5:43 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

I was representing RCA at NAS Warminster when NADC was
in its second year of NAVSTAR test flights. One of the test
bed aircraft was an RA-2, shared among two other projects, one
of which was SECANT developed by RCA. [circa 1971-1972]

You shouldn't bring up Warminster again, Lennie.

They didn't like you there, and with good reason.

Tsk. Another lying sack of crap. And so close to Christmas, too.

:-)

All of that eyewitness experience is "no good" in here since all
expertise in anything is granted to any Amateur Extra that
knows, loves, and cherishes morse code.

The "expertise" that outted you in Warminister was not an Extra, barely
knows the code, and has a Doctorate in Physics.

And the Avenging Angle is a lying sack of crap. :-)

Poor Angle, never right, always obtuse, going out on a tangent of
fervent imagination.

Tsk. Fantasyland thinking in fever pitch, never being able to name
names, nor identify anything, but always "accusatory" when the
fires grow behind the eyes. :-)

That beats your 14 years of night school, I do believe.

Tsk. It "beats" nothing. In fact, fantasyland thinking IS nothing.

So...let's recap: NADC was flight-testing NAVSTAR. NAVSTAR
was the precursor to GPSS, had all the basic elements of GPSS
and proved the viability of it. That was about 33 to 34 years ago.
The Avenging Angle suddenly brings out one individual's formal
schooling as somehow "related" to the thread. Tsk, NOT related.
Avenging Angle has injected himself with a hyperbole? Must be.
Lay off them hypos.

Merry Christmas and good will to all men... :-)

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?

When we have people "disabled" and collecting Social Security ( or other
entitlements which draw against it...) in their 30's without truly being
"disabled", then we ARE there.

Where?

I see it every day. And now we are seeing people in their 20's and
sometimes even "teens" who are claiming "disability", yet can drive,
socialize,
party, and even "work" in other revenue producing pursuits. But the SECOND
you
threaten that check every month, they suddenly become "sick bay commandos"
until the threat has resolved.

You mean plain old fraud. Yes, we have that in Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid, veterans' benefits, disability, workmen's comp and various welfare
systems too. There's also fraud in private insurance claims.

Should all those systems be shut down because some people abuse them? I say no.


But the real solution is education and responsibility.

The real solution is to restore the program to what it was intended for,

Which is?

delete the drug abusers and lazy, and restore some basic civic
responsibilities.

How would you do that?

Hmmm?

Here's a bit of history:

How did I know we were in for this...???

Once upon a time....(I was right...)

...(up until about 40 years ago), there were lots of large
state
mental hospitals. (Snip to...)

Is any of what I wrote inaccurate?

Then came a whole bunch of new pharmaceuticals...(And further snip to...)

And most of the state mental institutions closed or were
radically
reduced in size, while the population grew. So a lot of the patients who
used
to be inside those institutions are now outside, trying to survive.

Are they really better off? Are we saving any money?

NONE of those mental health facility closings were due to the
introduction
of new pharmaceuticals, Jim.

Yes, they were. At least in part.

New pharmacueticals made it possible to de-institutionalize large numbers of
people with certain mental illnesses - *if* they took the pharmecuticals as
prescribed!

Look up how mental health care used to work - say in the 1940s and 50s, before
'modern' pharmecuticals existed. A considerable number of people were simply
locked up because nobody knew what else to do.

Those closings were due to the interventions of (A) "civil rights"
programs which insisted that those poor wretched souls had had their rights
denied to them,

That was part of it too. Books like "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" were
based on the reality of the old systems.

and (B) bean counters who thought that those monies could be
better spent elsewhere.

Those "bean counters" were politicians looking for ways to avoid spending money
on mental health care. After all, it *was* cheaper to buy the new
pharmecuticals for a mentally ill person than to institutionalize them.

Please note that those decisons were made by
Administrations wherein a Democrat was in the White House.

Who controlled the congress? How much of this was state-level and how much
federal? Most of the mental-health hospitals I know of were state operations,
not federal.

Did it all happen under Kennedy, Johnson and Carter, with none of it under
Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan or Bush?

Most of all - is any of what I wrote incorrect?

How about this: How about we rebuild and reopen all those mental health
hospitals, and reallow indefinite involuntary mental-health commitments? Would
probably cost less than what we're spending now on other solutions.

I do...More so than I ever thought Bill Clinton was...

Why? At least under Bill Clinton, the markets were rising, inflation was low
and the budget got balanced. Now Shrub is digging an enormous hole of debt
and yet giving the rich tax cuts.

BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!

Those "markets" were ALREADY "rising" under Bush the Elder!

Sure. The Dow was about 3600 when Clinton took office.

E V E R
Y
stock market indicator was "up" in the last year of Bush the Elders term,

Yet he lost the election. Boo hoo hoo.

and
CLAIMS by the Clinton administration within the first 90 days of his
presidency
(and before a SINGLE Clintonian plan had been implimented) that the markets
were already responding just on the strength of Clinton PROMISES were
absolutely ludicrous then, and are absolutely ludicrous today!

No more ludicrous than Shrub's claim.

And BTW, Jim, at an average of $48 to $53K a year, I have not had my
taxes
LOWER since before Jimmy Carter! I am HARDLY "rich" ! ! ! !

First off, look at your income vs. inflation. If your income hasn't kept pace
with inflation, it's a good bet that some of your taxes will drop.

Second, look at your life situation. Were you married, did you own a home, have
dependent children, or itemize deductions back in Carter's time? Where in the
USA did you live? Changes in all those areas affect some taxes.

Third, when you say your taxes are lower, which taxes are you including or
excluding? Most people see their federal income tax in big bold numbers because
they or their accountant figures it out every year.

But what about other taxes? Add up how much you pay in SS, Medicare, sales
taxes, excise taxes, real estate taxes, state income and wage taxes, etc. Look
at the big picture, not just one item, then see if your taxes are lower.

Finally, remember that it's easy to lower taxes if you don't mind piling up
debt, and easy to balance the budget if you don't mind raising taxes like
crazy.

What was the national debt in Carter's time? What is it today? How much of your
taxes went to pay the interest on the debt loans then and now?

73 de Jim, N2EY

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 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.

Think I am exaggerating or making this up? 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.

Social Security and it's ancilliary programs such as SSI and AFDC
actually promote single parent households and perpetuate drug seeking
behaviour. 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!)

By the way, YOU are paying for it.

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...

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...

73

Steve, K4YZ

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

In article . com,
writes:

It's clear that *some* people manipulate and abuse the systems. They
obviously need fixing. But how do we fix them?

I thought the "fix" was obvious from all the previous postings...
make everyone take a morse code test!

If they show an "interest" in radio, make them take an amateur radio
license examination! First, before doing anything else... :-)

did dit,

Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From:
Date: 12/27/2004 12:12 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . com


K4YZ wrote:
N2EY wrote:

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.

How can you not?

This very same topic has been front page stuff in Newsweek, Time, etc, for
years.

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.

And why should they? They've had "consumer advocate groups" led by the
ACLU, NAACP, etc etc telling them this was their "right" to do for decades now.

How do we fix the problem? Shut down all entitlements because some
people abuse them?

Almost...yes.

The only thing that would clean this up is to do a complete survey of
everyone receiving SSI or Medicaid. Just because you're not able to leap tall
buildings in a single bound doesn't mean you can't work at all.

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?

Better than 30% are truly inappropriate uses. More on occassions. This
past weekend we saw an average of 60 persons per day. On both days "cold or
flu symptoms" were the leading chief complaint.

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%.

I mean because all you ahve to do is get pregnant without a spouse and
"you're in".

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?

Because they have "insurance" that allows them to go to almost any ER
unfettered. Federal regulations under HIPPA, The Health Insurance Portability
and Protection Act, enforces astronomical fines for healthcare workers who
cross-communicate information about patients without their consent.

These "patients" know that they can go to the ER, complain of "back pain",
and in all likelyhood will get an Rx for atleast 3 days worth of Lortab just to
get them out of the ER, and it's technically illegal for us to warn other ER's
that Joe Schmo is getting drugs here.

I work in four different ER's within a 65 mile radius, Jim, and I
personally know of at leat 12 people who frequent all four of them for the same
"complaint".

Oh...yes...JCAHO, the Joint Commission for the Accredidation of Healthcare
Organizations, has made it mandatory that we post signs telling people it's
their right to demand pain medicine. There's nothing on those same "notices"
that says the healthcare provider has the right to say "no" after having
examined you and determined that narcotics are not in your best interest.

Lastly, every Medicare/Medicaid participating facility is required by law
to post signs in the ER that tell the world that it is again their "right" to
receive "free medical examinations regardless of your ability to pay". These
facilities have the "right" to demand payment later, of course, but what do
they (the "patients") care? They just toss those deamnds in the trash since
they are not obligated to pay them. Mr 28 has an outstanding debt to my full
time employer of almost $40K just for ER visits alone in the last 3 years.

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?

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.

By the way, YOU are paying for it.

I've been paying for it longer than you, Steve.

Perhaps.

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.

I worked in West Memphis, AR for two years after I left the Gun Club. The
first month I was there one of the local baby factories was having her 3rd
child in the ED. Had a fourth while I was there, and was pregnant with number
five and due just about the time I left. Her primary concern was how long
would it take for the new kid's check to get started.

And we all pay for it.

Now - how do we fix it?

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.

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.

They're not all the same, but they are all being abused.

It's clear that *some* people manipulate and abuse the systems. They
obviously need fixing. But how do we fix them?

One step at a time.

Steve, K4YZ

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:

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.

How can you not?

I just didn't understand your statement. Nothing more or less. That's
all, now it's clearer.

This very same topic has been front page stuff in Newsweek, Time,
etc, for
years.

I don't read those mags. Philly Inquirer makes them look like tabloids.


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.

And why should they? They've had "consumer advocate groups" led
by the
ACLU, NAACP, etc etc telling them this was their "right" to do for
decades now.

How do we fix the problem? Shut down all entitlements because some
people abuse them?

Almost...yes.

The only thing that would clean this up is to do a complete
survey of
everyone receiving SSI or Medicaid.

That's not a shutdown at all, just a review. Sounds like a good idea to
me.

Just because you're not able to leap tall
buildings in a single bound doesn't mean you can't work at all.

I agree 100%.

Think I am exaggerating or making this up?

Not at all!

What percentage of ER visits would you estimate are legitimate, and
what percentage are manipulations of the system?

Better than 30% are truly inappropriate uses. More on
occassions. This
past weekend we saw an average of 60 persons per day. On both days
"cold or
flu symptoms" were the leading chief complaint.

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%.

I mean because all you ahve to do is get pregnant without a spouse
and
"you're in".

IOW, a "marriage penalty". Exists in the income tax system, too.

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.

and perpetuate drug seeking
behaviour.

How?

Because they have "insurance" that allows them to go to almost
any ER
unfettered. Federal regulations under HIPPA, The Health Insurance
Portability
and Protection Act, enforces astronomical fines for healthcare
workers who
cross-communicate information about patients without their consent.

Now that's just plain wrong, because medical personnel need as much
pertinent data as possible, for purely medical reasons.

These "patients" know that they can go to the ER, complain of
"back pain",
and in all likelyhood will get an Rx for atleast 3 days worth of
Lortab just to
get them out of the ER, and it's technically illegal for us to warn
other ER's
that Joe Schmo is getting drugs here.

Is that one way Rush Limbaugh got his Oxycontin?

I work in four different ER's within a 65 mile radius, Jim, and
I
personally know of at leat 12 people who frequent all four of them
for the same
"complaint".

How is Doc B supposed to avoid prescribing a med that is incompatible
with meds prescribed by Doc A if Joe S. won't release medical info?

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.

Oh...yes...JCAHO, the Joint Commission for the Accredidation of
Healthcare
Organizations, has made it mandatory that we post signs telling
people it's
their right to demand pain medicine. There's nothing on those same
"notices"
that says the healthcare provider has the right to say "no" after
having
examined you and determined that narcotics are not in your best
interest.

That's messed up, too. I guess nobody could say "no" to Rush, either...

Lastly, every Medicare/Medicaid participating facility is
required by law
to post signs in the ER that tell the world that it is again their
"right" to
receive "free medical examinations regardless of your ability to
pay".

Examinations, or complete care?

These
facilities have the "right" to demand payment later, of course, but
what do
they (the "patients") care? They just toss those deamnds in the
trash since
they are not obligated to pay them. Mr 28 has an outstanding debt to
my full
time employer of almost $40K just for ER visits alone in the last 3
years.

Because the ER can't toss anybody out.

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?

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?

By the way, YOU are paying for it.

I've been paying for it longer than you, Steve.

Perhaps.

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.

I worked in West Memphis, AR for two years after I left the Gun
Club. The
first month I was there one of the local baby factories was having
her 3rd
child in the ED. Had a fourth while I was there, and was pregnant
with number
five and due just about the time I left. Her primary concern was how
long
would it take for the new kid's check to get started.

And we all pay for it.

Now - how do we fix it?

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?

How do you *make* people "carry their own weight"?

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.

They're not all the same, but they are all being abused.

It's clear that *some* people manipulate and abuse the systems. They
obviously need fixing. But how do we fix them?

One step at a time.

I agree 100% with your first step.

--

Here's one way abuse in a related area was stopped big-time:

The local transit agency *used to be* a target for injury claims. A bus
with capacity of 65 people would get in a midday minor accident, and
they'd get 90 injury claims from alleged riders. Etc.

Couple years ago they got tough in various ways. One was the
installation of cameras in various vehicles that would show who was
onboard. Of course not all the cameras were real - but who would take a
chance?

They also sent out plainclothes investigators to follow people with
hard-to-disprove injuries like "back pain". Then they'd go after fakers
for fraud, like the guy with back pain who couldn't work at all but
could singlehandedly unload his new bigscreen TV from the car and carry
it up a flight of steps into his house - while wearing the soft collar.
Both collar and TV paid for by guess who.

Most of all, they made a point of publicizing their efforts and
successes. Not only did folks lose their payments - some were sued
successfully for fraud. OTOH, their efforts have actually helped people
with real injuries file successful claims.

And the claims have dropped substantially.

Of course the initial efforts cost serious $$ and were not 100%
successful. But the long-term results were impressive. And it did not
take changes in the laws.
Maybe something like that is step two.

73 de Jim, N2EY