Household goods affordability

[krw]

A prof told us the USN RADAR operators would warm their hands in front of the antennas in WWII.

[The Daring Dufas]

"Hand Crafted Zenith TV Sets" were very expensive at the time too. Mass production has brought the price of many items down. The price of anything that the government screws with too much skyrockets. I imagine that if government wonks decided that microwave ovens must have absolutely perfect shielding and safety, the price of microwave ovens would be priced in the thousands of dollars. o_O

TDD

[Ed Pawlowski]

Don't know but I think it was $150 when we married in 1966. more than a week's pay at the time about $125 a week. This one was $950, less than a week's pay. I could have bought one today for abou two days wages.

[The Daring Dufas]

A Vietnam vet who operated a radar unit told me he would aim it at the passing Gooks to sterilize them. Back in the 80's when I was out in the Pacific at the missile range, there are some very powerful radar units out there and when a Russian trawler got too close, the operators would aim the big radar dish at the snooping ship and they would quickly come about and take of at flank speed with smoke coming out of a few places on the little ship. ^_^

TDD

[Cindy Hamilton]

Ugly, perhaps. Counterproductive, I'm not so sure. It's one of the many human foibles that keep people hustling. If we were all happy and satisfied with what we've got, the economy would tank. You need demand to drive commerce.

Are you saying that only lefties are envious? No, I didn't think you were.

That's just sensible, which I realize is a quality that many people lack.

Cindy Hamilton

[krw]

Perhaps?

Of course it is. You don't believe saving for your own shiny new chariot, instead of lusting after your neighbor's, isn't a more productive use of your energy?

There is a difference between desire and envy.

Oh, good grief! Words mean things.

It is, in fact, the basis for leftism. That's all I was saying. Without envy leftists couldn't exist.

Because most, at least today, are leftists at heart.

[Cindy Hamilton]

I can save up for my new chariot while simultaneously lusting after the neighbor's.

In real life, I am saving up for a used chariot. It'll be newer than my current chariot, and have an automatic transmission, to boot.

Cindy Hamilton

[krw]

Is it required that you lust after others' possessions? You think that's healthy? Does it help you save faster? Does it help your neighbor pay for his? The gain is?

Goody for you. I'm really not interested in what is behind your horses. It doesn't affect me at all.

[Cindy Hamilton]

Not required. Probably not healthy. In fact, I don't lust after my neighbor's chariot. It neither helps me save faster, nor helps him pay for his.

There's no gain. A lot of what people do produces no gain, yet it's human nature to do these things. We're not robots.

You seem to wish to restrict people's freedom to covet.

Cindy Hamilton

[krw]

Yet you think it's a good thing for others?

...and that's a good thing?

It's wrong on all levels. It is a deadly sin for a reason.

[Cindy Hamilton]

What does it matter?

Suppose it's not good. What are we going to do about it?

Human nature comprises both good and bad. Always has, always will.

Ah, sin. I don't have much of a concept of sin. I suppose if pushed to it, I'd define it the way Terry Pratchett does: "Treating people as things".

Covetousness doesn't seem to be a sin.

Cindy Hamilton

[krw]

It matters a *lot*. When people covet what others have instead of what they will work for it wrecks society.

We? You think it's just peachy to want to take from others.

True but irrelevant. You think it's a good idea to cater to the least common denominator. I'd rather look somewhat above that.

I can tell. Your lack of morality is quite evident.

Define "it".

Bullshit. You *are* treating people as objects when you're envious of their possessions. If you treated them as equals you could never be envious.

[Tony944]

I see that are few people commenting on these subject so let me put my = two cent in!

Example in 2004 I have retire just for me and my wife I was paying BC&BS = type J coverage $1900.00 per month, the very same coverage group insured = was paying $800.00 or less, perhaps some of you reading this will tell = me that is fair: I don't think so". What happens with people like me we = want change even on the end perhaps become losers? That is why some = people don't care who they are taking it from "They want the Change"!

[krw]

Not sure what this has to do with the subject at hand, unless, of course, you want them to pay $1900/month, too, just because you have to. I'd say that's a morally bankrupt position to hold, though. Pretty dumb, too, but it would be yours.

If your complaint is that life isn't fair, well no, it isn't. If you think this particular issue should be fixed, you're right. Talk to your Congressman. He's the one who caused this idiocy and can fix it (along with a few others). If you think that forcing your neighbor to pay for your insurance is going to fix anything, you must be a lefty.

[Ed Pawlowski]

You can still find group coverage and even form your own group. Was your price fair? Actuarialy, yes. Groups spread the cost when you have members of different ages.

[trader4]

hat is why some people don?t care who

I see, so you don't care if it works or not, if it's fair or not, if it's going to make things worse overall or better. etc. You just want Change. Do I need to explain how that has been a path to very bad things happening in the past?

As for your problem of having to pay 2x+ for coverage compared to what it cost when you were part of a group, I sympathize. It's not an unusual situation. But there are a lot of issues involved there, a lot of ways it could have been fixed with free market solutions, a lot of problems that still exist because nothing has really been done to lower actual healthcare costs, which are what ultimately drive the cost of treatment.

[Kurt Ullman]

What do you mean "covered group"?

[Kurt Ullman]

Ands we don't know what the covered group was. If retirees were getting something from an employer, for instance, it is also possible tht the $1900 cost was the same, but the employer was picking up the difference.

[Unquestionably Confused]

True dat! My case appears somewhat identical to Tony's. As a retiree, I was able to keep my BC&BS Preferred provider coverage and did so. Took a huge hit when I turned 65 and went on Medicare and BC&BS became my "Supplemental" What happened was BC&BS under terms of the policy in effect for my group assumes that Part A & B are in effect. My wife, not yet of age for Medicare is still covered completely AND, I forgot, the subsidy paid by my employer ends when I hit 65. So even though the premium for my coverage dropped when I hit 65 and BC&BS became my supplemental, I was now paying full price across the board. However, I paid no more nor any less than the employer/employee were paying for like coverage.

And, yeah, premiums are steep. Spending about $1,600 month for my coverage plus the ~$100.mo for Medicare B

[Ed Pawlowski]

Is that $1600 for both of you? The supplement for Medicare should be in the $200 to $250 range for just you.

I have Medicare and a supplement and it is less than $700 for the two of us and it is virtually 100% coverage on anything but some prescription co-pays.