On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:20:39 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Perhaps my point of view has been influenced by my experiences. My best
friend throughout grade school and high school came from a family of
medical professionals. One brother was a doctor, one a vet, and his
sister was a pharmacist. His father was the first licensed physician in
All of them considered medicine a calling, not a business. The doctor
brother came out of med school and went to work in Appalachia. He
chuckled as he told stories of being paid in corn, chickens, and
My doctor sometime later had given up a lucrative practice in Chicago and
moved to a little town near the Wisconsin border because he couldn't stand
the way he was starting to treat medicine as a business.
So I'll at least check out the doc in the Ford to see why he's driving it.
He may be a drinker, a gambler, a loser in a malpractice suit, or he may
just be my kind of doctor.
So while I know we'll never agree, I'll continue to believe that getting
rich off the miseries of others is, if not downright immoral, certainly
distasteful. When medicine became a "business" instead of a "calling" we
all became poorer.
Again, you've no idea about my personal behaviors in this regard.
Theft is theft. I do not like the idea of profiting from the
misery of other and have - even recently -refused to do so.
But a poor man stealing from a rich man is just as dishonorable
as the reverse situation. We are either people of principle
or we can abandon all notion of civil behavior.
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
Again, it comes down to your logical inadequacies to understand. Health care
professionals are paid and paid well, just not to the excessive standards
you'd like to see. The problem is that you don't see the right to health and
life as being intrinsically linked. You are not a person of principal,
you're a person of greed, taking what you can get and screw everyone else. I
don't have to know you personally to make that statement, anybody can see
just by your words what kind of person you are.
Sure, you might have made the occasional contribution here and there, but
you'd only have done it entirely for personal benefit thinking all along
that it might get you something more tangible than just a good feeling.
According to you. However, you are not smart enough to know whether
that is *enough*. Enough to cause more people to enter the field?
pursue research? make major breakthroughs? You've written
the number you've made up on an imaginary blackboard and said, "That is
enough." Just who appointed you and your ilk to decide what
the "enough" number is? Can I do the same for your profession? Say
you're a home builder. Pretty much everyone needs shelter in some
form. I say you're not allowed to make more than $5 CN / hour.
Is that OK with you? Would it be OK with your if we all voted on it
and agreed to that number. After all, shelter is "intrinsically linked
to life" as you like to preach.
You do not have a "right" to steal. I do not steal and object to your
doing so. That makes me principled.
You are very wrong. I am happy to help those in need. Just not with
your gun to my head demanding the power over my wallet because you've
anointed yourself as my better and appointed yourself the czar of what's
good for everybody.
Sputtering ... another evidence of a failed argument.
I will not discuss my charitable actions because: a) It's none of
your business and b) Talking about it takes all the fun out of
doing such things anonymously.
Tim Daneliuk email@example.com
Or maybe he just doesn't care much about cars. The CEO of Word
Perfect used to ride around in a clapped out 20 year old pickup truck
until the marketing guys got it across to him that people seeing him
in that though that the company was in trouble and he got some kind of
shiny new econobox to go to work in.
Cost me a thousand bucks at the emergency room to get four stitches
the other day. I don't think anybody was profiteering though--most of
that was "emergency room charge", which I understand is a kind of tax
(imposed by the hospital, not the government) on those who can pay to
cover the costs for those who can't, since the ER is required by law
to take all comers regardless of financial situation. The doctor's
fee was something like a hundred bucks.
If by that you mean the future taxpayers that will have to pay increased
income taxes to pay off the debt that the trust funds contain as a
result of spending the excess FICA taxes today, you are correct - dual
That will result in running up debt at a faster rate as every excess SS
dollar that goes into the "trust fund" is a dollar of debt with
interest. When the funds need to redeem those debt bonds, future
taxpayers will have to bail out the funds.
Again, no matter what you think the rhetoric implied, retirements ar paid
from current taxes, if you really want to have a real retirement, it is
up to you, through your union (puke), employer (double puke), 401K, IRA
or what have you. SS is just a drop in the bucket, not really enough to
As far as Medicare/Medicaid/health insurance is concerned, I believe that
a certain fairly low level should be compulsory. Add-on insurance should
be affordable, and available at different levels of benefits and
premiums. It should also be underestood that smoking or other dangerous
habits should carry a penalty.
If the excess contributions were invested in corporate stocks/bonds
rather than government debt, future shortfalls would be covered by the
profits of those corporations - such as Exxon-Mobil - rather than taxing
future generations a second time for the same purpose.
if you really want to have a real retirement, it is
Agree. That is exactly what I am living on in retirement - the
investments I made during my working career. And those investments are
also paying my medical insurance premiums with no undue financial pain.
I'd rather have citizens owning corporations in privatized accounts.
The current method of having government spend the money in retirement
accounts and replacing it with government IOUs adds up to $4 trillion in
debt with another $40 or so trillion to go. Our kids and grandkids are
going to love being taxed a second time for the same thing we already
paid taxes for.
And yet, a large number of retired people do just that.
Consider, if you would, the situation faced by the retired spouse or
parent(s) of a cancer patient when all available resources had been
spent on medical treatments.
Consider also what happens when pension fund (of whatever kind) is
rendered valueless through no fault of the retiree.
Hmm. Have you ever tried making a list of "dangerous practices"? Off the
top of my head...
Holding a microwave transmitter against the side of your skull
Entering a conflict zone
Entering a disaster zone
Teaching in an inner city school
Being a student in an inner city school
Working in law enforcement
Residing in an [earthquake/tornado/flood/hurricane] zone
Driving a motor vehicle
What is the nature of the penalty you would choose
I think I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think you've
thought things through quite far enough...
It would put a real crimp in my lifestyle. I hope my other investments
don't go the way of my Lehman stock. Not that I would choose single
investments for something like my pension.
Note that I also said that affordable health insurance at a certain
minimal level should be compulsory, and it should be possible to augment
it to one's heart's content. I think that's were we get to the point
were individual responsibility needs to take over. At what point is
treatment only prolonging life, and who has to decide? Very difficult
but necessary questions.
It is always the fault of the retiree (well, almost always). Pension
funds should be very diversified. Just Enron stock is criminal - both
for the employee and the employer.
Some answers ...
I stopped in 1976
Never done that, unless a oped when I was around 20 counts.
Does a cell phone count?
I work in NY City, in a Veterans Affairs Hospital (but they don't pay me)
Son-in-law teaches Math in Paterson NJ, daughter in a not too much better
area. They are enjoying it tremendously, truely! And seeing
disadvantaged kids "get it" is a real treat.
I do that seldomly, and probably should be more careful.
Never in excess. It makes me morose and sick. I guess I'm lucky
Sorry, increased insurance rates or reduced coverage or both, so among
your choices, it would be death <grin>.
You know or should know that I was born in Holland many years ago, and
came to the US in 1969, where I have been in HMOs ever since.
As far as thinking it through, I don't think you can ever think it
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.