Capt. Al Haynes sorta OT.

writes:

I think we are missing the real issue here. It's not whether Capt. Haynes
could or should be able to pay for his daughter's treatment. Rather, it is
that our broken health insurance system has once again failed to meet
reasonable expectations.

Indeed. I knew an AA line Capt. He had a seizure in flight. They
opened up his head and said "nothing to do.."

But it took him almost another 10 years to die. His wife went
broke trying to pay for his care.....
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

What "positive" thing has he done for either pilots here, or aviation in
general? Why does he even post in the aviation newsgroups when he refuses
to talk aviation? Why doesn't he just drop in on the soc.* groups and
harass them? His postings are more on topic there than here.

I believe Marty has admitted to never owning an aircraft. And I've never
seen him post about here flying per se.

I, too, would like to know why he posts on an aviation newsgroup. I've
never seen him start an on-topic thread yet. It's one thing to allow
thread-drift to carry you off-topic -- it's another thing entirely to NEVER
talk about flying.

Personally, I think he's really a 14 year old wannabe, with a 6th-grade
command of English.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Matthew P. Cummings" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 05:42:13 +0000, StellaStar wrote:

What have you been on the Internet for, two weeks? Sheesh, what a
weenie.
Martin's a delightful individual with an original sense of humor and a
mastery

As to being around a couple weeks, what a laugh. I've been around since
before it was commercialized and IMO Usenet was a better place then
because you had real answers, not the drivel Martin spews. If you went to
a newsgroup on aviation that's what you found, not this propaganda Martin
spews. When I started reading Usenet the only way to get it was by a UUCP
connection, so I have been here for more than a couple weeks. I lurk more
than I post, but I do post once in a while.

I have yet to see a posting from him describing his flights, or places
he's gone flying at, or kids he's taken up. Does he even fly a plane, or
is he just out there flying high?


In the end, I've got a cold and he just pushed the wrong buttons and I
vented. You can only take Martin in small doses.

For a positive comment about him, he does post references for many of his
more down to Earth claims.

I would like to challenge Martin to post only about Aviation with no
political undertones for one week. I bet he can't do it.

Stu Gotts wrote:
Well said and the reminder is a good one!

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 19:39:20 GMT, wrote:


I think we are missing the real issue here. It's not whether Capt. Haynes
could or should be able to pay for his daughter's treatment. Rather, it is
that our broken health insurance system has once again failed to meet
reasonable expectations. This sort of catastrophically expensive but
nonetheless essential treatment is in fact exactly why we need health
insurance. But the scenario here is, tragically, all too common. It
wouldn't even make the news if not for Capt. Haynes's (well deserved) fame.
The victim, insured through his or her employer, gets too sick to work.
Eventually he or she loses insurance coverage and cannot get a new policy
that will cover the pre-existing condition. It's win-win for the insurance
companies (who help propagate this outrage with massive campaign
contributions to corrupt politicians) and lose-lose for working Americans.


If it was some low life in prison they would sue and we, (the taxpayers)
would have to pay for it.

David

Just spent three days in Hospital for what turned out to be some semi
routine tests. Bill for 3 days was over $25K which adds up to over 3
mil a year. Thank God my Insurance picked up the tab and I forced my
way out to finish recovering at home.

Doubt if Capt Haynes has that amount of disposable money after helping
his daughter with her prior medical bills even if he flew left seat
for United.

This would be a excellent time for United to step in and help. The
publicity they would get would be worth more that what they put out.


Big John


On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 22:58:47 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
wrote:

writes:

I think we are missing the real issue here. It's not whether Capt. Haynes
could or should be able to pay for his daughter's treatment. Rather, it is
that our broken health insurance system has once again failed to meet
reasonable expectations.

Indeed. I knew an AA line Capt. He had a seizure in flight. They
opened up his head and said "nothing to do.."

But it took him almost another 10 years to die. His wife went
broke trying to pay for his care.....

Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only 7
hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax payers.


"Stu Gotts" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 13:59:54 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
wrote:

wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:


Capt. Haynes is a retired airline captain, and a sought-after speaker
on the
mashed-potato circuit. As such he should set for life, and pretty
much
rolling in money.


There are some retired TWA pilots that need to work to make ends meet.
There
are some recently retired pilots from "reorganized" carriers who have
lost a
good portion of their retirement.

That is truly infortunate, but I have a hard time feeling too sorry for
folks that made well over $100K/year and didn't sock away a little on
their own for retirement. I make less than most senior airline pilots
and I'm not planning on having SS be available when I retire nor my
company pension. If one or both are still there, that will be gravey.


Then, there's those overpaid school teachers in California who retire
at 100%,
get COLA increases from a bankrupt state, and who are rolling in
dough.~

I'm not familiar with CA (thankfully!), but in most states teachers make
a LOT less than airline pilots.

And put up with mounds more bull**** for about 10 hours a day and at
least 20 days out of the month.

Richard Hertz wrote:
Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only 7
hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax payers.

And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
response.


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Richard Hertz wrote:
Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only
7
hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax payers.

And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
response.

Why not answer his question, Matthew?

Answer this one, too: Why is it that over 3/4ths of teachers come from the
bottom quartile of their graduating classes?

The alternative to the retirement plans that kill the tax payers is
pant-loads of uneducated youth.

This is a bit of a stretch. There is "retirement", and then there is

My sister, age 54, just retired after teaching 32 years in the same Middle
School. (Actually in the same ROOM, for all those years!)

While this *does* qualify for sainthood, I'm still not sure why she was
eligible for full retirement at at 52 -- fully 13 years before the rest of
society. The taxpayers in Michigan are certainly in no position to pay
this, and should not have to -- especially nowadays, with life expectancy
for women climbing to record levels.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Jeffrey Voight" wrote in message
...
Not Matt, but I would point out that a question wasn't asked. A
statement about how the only work 180 days out of the year was posed.
As far as 7 hour days, I can assure you that it's significantly longer.
The 7 hour day is the portion in which the teacher gets to handle
students on a face-to-face basis. The remainder of the day is unbilled
and fully expected. This is the time that the teacher spends building
lesson plans (or reviewing last year's plan or reviewing somebody else's
plan), grading student papers, and, I assume, trying to rebuild their
immune systems to deal with the petri dish that they visit 180 days out
of the year.

As far as why the top 5% of any particular graduating class don't become
teachers, it's because it isn't very lucrative. It might be extremely
satisfying on a personal level, but it doesn't bring in much money.

Also, just because a person graduated in the bottom 1/4 of one's class
does not mean that they belong in the bottom 1/4 of society. It means
that when measured against their peers (where peers is defined as those
people that graduated at the same time from the same school and same
degree program [which is similar to saying 'arbitrary']), those
individuals had 3/4 of their peers get better grades.

Compared to those who chose not to get an education, even these
'poor-performers' have a significant advantage even though the
uneducated don't have to carry around a sign saying 'graduated in the
bottom 1/4 of my class'.

And, you do realize that the teachers don't get paid for the remainder
of the days that they don't work. Some of them do spread their income
so that the summer doesn't hurt so much, but you can do the same by
banking income and retrieving it on an as-needed basis.

Why would we give them retirement packages? Because if we didn't,
nobody would become a teacher. There would be no incentive at all. Why
would we want teachers? I, for one, want teachers to educate children
because I plan on retiring someday. If I am the only one left with an
education, my retirement isn't going to be very comfortable because I
won't be able to admire young, pert nurses. I won't be able to have
smart architects design nice living quarters. I won't have smart
engineers to build my next vehicle. Teachers enable all these things.

Uneducated youth don't make good
incomes. Uneducated, underpaid youth don't pay taxes. Non-tax-paying
youth mean that *you* get to pay the rest. How much can you afford?

Jeff...

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Richard Hertz wrote:

Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only

7

hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax
payers.

And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
response.


Why not answer his question, Matthew?

Answer this one, too: Why is it that over 3/4ths of teachers come from
the
bottom quartile of their graduating classes?

I am changing careers. After working for 12 years in the computer science
industry I am going to "semi-retire" to teach math and computer science.
Many family members and acquaintances teach and when I compare their
lifestyle and working hours and stress to mine I conclude that the pay cut
is worth the reduced hours and the retirement benefits are almost criminal.
(in my opinion)


"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Richard Hertz wrote:
Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only
7
hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax payers.

And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
response.


Matt

"Jeffrey Voight" wrote in message
...
Not Matt, but I would point out that a question wasn't asked. A
statement about how the only work 180 days out of the year was posed.
As far as 7 hour days, I can assure you that it's significantly longer.
The 7 hour day is the portion in which the teacher gets to handle
students on a face-to-face basis. The remainder of the day is unbilled
and fully expected. This is the time that the teacher spends building
lesson plans (or reviewing last year's plan or reviewing somebody else's
plan), grading student papers, and, I assume, trying to rebuild their
immune systems to deal with the petri dish that they visit 180 days out
of the year.

Correct - I asked no questions but made a statement that does seem to
infuriate teachers.
I am sick of teachers who whine about this "take home work." Most salaried
professionals I know also do not work a 40 hour work week. Teachers get to
work from the comfort of their home for those hours. Also, after a few
years the lesson plans are made and very little work is needed after the
work day.


As far as why the top 5% of any particular graduating class don't become
teachers, it's because it isn't very lucrative. It might be extremely
satisfying on a personal level, but it doesn't bring in much money.

Also, just because a person graduated in the bottom 1/4 of one's class
does not mean that they belong in the bottom 1/4 of society. It means
that when measured against their peers (where peers is defined as those
people that graduated at the same time from the same school and same
degree program [which is similar to saying 'arbitrary']), those
individuals had 3/4 of their peers get better grades.

Compared to those who chose not to get an education, even these
'poor-performers' have a significant advantage even though the
uneducated don't have to carry around a sign saying 'graduated in the
bottom 1/4 of my class'.

And, you do realize that the teachers don't get paid for the remainder
of the days that they don't work. Some of them do spread their income
so that the summer doesn't hurt so much, but you can do the same by
banking income and retrieving it on an as-needed basis.

Yes, and I value my vacation time more than the extra pay. This is why I am
going to switch careers. Note that teaching (as far as I am aware) has far
greater supply than demand. The most locigal presumption is that the
benefits are very desirable compared to the working hours.


Why would we give them retirement packages? Because if we didn't,
nobody would become a teacher. There would be no incentive at all. Why
would we want teachers? I, for one, want teachers to educate children
because I plan on retiring someday. If I am the only one left with an
education, my retirement isn't going to be very comfortable because I
won't be able to admire young, pert nurses. I won't be able to have
smart architects design nice living quarters. I won't have smart
engineers to build my next vehicle. Teachers enable all these things.

Perhaps - however the benefit packages are way out of line. I also think
that the government run system is less than ideal. Private schools do not
give the same benefits packages, but retain some excellent teachers due to
the better working environment. Private schools also pay less.

I do concede that I am not in a normal situation. After working 11 years
programming I am in a position (not able to retire) that enables me to take
a substantial salary reduction in order to teach.


The alternative to the retirement plans that kill the tax payers is
pant-loads of uneducated youth. Uneducated youth don't make good
incomes. Uneducated, underpaid youth don't pay taxes. Non-tax-paying
youth mean that *you* get to pay the rest. How much can you afford?


We already have pant-loads of uneducated youth. I know my local school
district is doing an abysmal job. I am horrified at what the administrators
and teachers are forcing on the local taxpayers and children.
(inefficiencies and poor syllabi)


Jeff...

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Richard Hertz wrote:

Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only

7

hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax
payers.

And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
response.


Why not answer his question, Matthew?

Answer this one, too: Why is it that over 3/4ths of teachers come from
the
bottom quartile of their graduating classes?