If user fees go into effect I'm done

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Well the wife or husband might have a problem with that particular idea.

The wife or husband didn't earn the money. They still get the better part of
the deal, since they aren't dead.

Most of those with an HSA would also have a Major Medical policy for things
like heart attacks or cancer.

In that case I'm not sure that I see any advantage to it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

kontiki writes:

Please provide some additional information that would support your
statement.

No.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Well the wife or husband might have a problem with that particular
idea.

The wife or husband didn't earn the money. They still get the better
part of the deal, since they aren't dead.

So Anthony, how are you going to divide up assets for your plan that have
been built up over 40 or 50 years of marriage between spouses that both
worked and invested their hard earned money? I understand that people
earning money is kind of a hard consept for you.



Most of those with an HSA would also have a Major Medical policy for
things like heart attacks or cancer.

In that case I'm not sure that I see any advantage to it.

Then you ought to do some research.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:


"elitist hobby" clearly does not include FedEx, et al feeder flights,
medical flights, or serious business aviation. It does include "$100
hamburger" flights, personal transportation flight, personal
sightseeing flights, and warbird activities.

Smart non-flying folks I know clearly know the difference.

I bring this aspect up, because it will become part of the debate
about user fees. To ignore the argument does not make it go away.


Well then driving in my car to a restaurant or a trip accross town to the
supermarket is an elitist hobby supported by public funding.


Your view is not shared by the automotive public.

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:39:45 -0800, Chris wrote
(in article ):


"ktbr" wrote in message
...
There truly *should* be some sort of test before one can vote so as
to weed out the both the ignorant and the stupid people.

That would remove the vote from a few posters here then



Arguably including the troll.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"ktbr" wrote

You should also be able to lose a vote for things such
as being a convicted Felon,

I though that convicted felons did not get any votes, as it now stands. You
are in favor of changing that?
--
Jim in NC

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:50:22 -0800, Gig 601XL Builder wrote
(in article ):

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Yes, I'd be willing bet all of us do. Though the other two options,
no insurance or a state run program, are also not my idea of great
ideas either.

So what's the solution?

The following only applies to the US.

Tort reform would help. As it is now if you go to the Doctor with a cold he
is more likly than not to run tests that aren't going to find anything other
than you have a cold because of the off chance that you might have something
else.

My recent bout with pneumonia is a prime example of that. An X-ray, two CT
scans, blood tests, pulmonary tests, EKG. The doctor said he knew from
listening to my chest that I had pneumonia; all of these tests were simply
confirming the fact that I had pneumonia and not bird flu, dengue fever
(well, I had just returned from the Philippines, after all) or a heart
condition. (I was not aware that a chronic cough can signify a heart
condition. Everybody in our family just keels over and dies when it is time,
usually with less than a week's warning.) The second CT scan simply confirmed
that I had recovered. It cost the church's insurance company plenty, I'm
sure, and it used up my whole deductible for the year. But that insurance
expires at the end of this month and finding a replacement has not been a
picnic.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:57:37 -0800, ktbr wrote
(in article ):

Peter R. wrote:


As a self-employed individual who lives in another fouled up state (New
York), I totally share your pain. Family health insurance in these parts is
about 1,300/month, unless one wants to flirt with very large deductibles -
something I am currently doing.


Sounds like Hillary should be in charge of the entire Unitede States
seeing as how she's done such a great job with health care in New York.

What has she had to do with health care in New York? Wouldn't that be the
work of the governor and the state legislature?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

Gig 601XL Builder writes:


The "hobby" flying that people, including the wealthy, do adds so
little to the cost of maintaining the national airspace system that
it is hardly worth mentioning. The things that get money spent on
them like airports are helping the struggling masses by supporting
businesses that create jobs.

I strongly suspect that GA is more of a burden than an asset for the
population and society at large. Commercial air travel is a
necessity; general aviation is not.


I can think of 3 major companies that together employee ~2500 people in my
town of ~20,000 that would not be here if it weren't for the availability of
GA flight. In fact, the town would probably dry up and blow away if any one
of these left and would certainly do so if any two of them did.

And since one of these companies just decided to pay for the college
education of every single person that graduates from our school system I'd
say that means pretty much everybody here benefits from GA.



Sadly, most of them probably don't know that.

Matt

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:05:59 -0800, Peter R. wrote
(in article ) :

On 2/11/2007 9:21:53 PM, C J Campbell wrote:

For myself, things have gotten so fouled up that I can no longer get medical
insurance in the state of Washington. Thanks to Mike Lowrie's insurance
'reforms,' there are NO medical insurers willing to cover anyone who does
not
work for a big corporation. Group Health and one or two others might do it
for big deductibles and premiums approaching $1000 a month. I am sick of
fighting taxing authorities, insurance companies, and everyone else who has
a
hand out. When I die, what the feds don't take, the state will seize the
rest. So it is all for nothing. With problems like that, user fees are just
another gnat sting. Foo.

As a self-employed individual who lives in another fouled up state (New
York), I totally share your pain. Family health insurance in these parts is
about 1,300/month, unless one wants to flirt with very large deductibles -
something I am currently doing.

I am convinced that many full time W2 employees (salaried or hourly
employees) don't realize what a real benefit health insurance really is. It
literally adds about US $15,000 / year or more to one's total compensation
package.



Now comes Arnold who wants to force everyone in California to buy health
insurance, even if the state has to garnishee their wages and put them in a
high risk insurance pool. I would like to see how that works out for the
millions of retired folks, families living on minimum wage, illegal aliens,
homeless street people, uninsured vacationers and business persons from other
states, and just plain poor people living in California. Maybe Arnold plans
to cover them with the proceeds from his next movie. Or maybe he will
'terminate' them.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor