NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

kontiki writes:

Well obviously it depends upon where you live... you couldn't buy a
house in Kalifornia for $60,000 but in other places of the country
you could.

I suppose there might be a few people willing to live on the edge of Death
Valley or the summit of Mount Washington.

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

Maxwell writes:

There are very livable homes in every state for $60k,,,,, but you said 10
time retard,,,, can't you follow your own posts???

Yes. Ten times the average salary is $400,000, and it's very easy to find
communities in which this is the starting price for admission. If it's worth
living there at all, the price skyrockets.

Besides, you are either to ignorant or to impatient to accept the fact, that
in every state - you can buy a $60k home, live in it for 10 years, and
usually trade up with your equity, and have a $100k to $120k home for the
same monthly payment.

That's exactly the sort of practice that has made home ownership inaccessible
for so many people today. It's all a matter of greed.

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

ktbr writes:

This country was founded on the principle of limited government.
For the first 150 years of its existance we had politicians
that understood that concept. To wit, the founding fathers were
all mostly businessmen of some sort or another. The trend today
is that politicians seldome have real world experience in busines.
Far too many of the have never really held a job outside of
government... and too many are simply one in a long line
od political figures... ever inbreeding their government ideas.

Unfortunately, this is how democracies tend to evolve, which is why they tend
to limit their own lifetimes.

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

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Yep, our health care system is so bad that it is where those from countries
with socialized healthcare systems who have the money and a real problem
flock to.

Which countries would those be?

What is actually happen is sometimes the opposite: People from the United
States are going to other countries to receive good quality health care at
prices they can afford. Part of this is "medical tourism" to places in India
and elsewhere that cater to foreigners and provide top-quality care at very
reasonable prices, and part of it is to places with socialized medicine that
provide good care at good prices.

I found out a few years ago that it's cheaper to fly to Paris and get a
gall-bladder operation at the American Hospital and then fly back to the U.S.
than it is to get the same operation in the U.S. to begin with, and the
quality of care is the same. People at the hospital confirmed to me that
there are patients doing this, as I recall, meaning that they get a Paris
vacation and equivalent medical care at a lower price than they would pay if
they went to their friendly local hospital back home.

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

writes:

The US health care system is indeed very bad especially in terms of
cost. Its ironic that a major reason for this is the absence of a free
market in the medical sector. The American Medical Association
undermines the free market with a death grip on who gets to practice
medicine in the country and that grip is so strong that even the
celebrated Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman (a major
critic of the AMA) could do nothing to loosen it.

That's part of the problem, but the greatest part of medical costs comes from
institutional providers, i.e., hospitals, and not practitioners. Hospitals
are faceless, for-profit organizations that care only about how much money
they make, and some of them will literally throw cripples out onto the
sidewalk if they cannot pay.

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

Jose writes:

Actually, I think the source is from elsewhere. Medical insurance in
its various guises removes the connection between the buyer and the
seller. It was first offered as a perq, in lieu of salary, by big
corporations who could get a bargain on it (that is, they could offer it
more cheaply than individuals could get it themselves, thus it was an
attractive perq). This spread too far, and took over the medical system.

Quite so. Medical insurance allows people to forget how things get paid for,
and allows medical costs to spiral out of control. People who have insurance
want everything to be paid for and care absolutely nothing about the actual
costs. People without insurance are excluded from decent healthcare by the
resulting upward spiral of costs.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
kontiki writes:

Well obviously it depends upon where you live... you couldn't buy a
house in Kalifornia for $60,000 but in other places of the country
you could.

I suppose there might be a few people willing to live on the edge of Death
Valley or the summit of Mount Washington.

Or you realize than the United States is more than LA, Chicago, and New York.

I was looking at an airpark in Arizona with a 3 year old, three bedroom
house, private hanger, and access to the runway for $220K outside a
smallish town with a WalMart and all the other normal stuff.

Hardly the "edge of Death Valley".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:37:44 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:


We are getting pretty far a field here, but I believe it's fair to
say, that Democrats' spending tends to benefit the people, and
Republican spending tends to benefit large corporations.

We are way far a field so I added OT to the subject.

It is in no way fair to say that. The Democrat's spending tends to benefit
people who choose not to work. Republican spending tends to benefit those
that do.


Isn't it the Democrats who support labor unions?

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:45:02 GMT, wrote:



A 2006 C172 with G1000 goes for about $140. Older VFR 172's can be
rented for under $100 and 152's for conciderably less.

$125 for the 172S G1000 at BED. $90 for the 152.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:46:56 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote in
:


Larry Dighera wrote:

We are getting pretty far a field here, but I believe it's fair to
say, that Democrats' spending tends to benefit the people, and
Republican spending tends to benefit large corporations.

I think a closer look will show Democrat spending benefits their
constituents. (See: Taxpayers Union)

Want to review who they are?

Will you then promise to STFU, goofy?


I guess I hit a nerve, huh? Is your business not doing so well? Are
you one of those who lack compassion for their fellow man? Or are
your inhibitions suppressed by your imbibing this Friday afternoon?
It's a little early for that, even for you, isn't it?

Why do you feel that you must use intimidation, defamation, and
truculent bullying to make your point? Can't it stand on its own
merit? Or have I so infuriated you to the point that you are unable
to control your temper? Have you considered a class in anger
management?[1] Get a grip, man.

While I will defend your right to a differing opinion, I will not
tolerate incivility.

If you are unable to refrain from personal attacks, you will not find
a response from me among your future ill-mannered comments.

Are you still falling asleep at the controls of your aircraft for
hours at a time?[2] It's thoughtless, louts like you, who are
incapable of admitting they need a rest-stop who give personal
aviation a bad name.



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anger_management
In modern society, anger is viewed as an immature or uncivilized
response to frustration, threat, violation, or loss.

[2]
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...a?dmode=source