Capt. Al Haynes sorta OT.

wrote in message .. .
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.

Hear, hear! Aside from adding in, that many people who lack
health insurance wind up in hospital, at public expense, for
severe complications of easily-treatable conditions whose
(much cheaper) treatment wasn't covered.

It's definately a broken system. What makes me spit is that
every time someone suggests changing it, we hear "then we'll
get triage! we'll get delays!" Well folks we get triage and
delays now, they're just usually not in the public eye.

My $0.02
Sydney

Henry Kisor wrote:

One of the reasons -- maybe the primary reasons -- states like teachers in
their 50s to retire is that they can be replaced by fresh new teachers just
out of college at starting salaries much less than those the veterans were
getting. It actually saves the states money.

Jay Honeck responded:

Hmmm. Not sure I see the math here.

While the state may save, say, half of the older teacher's salary (let's say
my sister was making $45,000 -- so they'll cut it by half in retirement, to
$22.5K) they then have to pay a new teacher what, $25K to start, plus
benefits?

Thus, we've lost a few grand in the mix.

Of course, "retirement pay" comes out of a different bucket of cash in the
state's budget then "teacher's salary", so ON PAPER they LOOK like they
"saved the taxpayers some money"...

More typical gubmint accounting, is my hunch.

I suspect that they make up a substantial portion of that perceived "lost few
grand" in the medical benefits payments. It's my impression that older worker's
(as a class) medical outlays greatly exceed those of younger workers, and the
retiree medical plan generally is funded more by the retiree than the state,
unlike the active employee medical plan.

Russell Kent

Russell Kent wrote:

Henry Kisor wrote:


One of the reasons -- maybe the primary reasons -- states like teachers in
their 50s to retire is that they can be replaced by fresh new teachers just
out of college at starting salaries much less than those the veterans were
getting. It actually saves the states money.


Jay Honeck responded:


Hmmm. Not sure I see the math here.

While the state may save, say, half of the older teacher's salary (let's say
my sister was making $45,000 -- so they'll cut it by half in retirement, to
$22.5K) they then have to pay a new teacher what, $25K to start, plus
benefits?

Thus, we've lost a few grand in the mix.

Of course, "retirement pay" comes out of a different bucket of cash in the
state's budget then "teacher's salary", so ON PAPER they LOOK like they
"saved the taxpayers some money"...

More typical gubmint accounting, is my hunch.

It ain't just gubmint accounting. Why do you think so many corporations
give early retirement incentives whenever they want to downsize? Same
principle, pensions come out of a different bucket (usually a bucket
already accounted for by pension contributions made years ago by the
employer so "free" on the balance sheet, at least until the pension plan
becomes underfunded by corporate raiding and/or accounting manipulations).

I'll try to refrain from commenting on the kind of attitude that makes
one think this move, which is very widespread in private industry, is
some kind of "gubmint accounting."

I'll try to refrain from commenting on the kind of attitude that makes
one think this move, which is very widespread in private industry, is
some kind of "gubmint accounting."

Well, maybe this kind of "voodoo economics" is widespread in big business,
too -- but big mega-firms continue to represent a smaller and smaller
percentage of American jobs. I can assure you that this kind numbers game
is NOT prevalent in the small to mid-sized businesses I'm used to dealing
with.

As far as my "attitude" indicating anything, I guess it's because I've spent
my lifetime paying, and paying, and paying taxes, yet all I see is the
economic waste and fraud that means we "need to raise taxes" again. Thus, I
equate bad business practices with Big Gubmint LONG before I equate it with
Big Business.

Why? Well, other than this past year (when I actually received a check from
my Federal Gubmint,thanks to GW), I've never received one damned nickel for
my troubles. Yet my Federal, State and Local taxes have continued to spiral
upward each and every year. Given that kind of performance, it's pretty
hard to NOT be cynical about our government.

Meanwhile, Big Business can screw the accounting pooch all they want, as far
as I'm concerned. At least they actually provide me with goods and
services I want and need, and if I don't like 'em, I can take my business
elsewhere.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 4-Jan-2004, (Snowbird) wrote:

Hear, hear! Aside from adding in, that many people who lack
health insurance wind up in hospital, at public expense, for
severe complications of easily-treatable conditions whose
(much cheaper) treatment wasn't covered.

It's definitely a broken system. What makes me spit is that
every time someone suggests changing it, we hear "then we'll
get triage! we'll get delays!" Well folks we get triage and
delays now, they're just usually not in the public eye.


Yes, that's it exactly. If EVERYONE had health insurance total health care
spending would go DOWN! When an uninsured is treated in an emergency room
(the most expensive kind of care, and usually the only place that will treat
the uninsured) who pays the bills? WE ALL DO. In some cases costs are
borne by taxes, in others they are passed along to other users of the
hospital, which are reflected in higher costs for health insurance.

There are really only two "solutions". We can let the uninsured die of
treatable conditions (morally unacceptable) or we can find a way to insure
EVERYONE, like every other industrialized country has long since been doing.

-Elliott Drucker

Yeah, teachers only work 195 days a year (but they are only paid for 195 days a
year). Work 7 hours???!!?!?! For the past 3 years my New Year's Resolution
was to leave school before 6PM (I get there at 7:30), I usually stuck with it
until almost late January :-). The retirement is usually decent if you stick
with it for 30 or 35 years as opposed to the federal government or military
where you get a good pension at 20.

Margy

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.

"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.

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 don't think that is true, but the statistic I know is true states that most
teachers leave teaching in the first 5 years. The reason? The pay isn't worth
the headaches, time, etc.

Margy

Geez Jay,

A friend of mine from high school retired from the Navy at 38! He pulls a
decent pension and last I heard had a great civilian job at the Pentagon. Don't
most folks get a pension after 32 years at the same job?

Margy

Jay Honeck wrote:

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?

Like England and Canada, or Italy and France? No thanks.

Why can't the uninsured pay? You don't have to let them die, treat them,
then make sure you collect for the services.

wrote in message
...

On 4-Jan-2004, (Snowbird) wrote:

Hear, hear! Aside from adding in, that many people who lack
health insurance wind up in hospital, at public expense, for
severe complications of easily-treatable conditions whose
(much cheaper) treatment wasn't covered.

It's definitely a broken system. What makes me spit is that
every time someone suggests changing it, we hear "then we'll
get triage! we'll get delays!" Well folks we get triage and
delays now, they're just usually not in the public eye.


Yes, that's it exactly. If EVERYONE had health insurance total health
care
spending would go DOWN! When an uninsured is treated in an emergency room
(the most expensive kind of care, and usually the only place that will
treat
the uninsured) who pays the bills? WE ALL DO. In some cases costs are
borne by taxes, in others they are passed along to other users of the
hospital, which are reflected in higher costs for health insurance.

There are really only two "solutions". We can let the uninsured die of
treatable conditions (morally unacceptable) or we can find a way to insure
EVERYONE, like every other industrialized country has long since been
doing.

-Elliott Drucker

Most teachers I know are out the door long before then.

Also, most other salaried professionals work longer hours than teachers for
no extra pay either, so the gripes about extra take-home work falls on
uncaring ears.

The bottom line is - there are plenty of qualified people lined up to take
the teaching jobs at the current salary levels. Even when unemployment is
at historic lows this is the case.

I oppose all those government gravy pensions. (Military/combat service
excluded)

One other big problem is the non-meritocracy of government/school systems.
Pay is based on years of service and so-called education credits. In the
"real" world pay is based on performance, merit, etc.

Most of the problems lie with the administrations and the general concept of
"free" or public/government run education.


"Margy Natalie" wrote in message
...
Yeah, teachers only work 195 days a year (but they are only paid for 195
days a
year). Work 7 hours???!!?!?! For the past 3 years my New Year's
Resolution
was to leave school before 6PM (I get there at 7:30), I usually stuck with
it
until almost late January :-). The retirement is usually decent if you
stick
with it for 30 or 35 years as opposed to the federal government or
military
where you get a good pension at 20.

Margy

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.

"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.