ATTN JMS: Are you a millionaire ?
Immortus45
impertinent question , but considering that you've sold your Rising
Star script and done a bunch of other stuff, I was wondering if you've
been pushed into the 7 figure bracket. Thanks.
Craig
perhaps I may be some long lost relative? :-)
Craig
Jim Royal
Immortus45 <Immor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<delurking>
Ah, shouldn't you tell us how much *you* make first?
--
Jim Royal <jimr...@canada.com>
"Understanding is a three-edged sword"
http://JimRoyal.com
Immortus45
> In article <fbaa421a.02070...@posting.google.com>,
> Immortus45 <Immor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course you don't have to answer if you consider this to be an
> > impertinent question , but considering that you've sold your Rising
> > Star script and done a bunch of other stuff, I was wondering if you've
> > been pushed into the 7 figure bracket. Thanks.
>
> <delurking>
>
> Ah, shouldn't you tell us how much *you* make first?
I make $10,000 a year as a Dishwasing Engineer
NanSu Uyeda
is a millionaire. but i'll tell you one thing. he should be a
millionaire, several times over. as long as he has been plying his
trade, and as talented as he is, he ought to be a BILLIONAIRE. nansu
Jms at B5
write for the fame, because if you do, you're a monkey. You don't even write
because you like to write, because if you do, you're still a monkey. You
write because to NOT write is suicide."
Stephen King
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2002 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
Gary Seven
and a little common sense, it's not hard to figure out around where he
probably ended up financially at the end of five seasons of B5 alone
(without even factoring in Executive Producer and "Created By" fees by the
way) -- so the answer to the first question would very likely have to be:
Yes, pretty much without a doubt. Not on the order of Stephen King, who he
quoted, but certainly pretty comfortable nevertheless.
If Joe ever lectures on the writing profession, both as an art and a
business, I'd love to be able to attend and listen and would look forward to
hearing of his own experiences over the course of his career. He probably
has
some interesting stories which he's never talked about here.
"NanSu Uyeda" <uye...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22591-3D2...@storefull-2114.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Birgit Schindlbeck
Jms at B5 schrieb:
>
> "You don't write for the money, because if you do, you're a monkey. You don't
> write for the fame, because if you do, you're a monkey. You don't even write
> because you like to write, because if you do, you're still a monkey. You
> write because to NOT write is suicide."
>
> Stephen King
> jms
>
That's from "On Writing"? Just wondering - sounds familiar. Good book,
btw., I really liked it!
See you!
Birgit
John Yuen
Everyone in our neighbourhood was one (at least until the housing market
crash last year) but they still all go to work everyday. They don't all
drive European exotic cars (there are a few MB & BMW but nothing beyond
that). Even nowaday, they are a dime a dozen here in the Silicon Valley
but you certainly can't retire on it. Most still work their butts off
everyday.
Regards
John Yuen
Chris Schumacher
>"You don't write for the money, because if you do, you're a monkey. You don't
>write for the fame, because if you do, you're a monkey. You don't even write
>because you like to write, because if you do, you're still a monkey. You
>write because to NOT write is suicide."
>
>Stephen King
> jms
>
That is unless The Bastards ruin it for you. (as in DLTBGYD)
If you ever do another rewrite of your scriptwriting book, you might
want to add that one of the main reasons NOT to major in English in
college is not only does it not make you economically/commercially
viable, it also exposes you to some very sick people who take the fun
out of life's most enjoyable activity.
-==Kensu==-
Effing college professors.
James Bell
"John Yuen" <jyu...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3D2C6D01...@pacbell.net...
> What's the big deal, there is nothing special to being a millionaire.
> Everyone in our neighbourhood was one (at least until the housing market
> crash last year) but they still all go to work everyday. They don't all
> drive European exotic cars (there are a few MB & BMW but nothing beyond
> that). Even nowaday, they are a dime a dozen here in the Silicon Valley
> but you certainly can't retire on it. Most still work their butts off
> everyday.
You're wrong. You *can* retire as a millionairre. The thing is, you have
to stop living the millionairre lifestyle. There are still places in
America where you an buy a home for $50,000 and live on under $20K a year.
It is just that these folks, like most people these days, mistake wants for
needs.
Give me a million and I'll buy a $100K house, put the rest in some sort of
interest bearing account, live on the $30K a year the interest nets me, AND
be living better than I am now because of not having a mortgage payment.
Just because they're a dime a dozen on the left coast doesn't mean anything
to most Americans.
Jim
Voxwoman
the most tightfisted, cheap people you could meet. That's how they got
their money (that and investing in "slums" to rent out on the bad side
of town) -- by not spending it on anything...
-Wendy of NJ
Pelzo63
tell that to the guy with a wife and 2.3 kids making $50,000 a year, then gets
laid off. sure would be nice to have that $1m to put food on the table, gas in
the car, and clothes on their backs.
>Everyone in our neighbourhood was one (at least until the housing market
>crash last year) but they still all go to work everyday. They don't all
>drive European exotic cars (there are a few MB & BMW but nothing beyond
>that). Even nowaday, they are a dime a dozen here in the Silicon Valley
so now you're talking about paper millionaires, your portfolio doesn't make you
a millionaire, having a 1 and 7 zero's in your bank account, or other liquid
account does. i could make a claim to be a millionaire based on my sports cards
holdings(that's not an exaggeration), but i can't go to the store and buy bread
with a Dewayne Washington Football card, i need a George Washington.
>but you certainly can't retire on it.
not in sillycon valley you can't, but if you truly wanted to retire with, say
$5M, and had no kids, or only 1 child, you could move to a nice inexpensive
part of the country(like the midwest), get a good sized house that costs you
1/10th of a sillycon house, and even if you only put the $ in a simple 1% apr
bank savings account, you'd earn $50,000 a year. and you wouldn't have to worry
about stock crashes, no stock holdings, or real estate crashes, no real estate.
you'd only have to deal with inflation, which is normally very slow in the
midwest.
> Most still work their butts off
>everyday.
their butts eh? by this you mean working on their butts? or do you really feel
like comparing them to factory workers, mechanics, police, or firefighters? or
intellectually "working butts off" people such as professors, medical
researchers, writers, and engineers?
unlike matthew, i have no problem with people earning every penny they can
accumulate, but i do have a problem with people bitching and crying about how
the money doesn't mean all that much. if you truly believe that $ does not
mean much, then switch with me.
...Chris
Ben R. Self
quite prolific in a high paying field for a number of years despite
the pressure of TV writing being a young man's game. To not have
socked away $1,000,000 in the last 30 years would require that JMS is
an idiot (something he continually disproves), has a monkey on his
back (he has several, but can't say that I have detected one that is a
particularly costly financial drain), or has been swindled by a CFO /
Money Manager (events probably would have been leaked to CNN).
So what. Like John pointed it out, a million just ain't that much any
more. As a thought experiment, try putting a million into a money
market fund and live off the interest... after taxes. Most of us
couldn't even make our mortgage payments.
Now to be "rich", it requires that you have at least 50 million. And
if you want to be a spend thrift you need that plus a good income
besides. I seriously doubt that Joe is financially "rich" and "living
large." For one thing he has been unlucky at getting the kind of
lucrative contracts that such wealth requires. Why? He isn't in for
the money. He hasn't been represented by the type of sharks required
to get the merchandising rights or a piece of anything that isn't net.
He just wanted to tell his story.
However, if he doesn't watch out he may one day end up being the type
of filthy rich artist that leaves such a soiled taste in his mouth.
Now that he has clawed himself to the top of his field, established a
proven track record, a new agent, and not to mention quite a fan base.
It could happen ^Å and it would serve him right (meant in both the
nicest possible way as well as healthy shot of the pejorative that
the sob deserves)
Matthew Vincent
>I know some millionaires on the right-hand (East) coast,
>too. They are the most tightfisted, cheap people you could
>meet. That's how they got their money...
My parents are company directors (my father's also an archaeologist,
and my mother a music teacher, both because they enjoy it rather than
for the money)... but yet, my mother said at one point that she "can't
afford" $2 extra to buy Free Range eggs. My response is that the hens
can't afford for us to buy regular eggs, and that the amount of
suffering caused to them greatly outweighs the benefits to humans of
saving a bit of money.
For this reason, we're all ethically obliged to buy Free Range eggs
and not regular eggs. This is one little issue that I tend to work on
with people, in order to promote a paradigm shift in how they think
about money and their responsibilities.
Matthew
James Bell
"Ben R. Self" <bs...@eloquent.com> wrote in message
news:54f05804.02071...@posting.google.com...
> Of course Joe is a "millionaire." He has been lucky enough to be
> quite prolific in a high paying field for a number of years despite
> the pressure of TV writing being a young man's game. To not have
> socked away $1,000,000 in the last 30 years would require that JMS is
> an idiot (something he continually disproves), has a monkey on his
> back (he has several, but can't say that I have detected one that is a
> particularly costly financial drain), or has been swindled by a CFO /
> Money Manager (events probably would have been leaked to CNN).
Not necessarily true. First, his field isn't *that* high paying. It isn't
like he's an actor or anything. Second, he hasn't been making the "big
bucks" for 30 years. He probably worked in an equivalent of indentured
servitude for the first 20 just so he could start making some real money
during the last 10. While I agree that he might be a millionaire it is by
no means a given.
> So what. Like John pointed it out, a million just ain't that much any
> more. As a thought experiment, try putting a million into a money
> market fund and live off the interest... after taxes. Most of us
> couldn't even make our mortgage payments.
Are you kidding me? Where do you people live? I could live off the
interest of a million dollars and live *better* than I do now. And I'm not
poor.
> Now to be "rich", it requires that you have at least 50 million. And
> if you want to be a spend thrift you need that plus a good income
> besides. I seriously doubt that Joe is financially "rich" and "living
> large." For one thing he has been unlucky at getting the kind of
> lucrative contracts that such wealth requires. Why? He isn't in for
> the money. He hasn't been represented by the type of sharks required
> to get the merchandising rights or a piece of anything that isn't net.
> He just wanted to tell his story.
I'm not sure what your definition of rich is here. Mine would be: to have
enough money that I wouldn't have to work unless I wanted to. Others might
be: to have enough money to do whatever one wants whenever one wants to.
I'd consider that filthy rich, not merely rich.
Actually, I consider myself rich in other ways, faith and family, but that
is off the point.
Jim
John Yuen
living at the place you're living now.
Remember Unless you pricipal amount grows with inflation. your $30K wouldn't
even buy you bread in 20 years. You need an investment that will net you a few
% point over inflation and that's hard to do risk free.
Regards
John Yuen
P.S. I heard that there are a bunch of those millioniare type in the eastcost
also, not to mention all those in Texas.
John Yuen
> > What's the big deal, there is nothing special to being a millionaire.
>
> tell that to the guy with a wife and 2.3 kids making $50,000 a year, then gets
> laid off. sure would be nice to have that $1m to put food on the table, gas in
> the car, and clothes on their backs.
True, What I want to point out is that being a millionaire nowaday no longer
carry with it the prestiege that it does in the old day when the phrase was first
used.
> >Everyone in our neighbourhood was one (at least until the housing market
> >crash last year) but they still all go to work everyday. They don't all
> >drive European exotic cars (there are a few MB & BMW but nothing beyond
> >that). Even nowaday, they are a dime a dozen here in the Silicon Valley
>
> so now you're talking about paper millionaires, your portfolio doesn't make you
> a millionaire, having a 1 and 7 zero's in your bank account, or other liquid
> account does. i could make a claim to be a millionaire based on my sports cards
> holdings(that's not an exaggeration), but i can't go to the store and buy bread
> with a Dewayne Washington Football card, i need a George Washington.
If you own (as in not having a mortage) a million dollar home, I don't think you
would have problem buying cread.
> >but you certainly can't retire on it.
>
> not in sillycon valley you can't, but if you truly wanted to retire with, say
> $5M, and had no kids, or only 1 child, you could move to a nice inexpensive
> part of the country(like the midwest), get a good sized house that costs you
> 1/10th of a sillycon house, and even if you only put the $ in a simple 1% apr
> bank savings account, you'd earn $50,000 a year. and you wouldn't have to worry
> about stock crashes, no stock holdings, or real estate crashes, no real estate.
> you'd only have to deal with inflation, which is normally very slow in the
> midwest.
5M will barely make it, what you forget is that you have to keep up with
inflation otherwise your $50K a year won't even buy you bread in 20 years. So you
have to clear 1%-2% over the inflation rate and let your principle grow with the
inflation rate to give you the same value every year and you certainly could not
get that thru the bank. This mean some kind of investment with the risk that is
associated with it.
Also, what's the point of retiring if I cannot maintain the same living style.
which probably means that you'll need a 3%-4% net return from your 5M which is
kinda hard to do risk free.
> > Most still work their butts off
> >everyday.
>
> their butts eh? by this you mean working on their butts? or do you really feel
> like comparing them to factory workers, mechanics, police, or firefighters? or
> intellectually "working butts off" people such as professors, medical
> researchers, writers, and engineers?
Your factory worker, mechanic, police, firefighter all make more that an average
1st year software engineer (unless you are a star in college). What they didn't
get is stock options that (used to) grow 300% a year. but then you don't have to
work 60 hours weeks as a routine.
> unlike matthew, i have no problem with people earning every penny they can
> accumulate, but i do have a problem with people bitching and crying about how
> the money doesn't mean all that much. if you truly believe that $ does not
> mean much, then switch with me.
Oh, money makes the world go around alright and I'll try to accumulate as much
as I also. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't think that you have made it if
you became a millionaire, you still have a long way to go (as you say, you need 5M
at least).
Regards
John Yuen
Joseph DeMartino
make you
> a millionaire, having a 1 and 7 zero's in your bank account, or other
liquid
> account does. i could make a claim to be a millionaire based on my
sports cards
buy bread
> with a Dewayne Washington Football card, i need a George Washington.
No, but you could if you sold that card for the cash. That you don't is
your choice. A millionaire is defined as someone who has a *net worth*
of one million dollars or more. That's assets (including your house and
your valuables) less liabilities. If the final number is over a million
bucks, you qualify. And by that definition millionaires are more common
than a lot of people think. If you've paid-off the mortgage on a house
that's worth $250,000 or $300,000 - which is hardly a mansion in many
parts of the country - you're well on your way.
I've known more than a few such folk, and most of them *do* work damned
hard. That's because most (something like 80% of the "rich" in this
country) are "first generation rich" - they're mostly small business
owners who have built up companies that they founded by working 18 hour
days and often 7 day weeks. (Those companies "count" when it comes to
net worth.) Is a lot of that work brain work as opposed to manual labor?
Yeah. That doesn't mean it isn't *work*, or that it's any less honest
that what a mail carrier or a waitress or a cab driver does.
Regards,
Joe
Pelzo63
>No, but you could if you sold that card for the cash. That you don't is
>your choice. A millionaire is defined as someone who has a *net worth*
>of one million dollars or more. That's assets (including your house and
>your valuables) less liabilities. If the final number is over a million
>bucks, you qualify.
i know this, but as i said, assets are not cash, we live in a cash society, not
a barter one. if i sell all of my assets, then what? i have $1M, but i have
nothing, so i use that to buy assets, again, i don't have anything. the
original poster claimed that you can not live off of $1M, i'm assuming that to
mean if suddenly right this second, my bank account hit $1,000,000.00; of
course, even starting out with zero assets, i could still live off of it in
many parts of the country.
> Is a lot of that work brain work as opposed to manual labor?
>Yeah. That doesn't mean it isn't *work*, or that it's any less honest
>that what a mail carrier or a waitress or a cab driver does.
i never aid it was less honest, i merely questioned that this was "working
their butts off". perhaps my view is schewed because intellectual work comes
very easy to me. i write reports in minutes, and solve math problems without
"showing my work"(which is why math professors hate me, and i hate them ;-).
do these people still work? yeah, do they work long hours? yeah, do they work
their butts off? not in my view. (oh, and a cab driver doesn't work his butt
off either, hell, most of them don't even try to learn the language of their
customers ;-)
...Chris
Adam Canning
But you won't be a millionaire. By two orders of magnitude.
--
Adam
Once you have pulled the pin, Mr Nova Bomb is no longer your friend.
Adam Canning
says...
> > What's the big deal, there is nothing special to being a millionaire.
>
> tell that to the guy with a wife and 2.3 kids making $50,000 a year, then gets
> laid off. sure would be nice to have that $1m to put food on the table, gas in
> the car, and clothes on their backs.
>
> >Everyone in our neighbourhood was one (at least until the housing market
> >crash last year) but they still all go to work everyday. They don't all
> >drive European exotic cars (there are a few MB & BMW but nothing beyond
> >that). Even nowaday, they are a dime a dozen here in the Silicon Valley
>
> so now you're talking about paper millionaires, your portfolio doesn't make you
> a millionaire, having a 1 and 7 zero's in your bank account, or other liquid
> account does. i could make a claim to be a millionaire based on my sports cards
> holdings(that's not an exaggeration), but i can't go to the store and buy bread
> with a Dewayne Washington Football card, i need a George Washington.
No. Having an income of a million a year makes you a millionaire. Despite
what "Who wants to be a Millionaire" belives.
Daniel O. Miller
> No. Having an income of a million a year makes you a millionaire. Despite
> what "Who wants to be a Millionaire" belives.
Since there's nothing I love better than beating a pedant at his own game,
I hereby suggest you go and look it up.
Daniel O. Miller
"Does this look familiar? Do you know what it is? Neither do I! I made
it last night in my sleep. Apparently I used gindrogac - highly unstable!
I put a button on it, yes? I wish to press it, but I'm not sure what will
happen if I do..." - Gune
WWYD?
Jms at B5
>quite prolific in a high paying field for a number of years despite
>the pressure of TV writing being a young man's game.
Harrumph...I'm still only 47, though I look about 60 in most photos.
>would require that JMS is
>an idiot (something he continually disproves), has a monkey on his
>back (he has several, but can't say that I have detected one that is a
>particularly costly financial drain), or has been swindled by a CFO /
>Money Manager (events probably would have been leaked to CNN).
The main monkey on my back is comics, comics related collectibles,
and...erm...I think I just ran out of stuff.
Though I'm not going to get into the specifics of this discussion, one thing
that needs to be factored into the overall understanding is that Los Angeles is
a VERY expensive town in which to live and work, and the entertainment business
is a VERY expensive field in which to work.
Gas, food, restaurants, clothes, rent (average rent for a small two-bedroom
apartment out here is about $1300 per month), mortagages (you can't find much
anything decent in town for less than about $800,000 as your baseline, and for
that you're getting maybe 1400 sq feet), it's just a money sink.
And very few people, especially writers, work year-round. You may have six
months when you're flush, then six months to a year with nothing. The average
WGA member makes one TV sale per year; the average WGA member makes less than
your average elementary school teacher. Only about 2% of the WGA earns over
$100,000 per year.
William Goldman is probably one of the best writers we have; after five years
of big hits, he couldn't get arrested for nearly ten years. Then he became big
again. Factor five years of income, however high, across 15 years total...you
see the dilemma.
Income tax takes about 30-45% of any money you make in that tax bracket
(however shortly you might be there), the agent gets another 10%, the attorney
another 5%, so you're losing about 60% of your income right off the bat.
Which is why you can't let yourself get too caught up in the money part or
you'll go insane. All you can do if you're sensible is focus on the art and
the craft and hope for the best.
Here's the only thing I know that makes any sense when it comes to money: find
what you enjoy doing, find what moves you to passion, find what you can't *not*
do, and the miraculous thing about it is, if you're half decent at it, and
dedicate yourself to getting better, and keep at it, after a while, sonuvagun,
you can almost always find a way to make a living off it.
Well, before taxes, anyway.
Voxwoman
Jms at B5 wrote:
>>He has been lucky enough to be
>>quite prolific in a high paying field for a number of years despite
>>the pressure of TV writing being a young man's game.
>>
>
> Harrumph...I'm still only 47, though I look about 60 in most photos.
Man, now I'm *really* depressed... I used to console myself thinking
that Heinlein didn't get going as a writer until he was 40, and I'm
looking at 45 at the end of this year for me... (sigh)
> Here's the only thing I know that makes any sense when it comes to money: find
> what you enjoy doing, find what moves you to passion, find what you can't *not*
> do, and the miraculous thing about it is, if you're half decent at it, and
> dedicate yourself to getting better, and keep at it, after a while, sonuvagun,
> you can almost always find a way to make a living off it.
I hear you. My personal mistake was getting a job writing manuals for a
big telecom company - now I'm hooked on the income and can't just up and
quit and become a starving writer/artist/musican. I have to find stolen
moments to pursue my craft, and they seem to be less and less available.
And by the way, Jeremiah last night kicked some major butt.
-Wendy of NJ
Chris Schumacher
>Here's the only thing I know that makes any sense when it comes to money: find
>what you enjoy doing, find what moves you to passion, find what you can't *not*
>do, and the miraculous thing about it is, if you're half decent at it, and
>dedicate yourself to getting better, and keep at it, after a while, sonuvagun,
>you can almost always find a way to make a living off it.
>
>Well, before taxes, anyway.
>
> jms
Wellll, you could claim that your writings are holy, and start your
own church, then you wouldn't have to pay taxes. :)
-==Kensu==-
Hail Joe!
Immortus45
> Everyone in our neighbourhood was one (at least until the housing market
> crash last year) but they still all go to work everyday. They don't all
> drive European exotic cars (there are a few MB & BMW but nothing beyond
> that). Even nowaday, they are a dime a dozen here in the Silicon Valley
> but you certainly can't retire on it. Most still work their butts off
> everyday.
>
> Regards
> John Yuen
>
So are these people like middle class millionaires or something ?
To...@fred.net
2) <MoneyForNothing>
The Great Maker with the Comics and the Series...
(yeah Showtime, not HBO)
The Great Maker has his own Starfury
The Great Maker -- is a millionaire?
<MoneyForNothing>
o/~ I want my... I want my... I want my ISN.... o/~
--
To...@Fred.Net http://www.fred.net/tomr
* "Hello, girls.... I'm the Easter Bunny!" - Janet Reno, "South Park"
* Look out! If Bender says "ass", Katherine Harris will appear!
"... and Rosanjin Scholar, Simon Cowell!" - "Iron Chef", Alternate Timeline
"If someone is jailed for quoting Tom Lehrer, then our true American
liberties are gone." - MattH
Mary Kay Bergman 1961-1999 - http://www.mkbmemorial.com/
"It's been a lot of fun." - Alison Brooks
John W. Kennedy
>>He has been lucky enough to be
>>quite prolific in a high paying field for a number of years despite
>>the pressure of TV writing being a young man's game.
>
>
> Harrumph...I'm still only 47, though I look about 60 in most photos.
Yes, but even we in the outside world know that in contemporary US
TV-land, 47 -- or 37 -- is "old". Fortunately for you and us, the
clock seems to stop once you make it to Exec. Producer / show-runner.
--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood.html
Fuggar
news:20020713005527...@mb-cu.aol.com:
....
> Gas, food, restaurants, clothes, rent (average rent for a small
> two-bedroom apartment out here is about $1300 per month), mortagages
> (you can't find much anything decent in town for less than about
> $800,000 as your baseline, and for that you're getting maybe 1400 sq
> feet), it's just a money sink.
>
> And very few people, especially writers, work year-round. You may
> have six months when you're flush, then six months to a year with
> nothing. The average WGA member makes one TV sale per year; the
> average WGA member makes less than your average elementary school
> teacher. Only about 2% of the WGA earns over $100,000 per year.
....
I remember watching some Hollywood entertainment show. There was a
segment on some minor actor. He said the best decision he made was to
give some of his income to his brother-in-law who was a real estate
agent. The actor was living well on all those people willing to buy a
$800,000 doll house from him.
Fuggar
news:agmlm7$t02$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu:
Just move to a country where the cost of living is lower. Sure you give
up some security, but if you're not an obnoxious American, learn the
local language, you can live quite well in some very pretty countries.
Matthew Vincent
>The main monkey on my back is comics...
Comics are one of my expenses too: Amazing Spidey, Rising Stars, and
(when the trade paperback comes out) Midnight Nation. :)
>Though I'm not going to get into the specifics of this
>discussion, one thing that needs to be factored into the
>overall understanding is that Los Angeles is a VERY expensive
>town in which to live and work, and the entertainment business
>is a VERY expensive field in which to work.
That's part of how they suck people in, too. Once someone gets used to
the comfortable lifestyle, and dependent upon their job to pay their
expenses, the suits can tell them to do things their way, and many
people will comply with this out of fear of being fired.
>And very few people, especially writers, work year-round.
That's why it helps if you have another job to spend your time on when
you don't feel like writing. :)
>Here's the only thing I know that makes any sense when it comes
>to money: find what you enjoy doing, find what moves you to
>passion, find what you can't *not* do, and the miraculous thing
>about it is, if you're half decent at it, and dedicate yourself
>to getting better, and keep at it, after a while, sonuvagun,
>you can almost always find a way to make a living off it.
Very wise words. I'm also reminded of the advice that Sheridan left
for his child in _Objects at Rest_.
Matthew
Andrew Swallow
news:Xns924CAA6C6A27...@138.126.254.210...[snip]
> Just move to a country where the cost of living is lower. Sure you give
> up some security, but if you're not an obnoxious American, learn the
> local language, you can live quite well in some very pretty countries.
>
A side thought. Jeremiah is being made in Canada. At what point does
JMS have to start paying Canadian Income Tax?
Andrew Swallow
Jms at B5
>JMS have to start paying Canadian Income Tax?
I was able to get a waiver on LoTR because it was a short-term engagement, but
on Jeremiah I've been paying Canadian taxes (as well as American taxes) since
day one.
Even so, my Canadian tax burden is still far less than the average Canadian has
to shell out every year, percentage-wise. Though I'm still somewhat of a
newcomer, my feeling is that, frankly, the Canadian people are getting hosed.
I understand the dilemma of having a very large country and a very small
population that has to support that infrastructure, but even so they're just
getting hammered out of all proportion and reasonableness.
Travers Naran
>>A side thought. Jeremiah is being made in Canada. At what point does
>>JMS have to start paying Canadian Income Tax?
> I was able to get a waiver on LoTR because it was a short-term engagement, but
> on Jeremiah I've been paying Canadian taxes (as well as American taxes) since
> day one.
> Even so, my Canadian tax burden is still far less than the average Canadian has
> to shell out every year, percentage-wise. Though I'm still somewhat of a
> newcomer, my feeling is that, frankly, the Canadian people are getting hosed.
> I understand the dilemma of having a very large country and a very small
> population that has to support that infrastructure, but even so they're just
> getting hammered out of all proportion and reasonableness.
Don't forget we have more of a more generous social infrastructure, but
nowhere near enough big profitable corporations to support it. Still,
we like to think at least we're better off than the Finnish. :-)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travers Naran | Visit the SFTV Science Blunders
F/T Programmer,P/T Meddler In Time&Space | Hall of Infamy!
New Westminster, British Columbia, |
Canada, Earth, Milky Way, etc. | <www.geocities.com/naran500/>
"Stand Back! I'm a programmer!" | ** UPDATED 9-Apr-2002 **
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jms at B5
>nowhere near enough big profitable corporations to support it. Still,
>we like to think at least we're better off than the Finnish. :-)
Yeah, in theory it's a generous social infrastructure, but it don't work.
Between lower paying salaries and a tax burden that leads a lot of
professionals in various areas like medicine to go to the US, you've got a
brain drain and a resources sink that kills a lot of that infrastructure.
(Which is why I spent 6 hours in the emergency room of Vancouver General
Hospital, before being taken into the actual work room, and another 2 hours
before getting worked on by a doctor, the day I dislocated my right ring
finger...there was only ONE emergency room doctor on duty on a Saturday night.)
It costs less, but there's less OF it, and it's not terribly efficient, and
doesn't give your average Canadian the value for his/her money.
Maybe I'm a bit more vocal about this than I should be, as an American (and
knowing how much we've contributed to the problem) but goddamn, you guys are
getting taken to the cleaners up there.
Jonathan Biggar
> It costs less, but there's less OF it, and it's not terribly efficient, and
> doesn't give your average Canadian the value for his/her money.
>
> Maybe I'm a bit more vocal about this than I should be, as an American (and
> knowing how much we've contributed to the problem) but goddamn, you guys are
> getting taken to the cleaners up there.
Hmm, maybe there's hope of turning JMS into a libertarian yet. :)
--
Jon Biggar
Floorboard Software
j...@floorboard.com
j...@biggar.org
Marko K Lehtinen
> Don't forget we have more of a more generous social infrastructure, but
> nowhere near enough big profitable corporations to support it. Still,
> we like to think at least we're better off than the Finnish. :-)
You probably are... I don't know the exact number for you but in Finland
you have to pay about 34 % in income taxes if you earn about 25 000
(average pay per year in Finland, in euros (or dollars, don't seem to have
much difference there these days)) a year, and it gets worse very quickly
if you are stupid enough to try to earn more...(close to 50 % income tax
for the yearly income of about 70 000).
And that's only the income tax... The total tax load is, I think, closer
to 60 - 70 percent (this figure apparently includes also all the hidden
taxes (i.e. value added taxes) that you pay when bying food, books, or
anything at all).
Well, I'm not an expert in these things, but still: 8(
Marko
Fuggar
news:20020717011205...@mb-ma.aol.com:
> Maybe I'm a bit more vocal about this than I should be, as an American
> (and knowing how much we've contributed to the problem) but goddamn,
> you guys are getting taken to the cleaners up there.
I lived for two years in BC and saw the problem. The only way I could
afford to live there was my company actually paid my Canadian taxes
(don't ask I don't know how they did that really). But I experienced the
medical problems first hand. My neighbor's mother needed kidney surgery.
She had to wait 9 months for the surgery to be scheduled while being in
and out of hospital the whole time.
Also the cost of medicine is higher in Canada then the US. It is just
hidden behind the fact that Canadians pay for it through taxes. My second
son was born there for a cost of $5000CDN for a normal birth compared to
my first son in California by C-section costing $1500US. But I will say,
the relaxed attitude in the Canadian hospital was wonderful compared to
the hectic pace in California.
I gotta say living in Canada, getting US wages, and having US & Canadian
medical coverage was wonderfull. BC is clean, the people polite, and has
a much lower crime rate (it does have lots of petty crime, it's just less
violent) then most US states.
Podkayne Fries
[referring to mdeical care in The Great White North]
>Between lower paying salaries and a tax burden that leads a lot of
>professionals in various areas like medicine to go to the US, you've got a
>brain drain and a resources sink that kills a lot of that infrastructure.
>(Which is why I spent 6 hours in the emergency room of Vancouver General
>Hospital, before being taken into the actual work room, and another 2 hours
>before getting worked on by a doctor, the day I dislocated my right ring
>finger...there was only ONE emergency room doctor on duty on a Saturday night.)
If you had gone to the average American hospital with the same sort of
minor injury, you probably would have waited the same length of time.
Most US hospitals are understaffed. My local hospital serves a
population of around 150K, and normally only has one ER doctor working
per shift. My goddaughter is currently in med school, training to
become an ER doctor, and she tells me that this is a normal
patient/doctor ratio.
If there is more than one patient in ER, they triage the patients.
This often means that patients with minor, non-life threatening
injuries have to wait while people with more serious problems are
moved to the front of the queue.
--
Regards, Podkayne Fries
"Anything worth having is worth cheating for." - W.C. Fields
Andrew Swallow
news:20020716231455...@mb-fk.aol.com...
> >A side thought. Jeremiah is being made in Canada. At what point does
> >JMS have to start paying Canadian Income Tax?
>
> I was able to get a waiver on LoTR because it was a short-term engagement,
but
> on Jeremiah I've been paying Canadian taxes (as well as American taxes)
since
> day one.
No claiming exception on the grounds that you were in Canada for
less than 6 months then? Having made sure that you were on the
plane after 5 months and 2 weeks.
Did not work, pity.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
news:ah36vq$ijo$1...@news.cc.tut.fi...
> Travers Naran <tna...@direct.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>
> And that's only the income tax... The total tax load is, I think, closer
> to 60 - 70 percent (this figure apparently includes also all the hidden
> taxes (i.e. value added taxes) that you pay when bying food, books, or
> anything at all).
>
I used to think that women went out to work to pay the families
taxes and we lived on the man's pay. This looks to be the
other way round. The family lives on the woman's income
and the may works to pay the taxes.
The Cold War made a splendid excuse for continuing the
emergency taxation of WW II in peace time. The main
cost items in large organizations are forms and meetings,
but for some inexplicable reason the accounting system
does not use them as cost centres.
Andrew Swallow
Travers Naran
>>nowhere near enough big profitable corporations to support it. Still,
>>we like to think at least we're better off than the Finnish. :-)
> Yeah, in theory it's a generous social infrastructure, but it don't work.
> Between lower paying salaries and a tax burden that leads a lot of
> professionals in various areas like medicine to go to the US, you've got a
> brain drain and a resources sink that kills a lot of that infrastructure.
> (Which is why I spent 6 hours in the emergency room of Vancouver General
> Hospital, before being taken into the actual work room, and another 2 hours
> before getting worked on by a doctor, the day I dislocated my right ring
> finger...there was only ONE emergency room doctor on duty on a Saturday night.)
> It costs less, but there's less OF it, and it's not terribly efficient, and
> doesn't give your average Canadian the value for his/her money.
> Maybe I'm a bit more vocal about this than I should be, as an American (and
> knowing how much we've contributed to the problem) but goddamn, you guys are
> getting taken to the cleaners up there.
That's what we like to think. :-) Although it's getting worse in B.C. For
the middle classes, the provincial government has recently jacked up a
bunch of other things to pay for a "generous tax cut". I got $50 extra
per paycheck which then got eaten up by a nearly 50% increase in medical
premiums. YIKES!
Voxwoman
Podkayne Fries wrote:
It used to be like that here, too. But our local ER about 18 months ago
started an initiative where they advertised 15 minutes to see a (triage)
nurse, 30 minutes for a doctor, and they've actually done it. Now, once
the doctor sees you, it could be a little while before you actually get
the treatment <g>, but in all our ER visits this year, we've been in and
out within 3 hours, max (and that was me, waiting for a foot x-ray). I
think it had to do with some big medical company buying our local hospital.
>
>
Voxwoman
Andrew Swallow wrote:
That's because they would have to then eliminate meetings (or at least
cut them down). I don't think our corporate culture could survive that.
Nope. Not Bell Labs! LOL
-Wendy of NJ
>
> Andrew Swallow
>
>
>
Andre Lieven
> "Marko K Lehtinen" <kam...@uta.fi> wrote in message
> news:ah36vq$ijo$1...@news.cc.tut.fi...
>> Travers Naran <tna...@direct.ca> wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> And that's only the income tax... The total tax load is, I think, closer
>> to 60 - 70 percent (this figure apparently includes also all the hidden
>> taxes (i.e. value added taxes) that you pay when bying food, books, or
>> anything at all).
>
> I used to think that women went out to work to pay the families
> taxes and we lived on the man's pay. This looks to be the
> other way round. The family lives on the woman's income
> and the may works to pay the taxes.
The thing that needs to be remembered, when comparing standards
of living between Canada and the US, is in properly comparing
total costs of taxes, and private services costs, that are covered
by the taxes in the other country.
So, USians pay lower taxes, and get less services for them, so to
bump up to equivalent service levels, one would have to add in to
the US tax-equivalent burden the private services that are publically
covered in Canada.
At that point, the tax differential gets smaller.
Beyond that, my experience in living in both nations is, that the
overall comfortable costs of living are lower in Canada. Many
goods and services have similar price numbers on them, while the
US buck costs 50% more. Its to the point that on my travels to
the US, I buy almost nothing, ever. As whetever it is, it'll
costs me less back home. Rent, food, books, consumer electronics...
The only things that I can think of that cost more here are gasoline,
booze and cigs. I don't smoke or drink...
> The Cold War made a splendid excuse for continuing the
> emergency taxation of WW II in peace time. The main
> cost items in large organizations are forms and meetings,
> but for some inexplicable reason the accounting system
> does not use them as cost centres.
As I said to jms, we are a different nation and people up
here. The book that I mentioned to him, by J.R.Saul, would
explain this very well to USians.
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Iain Rae
> "Marko K Lehtinen" <kam...@uta.fi> wrote in message
> news:ah36vq$ijo$1...@news.cc.tut.fi...
>
>>Travers Naran <tna...@direct.ca> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>And that's only the income tax... The total tax load is, I think, closer
>>to 60 - 70 percent (this figure apparently includes also all the hidden
>>taxes (i.e. value added taxes) that you pay when bying food, books, or
>>anything at all).
>>
>
>
> I used to think that women went out to work to pay the families
> taxes and we lived on the man's pay. This looks to be the
> other way round. The family lives on the woman's income
> and the may works to pay the taxes.
>
> The Cold War made a splendid excuse for continuing the
> emergency taxation of WW II in peace time.
Lucky you, we're still paying for the Napoleonic war :)
Voxwoman
Fuggar wrote:
> jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote in
> news:20020717011205...@mb-ma.aol.com:
>
>
>
>>Maybe I'm a bit more vocal about this than I should be, as an American
>>(and knowing how much we've contributed to the problem) but goddamn,
>>you guys are getting taken to the cleaners up there.
>>
>
> I lived for two years in BC and saw the problem. The only way I could
> afford to live there was my company actually paid my Canadian taxes
> (don't ask I don't know how they did that really). But I experienced the
> medical problems first hand. My neighbor's mother needed kidney surgery.
> She had to wait 9 months for the surgery to be scheduled while being in
> and out of hospital the whole time.
>
> Also the cost of medicine is higher in Canada then the US. It is just
> hidden behind the fact that Canadians pay for it through taxes. My second
> son was born there for a cost of $5000CDN for a normal birth compared to
> my first son in California by C-section costing $1500US.
I don't know when or where you had *your* baby, but when I had mine (8+
years ago in central NJ) the total costs were closer to $15,000 - not
1500... The OB was 2500 on her own. And this was a "normal" birth, no
anesthetics, no c-section. 3-day hospital stay. I think the *room* cost
1500... (I did get a private LDRP - labor, delivery,recorvery,
postpartum room)
-Wendy of NJ
Peter B. Juul
> I don't know when or where you had *your* baby, but when I had mine (8+
> years ago in central NJ) the total costs were closer to $15,000 - not
> 1500... The OB was 2500 on her own. And this was a "normal" birth, no
> anesthetics, no c-section. 3-day hospital stay. I think the *room* cost
> 1500... (I did get a private LDRP - labor, delivery,recorvery,
> postpartum room)
OK, my mind boggles. You _pay_ to give birth. I guess I knew that,
somehow, I just never really thought about it.
Are births covered in health plan/insurance?
In Denmark we pay about 50% taxes and 25% sales tax. It's steep,
agreed, but somehow I don't really care. It means that a lot of stuff,
that would otherwise cost a bunch, are instead "free". There's so much
more to life than getting paid and the fact that unless they really,
really don't want to, everybody can get at least a decent living on my
tax money, makes sense to me.
Of course, we are almost commies over here :-)
--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o Dyt, hvis du er Mel B. (fra Spice Girls)
The RockBear. ((^))
I speak only 0}._.{0
for myself. O/ \O
rossiele
> >>
> I don't know when or where you had *your* baby, but when I had mine (8+
> years ago in central NJ) the total costs were closer to $15,000 - not
> 1500... The OB was 2500 on her own. And this was a "normal" birth, no
> anesthetics, no c-section. 3-day hospital stay. I think the *room* cost
> 1500... (I did get a private LDRP - labor, delivery,recorvery,
> postpartum room)
>
> -Wendy of NJ
Sorry for the silly question and the OT, but really in the USA you
have to PAY to go in an hospital and have a baby? I live in Italy and
here all hospital are completely free (I mean they are paid with
income taxes, so they are not free, but at least you dont' have to pay
anything when you need some important surgery or an expensive cure), I
am not saying this is a perfect system are there are lots of
mismanagements and there are 'good' and 'bad' hospitals, but generally
speaking they offer a rather good service. Only if one prefers, one
can go to a private clinic, pay a lot of money and have a private room
and more smilings doctors...Is it different in your Country?
Bye
Elena
(Milano, Italy)
Matthew Vincent
>Yeah, in theory [Canada has] a generous social infrastructure,
>but it don't work. Between lower paying salaries and a tax
>burden that leads a lot of professionals in various areas like
>medicine to go to the US, you've got a brain drain and a
>resources sink that kills a lot of that infrastructure.
That's true. The US has to keep up when other Western countries try to
institute welfare capitalist systems, or else there is going to be
this imbalance where high income-earners leave other Western countries
for the US. Still, for the most part the other Western countries would
be better off overall, even with this imbalance in place. All this
"globalisation" and "free trade" crap threatens to interfere with the
sovereignty of other nations to make their own choices, though. I
heard of one example recently, where Canada was pressured by the NAFTA
agreement to accept pollution from US-based oil companies.
>(Which is why I spent 6 hours in the emergency room of Vancouver
>General Hospital, before being taken into the actual work room,
>and another 2 hours before getting worked on by a doctor, the
>day I dislocated my right ring finger...there was only ONE
>emergency room doctor on duty on a Saturday night.)
Sorry to hear you had to go through all that. However, whatever the
reason for there only being one doctor there, it's *not* due to
inefficiencies being necessitated by the Canadian welfare system. New
Zealand (*) has always had free, government-funded hospital care, and
yet we haven't had these problems with understaffing. There'd be at
least half a dozen doctors on, even in a small hospital for a city of
less than 100,000 people. You wouldn't have to wait more than 30 mins
or so at most, and any relatively urgent injuries could almost
certainly be seen to immediately.
(*) I understand that Australia, and many European countries, also
have a similar system as we have here in NZ.
In fact, it's since the government has tried cutting funding to
everything that our worst problems have started developing. The
government tried a $35 hospital fee for everyone who doesn't have a
community services card, and it ended up costing them more money to
administer the system than they made from it. Waiting lists for
certain operations have started to increase due to cuts in government
funding, and sadly this is fuelling the demand for private hospitals
to start up.
New Zealand's maximum taxation rate is far less than Canada's. Our
highest tax category is that we pay 33% for each dollar earned over
about 35k or so. Now, this is fine when it comes to the 35k-50k range,
but 33% is way too low for someone earning, let's say, 200k-500k. It
would be much better to add in a few more increments, with a maximum
tax rate of maybe around 50-55% for each dollar earned over about 150k
or so. Something worth bearing in mind is that, whilst the middle
classes earn somewhat less under welfare capitalism, we don't have to
spend as much. For a start, if there's no user-pays health and it's
all free, then you don't need to worry about spending money on medical
insurance.
But anyway, my point is that if even NZ can get government-funded
hospitals to run properly, even with our puny maximum tax rate of 33%,
then there's no reason that Canada couldn't get it right. They are
either not investing enough in hospitals, or else it's some
bureaucratic screw-up. Maybe they're spending too much money
elsewhere, or something. I wouldn't like to guess, since I don't know
much about the Canadian system. However, I do know that the Canadian
government provides free (or almost free?) antidepressants and related
drugs, and that drugs are over-used in therapy due to the pressure
from the drug companies. This might be an issue; although obviously
there are likely to be lots of different factors to consider.
>Maybe I'm a bit more vocal about this than I should be, as an
>American (and knowing how much we've contributed to the problem)
You, as an individual, are only responsible for whether you personally
have contributed to the problem. As long as you've never voted for the
Republicans, you are entitled to a clean conscience. (That being said,
each and every one of us is responsible for making reasonable attempts
to address the world's problems -- but I know you do that *g*)
Matthew
Lisa Coulter
>
> > jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote in
> > news:20020717011205...@mb-ma.aol.com:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Maybe I'm a bit more vocal about this than I should be, as an American
> >>(and knowing how much we've contributed to the problem) but goddamn,
> >>you guys are getting taken to the cleaners up there.
> >>
> >
> > I lived for two years in BC and saw the problem. The only way I could
> > afford to live there was my company actually paid my Canadian taxes
> > (don't ask I don't know how they did that really). But I experienced the
> > medical problems first hand. My neighbor's mother needed kidney surgery.
> > She had to wait 9 months for the surgery to be scheduled while being in
> > and out of hospital the whole time.
> >
> > Also the cost of medicine is higher in Canada then the US. It is just
> > hidden behind the fact that Canadians pay for it through taxes. My second
> > son was born there for a cost of $5000CDN for a normal birth compared to
> > my first son in California by C-section costing $1500US.
>
>
> I don't know when or where you had *your* baby, but when I had mine (8+
> years ago in central NJ) the total costs were closer to $15,000 - not
> 1500... The OB was 2500 on her own. And this was a "normal" birth, no
> anesthetics, no c-section. 3-day hospital stay. I think the *room* cost
> 1500... (I did get a private LDRP - labor, delivery,recorvery,
> postpartum room)
THREE days? What was your insurance? Were there complications? I'm
in FL, daughter 1 I was on an HMO, daughter 2 Blue Cross - in both
cases I was out much faster. Had the first at 10: 17 pm - by 7 pm the
next evening I was at home eating pizza. My second girl was born at 8
am and I did stay over night , that was after people got upset about
them throwing out maternity patients after less than 24 hours. My
first kid is just 9, so thatr is about when you had yours. I thought
almost all health plans at that point had women without C sections out
in 24 hours or less. Also, I had epidurals both times - I'm a real
coward when it comes to pain, boy was that a blessing! My LARP - not
sure that's what it was called, but I labored, delivered and recovered
in there, was private too. The overall cost to me was not much,
certainly well under a grand each time.
Lisa Coulter
Florida
>
> -Wendy of NJ
>
Robert Perkins
wrote:
>
>You, as an individual, are only responsible for whether you personally
>have contributed to the problem. As long as you've never voted for the
>Republicans, you are entitled to a clean conscience.
As an opinion, I suppose you're entitled to that.
But I think it's a baseless, and, I might say, entirely inappropriate
and distressing thing to say about "the Republicans," whose collective
will is not as clear-cut as that.
Rob
Voxwoman
Matthew Vincent wrote:
> jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
>
>
>>Yeah, in theory [Canada has] a generous social infrastructure,
>>but it don't work. Between lower paying salaries and a tax
>>burden that leads a lot of professionals in various areas like
>>medicine to go to the US, you've got a brain drain and a
>>resources sink that kills a lot of that infrastructure.
>>
>
> That's true. The US has to keep up when other Western countries try to
> institute welfare capitalist systems, or else there is going to be
> this imbalance where high income-earners leave other Western countries
> for the US. Still, for the most part the other Western countries would
> be better off overall, even with this imbalance in place. All this
> "globalisation" and "free trade" crap threatens to interfere with the
> sovereignty of other nations to make their own choices, though.
I think that was the thrust of the major protests about the WTO - that
public policy is being made by a group of individuals who were not
elected, and whose mandate is NOT the best interest of their
constituents. And these policies are supposed to be followed by all the
memeber countries....
Chris Patterson
elenamaria...@tin.it (rossiele) wrote:
> Sorry for the silly question and the OT, but really in the USA you
> have to PAY to go in an hospital and have a baby?
Yes, you bet. My first child was born while I worked for a large
employer and had great group health insurance. Out of pocket expenses
(besides the insurance premiums deducted from my pay): 9 dollars.
My second child was born 4 years later -- I was then self-employed and
self-insured. Out of pocket expenses: roughly 6000 dollars.
--
======================================================================
Chris Patterson
Dopeler Effect: The tendency for stupid ideas to seem smarter when
they come at you rapidly.
Andrew Swallow
news:3D370459...@dcs.ed.ac.uk...
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
> > The Cold War made a splendid excuse for continuing the
> > emergency taxation of WW II in peace time.
>
> Lucky you, we're still paying for the Napoleonic war :)
>
An interesting thing about capitalist countries, to cut taxes the
government does not have to cut services. What it does have
to do is restrict the increase in government spending to no more
then inflation plus half the growth rate. Anything more and
taxes have to rise.
Andrew Swallow
Jms at B5
I like to consider my mind an open door.
It's just not a revolving door.
Jms at B5
>and distressing thing to say about "the Republicans," whose collective
>will is not as clear-cut as that.
Yes and no...but a lot of the party's stands are in total lock-step.
For instance...I know somebody who ran for office as a Republican last year
(jms looks around the audience with doe-like eyes of innocence, letting folks
figure out the rest for themselves)...who told me that as part of running, the
Party gave him a box full of notebooks that contained what was to be his stance
on any number of issues. He was not to diverge from them.
But most troubling...he was given what was essentially a loyalty oath,
stipulating that he would support George W. Bush in the forthcoming primaries
*exclusively*, and not McCain, and if he didn't agree, the Party would withhold
its financing from his election bid.
So much for the marketplace of free ideas.
Michael J Wise
> For instance...I know somebody who ran for office as a Republican last year
> (jms looks around the audience with doe-like eyes of innocence, letting folks
> figure out the rest for themselves)...
" Got it in One, Mr. Garibaldi!
> who told me that as part of running, the Party gave him a box full of
> notebooks that contained what was to be his stance on any number of
> issues. He was not to diverge from them.
Interesting.
Might be even more so to find those books online somewhere.
> But most troubling...he was given what was essentially a loyalty oath,
> stipulating that he would support George W. Bush in the forthcoming
> primaries *exclusively*, and not McCain, and if he didn't agree, the
> Party would withhold its financing from his election bid.
[Sigh]
Expected, I guess. Vote Nader?
Aloha mai Nai`a!
--
"Please have your Internet License http://kapu.net/~mjwise/
and Usenet Registration handy..."
Chris Adams
>But most troubling...he was given what was essentially a loyalty oath,
>stipulating that he would support George W. Bush in the forthcoming primaries
>*exclusively*, and not McCain, and if he didn't agree, the Party would withhold
>its financing from his election bid.
>
>So much for the marketplace of free ideas.
I have no doubt that the same is true of the Democratic Party. The
Libertarian Party is more loosely organized, so I don't think they do
that (at least not yet). I don't know about the Green Party and the
others.
Why couldn't Adams and Jefferson just listened to Washington?
The political mess seems to grow worse every year. Unfortunately I
don't see a way out of it.
--
Chris Adams <cma...@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Michael J Wise
Sorry, just one other thing occurred to me.
Jms at B5 wrote:
> ... and if he didn't agree, the Party would withhold its financing
> from his election bid.
Sounds like a purchase to me.
> So much for the marketplace of free ideas.
Marketplace? You ... betcha!
It's the best Political System that Money can Buy!
But there's nothing FREE about it.
Blair Leatherwood
> stipulating that he would support George W. Bush in the forthcoming primaries
> *exclusively*, and not McCain, and if he didn't agree, the Party would withhold
> its financing from his election bid.
Yikes! Can you tell us how he responded?
Robert Perkins
Juul) wrote:
>OK, my mind boggles. You _pay_ to give birth. I guess I knew that,
>somehow, I just never really thought about it.
When my son was born this year, the dollar cost (of the bills and
statements I got) was something over $3000, for hospital services and
the room. Our medical insurance for the year was just under $5000.
Shortly thereafter, it went up, to just over $7000 (per year)
>Are births covered in health plan/insurance?
In almost all cases, part or all the cost of a normal,
complication-free childbirth, and childbirth involving minor surgery
(episeotemy (sp?), or C-section), would be covered under the varying
terms of different private medical insurance policies. If you consider
(I'm going on memory from the birth of our third baby)
- a policy where the premium is $500/month "major medical", $600/month
"PPO", or $700/month "HMO" (For a large family, of five or six, these
amounts can be somewhat higher. For a "single guy", they're
significantly lower, but then again, "single guys" don't bear
children.)
- an obstetrician practice fee of $2000 (care throughout the whole
pregnancy)
- a hospital room charge of $1000 (three nights)
- various specialist charges (anesthetics and nurses) of $1500,
payable to the hospital
some of those terms in these different policies might be:
a) ("major medical") After a "deductible" of $500, plus that month's
premium, the insurance takes care of 80% of the remainder. Total
out-of-pocket cost of about $1300. Given no other illnesses, the total
cost of that pregnancy for the year in medical care in this case is
$7300
-or-
b) ("PPO") After a "deductible" of $250, plus the month's premium, the
insurance takes care of the remainder of some services, plus a $10
(average) co-pay for each doctor visit. Total out-of-pocket, assuming
12 doctor visits for obstetrics care, $370. For the year, $7570
-or-
c) ("HMO") There is no deductible, so after the month's premium, the
insurance cares for all the services, but still charges a $10 copay
for each doctor visit. Total out-of-pocket at the birth, $120. For the
year, $7120
There are other variants. You can see that each of these examples fall
within a certain range, and make some pretty incredible assumptions.
The actuaries at the health plan companies are better at this than I
am.
In most cases, salary and wage earners in the U.S. don't directly pay
out this money; an employer, if he offers health plans, takes care of
anywhere between 30% to all of a medical insurance premium. Usually,
the case is that the employer will subsidize almost fully the
insurance rate for the employee, with the employee making up the
difference to insure the rest of his family.
When a person needs to buy his own health insurance, which was almost
the case with me a while back, it's entirely possible that he will see
the need to just forget it, and pay as he goes. That's risky, but
probably no more so than getting on a commercial airline.
>Of course, we are almost commies over here :-)
Yeah. ;-)
Rob
Thomas A. Horsley
>stipulating that he would support George W. Bush in the forthcoming
>primaries *exclusively*, and not McCain, and if he didn't agree, the Party
>would withhold its financing from his election bid.
Never fear: the party makes up for snubbing McCain in the primaries by being
perfectly willing to accept his list of campaign donors and incessantly
badger them for donations to the party (I know - I sent McCain some money,
and the republican party has easily spent 10 times my donation sending me
"surveys" and "invitations" and any other kind of variation they can think
of to extract money from this voter who, ironically, supported McCain for
his campaign finance reform stance :-).
--
>>==>> The *Best* political site <URL:http://www.vote-smart.org/> >>==+
email: Tom.H...@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL |
<URL:http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley> Free Software and Politics <<==+
Voxwoman
Lisa Coulter wrote:
the gory details are on my website with photos... but the short version:
I labored in the hospital for 18 hours, delivered at 2:45 AM, so "day 1"
I was in labor. They let me stay another night, and they wanted to
keep me a 3rd night (really the baby, not me) but after calling the
insurance co, they sent me home on the 3rd day. It was February,
bitterly cold, between a bunch of major blizzards (there were 10-foot
piles of snow everywhere, from plowing the parking lots, and ice
covering most surfaces). The 72 hour post-partum was more to verify that
the baby's heart chambers had closed properly (I had to go to the
pediatrician the next day for him to listen to her heart). It may have
been that I was 36 at the time of delivery and they were being cautious
- any older than 35 and they classify you as "high risk". I don't
remember my out of pocket expenses, but the total tab was around 15000,
which did include pre-natal amniocenteisis (because of the age thing) -
that ran about 5-600 IIRC. It was an uncomplicated birth. the funny
thing was you could tell who had epidurals and who didn't by the lack of
screaming coming from the rooms.
for the gory details (and some photos), go to...
http://www.musicforthegoddess.com/parent/passage/birth_story.html
You don't know what the total costs were for your deliveries (including
what the insurance paid for) do you?
Oh, and my health insurance was 200/month on top of that.
-Wendy of NJ
(6+ hours until Jeremiah!)
Voxwoman
Peter B. Juul wrote:
> Voxwoman <voxw...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>I don't know when or where you had *your* baby, but when I had mine (8+
>>years ago in central NJ) the total costs were closer to $15,000 - not
>>1500... The OB was 2500 on her own. And this was a "normal" birth, no
>>anesthetics, no c-section. 3-day hospital stay. I think the *room* cost
>>1500... (I did get a private LDRP - labor, delivery,recorvery,
>>postpartum room)
>>
>
> OK, my mind boggles. You _pay_ to give birth. I guess I knew that,
> somehow, I just never really thought about it.
well, you don't pay to give birth, per se, you pay for the doctor's
time, renting the hospital room and whatever medical equipment the
doctor wants to use, the nurses time, the neonatal pediatrician's time,
and an anesthesiologist (if you get one - I didn't).
(and then you pay for all the kid's other expenses for the next 18 to 21
years - I think the estimated tab these days is about 160,000 for all of
that, and that doesn't include college costs.)
>
> Are births covered in health plan/insurance?
Yes. My out of pocket was significantly less than 15,000. (but I had to
pay for the insurance, too, but if I was not covered by insurance -- and
I was unemployed at the time -- public assistance would have helped out
with prenatal care and such, but I'd be going to a clinic, and not able
to choose my own doctor, nor have nearly as much control over my own
treatment options as I do if I'm paying my own way, or have decent
insurance.)
Voxwoman
rossiele wrote:
Yes, we pay. Most people with any foresight will have health insurance
that covers most things under most circumstances. People with jobs at
big corporations will have this insurance as a benefit of employment
(where the employer pays most of the insurance costs). People who are
working independently, such as writers, artists, and musicians, and
"consultants" or "contract employees" (people hired to do work of
"regular employees" but are not on the payroll, and can be fired at will
without affecting unemployment statistics) are on thier own as far as
health insurance goes. Most opt to purchase it privately, if they can
afford it. There are always people who don't have it, and they get stuck
with less than adequate care, or sent to free clinics. Hospitals are
required to provide services, regardless of ability to pay, but that
does cause ruinous financial dealings to people with no insurance in
many cases (and the cause for benefit concerts or spaghetti dinners at
the local Elks club, to raise money to pay off medical bills for
uninsured community members). Clinton tried to get something passed
through congress, but it never made it out of committee, I think.
> Bye
> Elena
> (Milano, Italy)
>
>
Fuggar
news:m3heiws...@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk:
> Voxwoman <voxw...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> I don't know when or where you had *your* baby, but when I had mine (8
+
>> years ago in central NJ) the total costs were closer to $15,000 - not
>> 1500... The OB was 2500 on her own. And this was a "normal" birth, no
>> anesthetics, no c-section. 3-day hospital stay. I think the *room*
cost
>> 1500... (I did get a private LDRP - labor, delivery,recorvery,
>> postpartum room)
>
> OK, my mind boggles. You _pay_ to give birth. I guess I knew that,
> somehow, I just never really thought about it.
One way or the other somebody pays for it. In my case I just saw the
bills and handed them over to my insurer. Who had been collecting
payments from my employer and from me in the form of co-payments,
deductables, and monthly premiums. So everybody in my insurance plan
helped me pay for the birth of my children.
Now nothing says you gotta go to a hospital. Just stay home and do it the
natural way if you want. For the most part you just pay the cost of
cleanup, assuming nothing goes wrong.
WRWhite963
>(jms looks around the audience with doe-like eyes of innocence, letting folks
>figure out the rest for themselves)...who told me that as part of running,
>the
>Party gave him a box full of notebooks that contained what was to be his
>stance
>on any number of issues. He was not to diverge from them.
>
>But most troubling...he was given what was essentially a loyalty oath,
>stipulating that he would support George W. Bush in the forthcoming primaries
>*exclusively*, and not McCain, and if he didn't agree, the Party would
>withhold
>its financing from his election bid.
>
>So much for the marketplace of free ideas.
>
> jms
This is exactly why the argument, "party doesn't matter - I voted for the guy"
usually doesn't wash. If someone is willing to identify themselves with a
party platform by willingly, publicly allying themselves to it, then they have
to assume responsibility for the entire platform - even the stuff they don't
agree with. At the very least, they need to be constantly vocal as to where
they diverge from the platform - in which case, the party wouldn't let them
stay around very long.
Otherwise, they should take their ball and start a game in the next field over.
Sometimes I wish the original disagreement over Constitutional interpretation
which led very early on to our two-party mentality was at least a three-edged
sword - I think they left out the "truth" side.
WRW
WRWhite963
>perfectly willing to accept his list of campaign donors and incessantly
>badger them for donations to the party (I know - I sent McCain some money,
>and the republican party has easily spent 10 times my donation sending me
>"surveys" and "invitations" and any other kind of variation they can think
>of to extract money from this voter who, ironically, supported McCain for
>his campaign finance reform stance :-).
>
THAT is CLASSIC!
:-)
(I actually had a similar experience with the library at the Rochester
Institute of Technology - my dad gave money to them for their expansion, and
yet at the same time, even though I lived on-campus and they had my e-mail
account, sent me paper snail-mail notifications asking me to please pay the 25
cents I owed them due to a book being one day late. I let it go on, seeing how
much they'd waste - I finally cut it off at two and a half dollars of postal
costs - and yet I still owed them only a quarter.)
WRW
Peter B. Juul
> In most cases, salary and wage earners in the U.S. don't directly pay
> out this money; an employer, if he offers health plans, takes care of
> anywhere between 30% to all of a medical insurance premium. Usually,
> the case is that the employer will subsidize almost fully the
> insurance rate for the employee, with the employee making up the
> difference to insure the rest of his family.
OK, could you elaborate a bit on that?
How widespread are employer health plans? Are we talking mainly "rich
man's jobs" like 9-to-5 office workers or do the random waitress at a
diner or the cleaner at a school have these things? AFAIK you do have
some sort of public health care system - when does that kick in?
> When a person needs to buy his own health insurance, which was almost
> the case with me a while back, it's entirely possible that he will see
> the need to just forget it, and pay as he goes. That's risky, but
> probably no more so than getting on a commercial airline.
Yeah, well, I can see how that would mean that some people go and die
from e.g. testicular cancer which is pretty close to 100% curable (but
rather expensive) today. Just because they could not pay.
But then again, I grew up in a country, where we are taught that ours
is the right way to go - just like you did. Even though we can all see
flaws in our local ways of doing things, most of us accept them as
"better than the alternative".
--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "Jeg har læst avis hver dag i et år, 365 dage. Og jeg
The RockBear. ((^)) har læst den af pligt, jeg er jo nærmest lige så meget
I speak only 0}._.{0 inde i verdens gang som de fleste journalister. Dét er
for myself. O/ \O ikke særlig sundt!" - Jakob Martin Strid
Peter B. Juul
> (and then you pay for all the kid's other expenses for the next 18 to
> 21 years - I think the estimated tab these days is about 160,000 for
> all of that, and that doesn't include college costs.)
True, but the birth expenses are a one-time payout. The rest is spread
kinda thin over a large number of years (oh, and college is free
here. Having a lot of educated people is an priority for the society.)
--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "Kritikken af dine indlæg skyldes alene det
The RockBear. ((^)) faktum, at du er en idiot."
I speak only 0}._.{0 -Stefan Holm
for myself. O/ \O
Aubrey W. Adkins
That's as good a summarization of our political system as I have
seen; however, I think that you will find that kind of trash is
prevalent in any of the established parties. The only way to avoid it is
to run as an independent and finance your own campaign. I know, but they
tried campaign reform already, and it isn't going to fly; too many oxen
get gored.
Aubrey
Reed Snellenberger
>
> For instance...I know somebody who ran for office as a Republican last year
> (jms looks around the audience with doe-like eyes of innocence, letting folks
> figure out the rest for themselves)...who told me that as part of running, the
> Party gave him a box full of notebooks that contained what was to be his stance
> on any number of issues. He was not to diverge from them.
>
> But most troubling...he was given what was essentially a loyalty oath,
> stipulating that he would support George W. Bush in the forthcoming primaries
> *exclusively*, and not McCain, and if he didn't agree, the Party would withhold
> its financing from his election bid.
>
> So much for the marketplace of free ideas.
>
So... in return for receiving financing and support from an
organization, he had to agree to act as a member of that organization by
supporting its goals & accepting the decisions of those who were in
charge of the organization.
Those evil Republicans -- to think that they'd act like...
<wait for it>
any other damn organization on the entire planet or elsewhere, including
the Benevolent and Protective Order of the Elks, Emily's List, the John
Birch Society, the Rangers, the Shadows, the Vorlons, (obligatory B5
references), and even the Democratic Party...
Okay, Joe, this is easy to demonstrate ;-) -- according to this
standard, the next time the Writer's Guild walks out you should just
keep working in the marketplace of free ideas...
Reed
(who realizes he's just blowing into the wind... but has to try, anyway)
Robert Perkins
>>But I think it's a baseless, and, I might say, entirely inappropriate
>>and distressing thing to say about "the Republicans," whose collective
>>will is not as clear-cut as that.
>
>Yes and no...but a lot of the party's stands are in total lock-step.
True, true. And not the point. Matthew's claim was that never casting
a vote for the Republicans entitles one to a clear conscience where
his franchise is concerned. Leaving aside the notion that a foreign
citizen may accuratly judge U.S. politics, it simply begs the same
question about "the Democrats."
>For instance...I know somebody who ran for office as a Republican last year
>(jms looks around the audience with doe-like eyes of innocence, letting folks
>figure out the rest for themselves)
Who, Jerry Doyle or John McCain?
>...who told me that as part of running, the
>Party gave him a box full of notebooks that contained what was to be his stance
>on any number of issues. He was not to diverge from them.
Yes, yes, the "platform". Again, it begs the question, "What do the
Democrats (or any other party) do differently, if anything?"
>But most troubling...he was given what was essentially a loyalty oath,
>stipulating that he would support George W. Bush in the forthcoming primaries
>*exclusively*, and not McCain, and if he didn't agree, the Party would withhold
>its financing from his election bid.
Same question, did not the Democratic party exact a similar loyalty
oath for Al Gore from candidates? Largely, I didn't see much more than
lockstep from the other side during the election season last time.
>So much for the marketplace of free ideas.
Can't argue with that. Well, maybe I can: witness the relatively
strong performance of the Reform Party in '92 and '96, before
infighting took them to pieces (and before they chose less popular
wackos like Buchanan to front for them). And, the Green Party this
last time around, (and the Independent in '80, IIRC) though to a much
smaller degree.
I think the ability to express an idea is still more or less
unfettered.
I don't claim to agree with the modus operandi of either major party.
I *do* claim to be ignorant of much of the Democratic Party's
interactions with candidates, how they decide to fund congressional
campaigns, etc. Perhaps someone who knows candidates from the Democrat
side can offer perspective on that. Maybe even you, Joe? Do the
Democrats push a platform on their funded candidates the way you saw
the Republicans do it?
Rob
Andrew Swallow
news:20020720000906...@mb-fx.aol.com...
[snip]
>
> But most troubling...he was given what was essentially a loyalty oath,
> stipulating that he would support George W. Bush in the forthcoming
primaries
> *exclusively*, and not McCain, and if he didn't agree, the Party would
withhold
> its financing from his election bid.
>
I agree, it is not the parties job to rig the election between 2 of its
own members. After all, the insiders were only 1 Supreme
Court Judge from supporting the WRONG candidate.
One of the purposes of primaries is to find out which candidate
the electors will actual vote for.
Andrew Swallow
Laura Appelbaum
"Blair Leatherwood" <bleath...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3D390467...@attglobal.net...
LMA
Voxwoman
Peter B. Juul wrote:
> Robert Perkins <rob_p...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>In most cases, salary and wage earners in the U.S. don't directly pay
>>out this money; an employer, if he offers health plans, takes care of
>>anywhere between 30% to all of a medical insurance premium. Usually,
>>the case is that the employer will subsidize almost fully the
>>insurance rate for the employee, with the employee making up the
>>difference to insure the rest of his family.
>>
>
> OK, could you elaborate a bit on that?
>
> How widespread are employer health plans? Are we talking mainly "rich
> man's jobs" like 9-to-5 office workers or do the random waitress at a
> diner or the cleaner at a school have these things?
Office workers, yes. Waitresses, it depends (I didn't have it when I
waitressed, but I was only part-time and a student, so it probably
doesn't count. Part-time employment is generally exempt from labor
laws). And there are plenty of office or industrial (i.e. factory) jobs
here that are by no means "rich man's jobs" that do provide benefits.
Usually it's part of the negotiated contract with whatever labor union
is in "charge" of the industry.
AFAIK you do have
> some sort of public health care system - when does that kick in?
When your income drops below some number decided by the state that you
live in.
>
>
>>When a person needs to buy his own health insurance, which was almost
>>the case with me a while back, it's entirely possible that he will see
>>the need to just forget it, and pay as he goes. That's risky, but
>>probably no more so than getting on a commercial airline.
>>
>
> Yeah, well, I can see how that would mean that some people go and die
> from e.g. testicular cancer which is pretty close to 100% curable (but
> rather expensive) today. Just because they could not pay.
I thought men died from testicular and prostate cancer because to live
without the ability for "male functioning" is a "fate worse than death"
for a lot of men (although that's changed now that there are surgical
procedures developed that do not sever all the nerves like a few years ago)
Brian Osserman
>So... in return for receiving financing and support from an
>organization, he had to agree to act as a member of that organization by
>supporting its goals & accepting the decisions of those who were in
>charge of the organization.
Are you really that clueless? Requiring support for every officially voted
on Republican plank is one thing (not that that doesn't also bother me), but
requiring all candidates to support Bush is completely unjustifiable. It
might be one thing if he were an incumbent, but he wasn't. The entire point
of a primary is to try to find out which of the candidates the members of the
party support. If a few in the leadership get to make up their minds and then
force all major and minor party figures to support a given candidate, it
defeats the entire proclaimed purpose of the primary.
>Those evil Republicans -- to think that they'd act like...
><wait for it>
>any other damn organization on the entire planet or elsewhere, including
>the Benevolent and Protective Order of the Elks, Emily's List, the John
>Birch Society, the Rangers, the Shadows, the Vorlons, (obligatory B5
>references), and even the Democratic Party...
If you honestly think that the purpose of all organizations is to let a
small leadership group force all the representatives and members to do
everything their way, I feel sorry for you. I assume, from the tone of your
assertion, that you have evidence to back up what you're saying?
Particularly vis-a-vis the Democratic party, which I was just going to ask
about myself, since I'm a member and I'm curious how their practices
compare. That aside, there are plenty of organizations which embrace
difference of opinion and informed discussion; for every Catholic Church,
there are major religious organizations where individual churches have far
more leeway in deciding what views are appropriate or inappropriate in a
leader of their church (and I'm not a big fan of religious organizations, to
say the least), to look at a particular type of organization not famed for
its openness to free exchange of ideas. And that's not even getting into the
more serious question of what amounts to fixing choices of leaders in what are
supposed to be democratic processes.
Brian (who is curious how other political parties compare)
Robert Perkins
Juul) wrote:
>Robert Perkins <rob_p...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> In most cases, salary and wage earners in the U.S. don't directly pay
>> out this money; an employer, if he offers health plans, takes care of
>> anywhere between 30% to all of a medical insurance premium. Usually,
>> the case is that the employer will subsidize almost fully the
>> insurance rate for the employee, with the employee making up the
>> difference to insure the rest of his family.
>
>OK, could you elaborate a bit on that?
>
>How widespread are employer health plans? Are we talking mainly "rich
>man's jobs" like 9-to-5 office workers or do the random waitress at a
>diner or the cleaner at a school have these things? AFAIK you do have
>some sort of public health care system - when does that kick in?
It kicks in for the very old and for the very poor. For the very old,
(65 years of age and up, IIRC) "Medicare" offers "Part A", which
covers hospital services, and "Part B", which covers doctor visits and
other such. There is no prescription benefit under the program that I
know of. Elements in Congress are forever trying to legislate a
prescription drug benefit for people on Medicare, but they haven't yet
reached agreement about the shape of it. (Generally every time they
discuss having a closed formulary, the drug industry howls, and every
time they discuss an open formulary, or none at all, taxpayer groups
howl.)
For the very poor, primarily very poor children, there is federal
funding for state-run "Medicaid" programs. The scope of Medicaid
varies from state to state, so I can't speak for any of them much. At
one point I was working in a ministry that included ad hoc care for a
pregnant single mother and her two kids, where I found that the system
included some prenatal care and labor and delivery.
There is also a food-and-healthcare program called "WIC" (stands for
"women, infants, and children"), which provides some health services
and nourishing foods to pregnant women and their small children.
At the federal level, then, there is no public health care system for
young adults in college (unless the University requires private health
insurance, which many do, mine did), childless men of any age above a
very marginal income level until age 65. At the State level,
opportunities for coverage vary depending on State law.
(One thing it would *really* help Europeans to do would be to consider
nations like Denmark or Finland to be roughly analagous to States like
Maryland or South Carolina, instead of trying to compare Finland to
the whole United States. Comparisons between a small republic and a
large one appear as discussions in some of the Federalist Papers.)
>> When a person needs to buy his own health insurance, which was almost
>> the case with me a while back, it's entirely possible that he will see
>> the need to just forget it, and pay as he goes. That's risky, but
>> probably no more so than getting on a commercial airline.
>
>Yeah, well, I can see how that would mean that some people go and die
>from e.g. testicular cancer which is pretty close to 100% curable (but
>rather expensive) today. Just because they could not pay.
Oh, quite to the contrary. The health care system in the U.S. would
treat the cancer, in many cases to the point of cure, and then the
various health care entities (doctor, hospital, equipment provider,
specialists, etc) would proceed to bankrupt the cured patient, in
attempts to collect their fees. Then, at the point of bankruptcy, the
government steps in to clear all the debts, usually by cancelling them
altogether through judicial fiat. After such a thing, the patient
probably finds that noone will sell him health insurance (or auto
insurance, or life insurance) for any price, or for any reasonable
price, though some of those injustices are gradually being legislated
back. That's a worst-case scenario. In some cases, private foundations
or other organizations (churches, for example) pick up the slack.
Here in the State of Washington (look for Seattle on your map) there
is a state-sponsored health plan that costs just twice (per family)
what the private employer plans do. It's really kind of too bad that
in mandating that State plan, the State basically drove most other
insurers out of business here.
>But then again, I grew up in a country, where we are taught that ours
>is the right way to go - just like you did. Even though we can all see
>flaws in our local ways of doing things, most of us accept them as
>"better than the alternative".
We have a saying in the U.S., I can't remember who first said it: "Our
system of government is the worst in the world, except for all the
others."
Rob
Adam Canning
> Reed Snellenberger <rsnelle...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> Brian (who is curious how other political parties compare)
UK for Party Leaders.
Labour -mostly decided by Union block votes with some membership input.
MP's could rearrange it if they wanted to take the flak.
Conservatives -decided by a vote of MP's [Why they have taken to picking
candidates based on looking like the Mekon I'm not sure.]
Liberal -membership secret ballot. MP's tend to be few enough that they
all stand. Unlike the other two I'm not sure the Leader has to be a
sitting MP.
Officially constituency parties choose candidates based on a vote
[However the Labour and Conservative parties HQ's have been known to
specify some or all of the list of choices.]
--
Adam
Once you have pulled the pin, Mr Nova Bomb is no longer your friend.
Sondra Ball
populationin the US has no insurance coverage of any form, including
the state coverage offered the very old or the very poor -- most of
them because they are too poor to afford private insurance for their
families (and family insurance is usually not provided for the worker
-- only coverage for the individual -- unless extra is paid) but too
rich to receive state benefits. A very high percentage of the
uninsured or underinsured are children.
sodnra
http://www.sondra.net
On 20 Jul 2002 13:29:15 +0200, pb...@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk (Peter B.
Derek Balling
<cma...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
> The political mess seems to grow worse every year. Unfortunately I
> don't see a way out of it.
Expatriation. Sad, isn't it?
D
Jms at B5
>Democrats (or any other party) do differently, if anything?"
I don't know. Does one legitimize the other? If both are doing something
wrong, does it mean therefore that either are free from criticism? I've never
understood this logic: "Well, HE does it too." So? And in this case we DON"T
know if he/they do it too.
>ame question, did not the Democratic party exact a similar loyalty
>oath for Al Gore from candidates?
Dunno. Are you saying they did? If so, if you know that to be the case, I'd
be interested in hearing about it. If you don't know it to be the case, then
it's just pettifogging.
Andrew Swallow
news:MPG.17a549679...@news.cis.dfn.de...[snip]
> Conservatives -decided by a vote of MP's [Why they have taken to picking
> candidates based on looking like the Mekon I'm not sure.]
Mekons are guaranteed not to carry handbags. :-)
Andrew Swallow
Reed Snellenberger
No, but thanks for asking... ;-)
> Requiring support for every officially voted
> on Republican plank is one thing (not that that doesn't also bother me), but
> requiring all candidates to support Bush is completely unjustifiable.
>
Of course it's justifiable -- you just don't agree with it. There was
enormous support for Bush in the party -- and not much for McCain.
> It
> might be one thing if he were an incumbent, but he wasn't. The entire point
> of a primary is to try to find out which of the candidates the members of the
> party support. If a few in the leadership get to make up their minds and then
> force all major and minor party figures to support a given candidate, it
> defeats the entire proclaimed purpose of the primary.
>
McCain's victories (especially in my old stomping grounds in Michigan)
resulted from a heavy influx of non-Republican (independents and
Democrats) in those elections. In the Michigan case, Democratic party
leaders were *publicly* encouraging their membership to vote in the
Republican primary! McCain *never* won anywhere near a majority of the
Republican vote -- if he had, your point might have had some validity.
>
> If you honestly think that the purpose of all organizations is to let a
> small leadership group force all the representatives and members to do
> everything their way, I feel sorry for you. I assume, from the tone of your
> assertion, that you have evidence to back up what you're saying?
> Particularly vis-a-vis the Democratic party, which I was just going to ask
> about myself, since I'm a member and I'm curious how their practices
> compare.
Okay... in 1996, John P. Casey (Governor of Pennsylvania, and a
Democrat) was denied the opportunity to speak at the Democratic
Convention. Why? Because he was one of the few Democratic leaders who
was pro-life, and the leadership of the Democratic Pary didn't want to
hear from him.
> That aside, there are plenty of organizations which embrace
> difference of opinion and informed discussion; for every Catholic Church,
> there are major religious organizations where individual churches have far
> more leeway in deciding what views are appropriate or inappropriate in a
> leader of their church (and I'm not a big fan of religious organizations, to
> say the least), to look at a particular type of organization not famed for
> its openness to free exchange of ideas. And that's not even getting into the
> more serious question of what amounts to fixing choices of leaders in what are
> supposed to be democratic processes.
>
Once again, the "democratic process" was selecting Bush as the nominee,
except in those few states where Republicans had (for party building
reasons, apparently) allowed people who hadn't registered as Republicans
to vote in their primary. After he lost New Hampshire, I don't think he
lost another closed primary (I was trying to find out whether New
Hampshire is closed -- I don't think so, but didn't locate any
definitive source on it.)
--
Reed
Jms at B5
>organization, he had to agree to act as a member of that organization by
>supporting its goals & accepting the decisions of those who were in
>charge of the organization.
>
>Those evil Republicans -- to think that they'd act like...
>
><wait for it>
>
>any other damn organization on the entire planet or elsewhere, including
>the Benevolent and Protective Order of the Elks, Emily's List, the John
>Birch Society, the Rangers, the Shadows, the Vorlons, (obligatory B5
>references), and even the Democratic Party...
But they were not acting like republicans. The primaries were still in effect.
Both individuals, McCain and Bush, were republicans, both running for the
nomination of their party. But the party hierarchy decided *in advance of
hearing the will of the people* that they would ONLY support Bush, and used
economic blackmail to force the issue.
Is that what Republicans stand for? I somehow doubt the rank and file
civilians out there would cotten to it.
And the comparison to the Elks and the other groups is specious, one is a
political party, the others are not. We are talking about the acts of one of
the two parties that control the electoral fate of the country; let's keep this
an apples-and-apples discussion, not apples and oranges.
>Okay, Joe, this is easy to demonstrate ;-) -- according to this
>standard, the next time the Writer's Guild walks out you should just
>keep working in the marketplace of free ideas...
And here you just shoot yourself in the foot, because the WGA is about the
least organized organization in the world. Further, a walkout has to do with
economic issues and contracts up for renewal; the Republican issue has to do
with elections and the fate of a nation that at least nominally is about fair
play between two candidates.
See the part above about apples and oranges.
Robert Perkins
>>Yes, yes, the "platform". Again, it begs the question, "What do the
>>Democrats (or any other party) do differently, if anything?"
>
>I don't know. Does one legitimize the other?
No, of course not. But I've noticed, Joe, that when you make political
speech, it's virtually always criticism directed at the Republicans,
and virtually never a comment about the Democrats, who many of us
feel, regardless of platform planks (practically, I lean Democrat) we
may or may not support, have openly lied or propogated lies, and
openly manipulated things just so to keep their guys in power.
The little Senate coup last year, even if legal, was particularly
galling.
I worry that such one-sidedness in the conversation masks the real
problems with all our political parties.
>>ame question, did not the Democratic party exact a similar loyalty
>>oath for Al Gore from candidates?
>
>Dunno. Are you saying they did?
No! And, frankly, if I were, I'm not the type that would consciously
use a question as a rhetorical device. I would have put it: "I believe
the Democrats did...". I recognize the potential for
misinterpretation, though, after the fact.
I'd like to know, same as anyone else, if that's the case. But even if
it isn't, it *can't* be the case that the Democrats generally come off
smelling like roses where the Republicans generally don't, even if
their respective misdeeds don't necessarily overlap. Their enemies
have amassed too much consistent data for all of it to be false.
>it's just pettifogging.
Let me point out, as I sit here feeling just a little more than
maligned, that the other thought that came into my mind is just how
cool it is that you and I may publicly disagree like this in the U.S.
I stand no chance of broadening my political horizons by sitting like
my sister, listening only to Michael Medved and Rush Limbaugh and
hating McCain's politics from her home in Greater Phoenix.
Rob
Robert Perkins
<rob_p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>But I've noticed, Joe, that when you make political
>speech, it's virtually always criticism directed at the Republicans,
Sorry, that should have read "tactical political speech". Your stuff
about TIPS is dead-on correct, in my opinion, and you've convinced me
to write my Senators and Representative about it.
Rob
Moose
> >Yes, yes, the "platform". Again, it begs the question, "What do the
> >Democrats (or any other party) do differently, if anything?"
>
> I don't know. Does one legitimize the other? If both are doing something
> wrong, does it mean therefore that either are free from criticism? I've
never
> understood this logic: "Well, HE does it too." So? And in this case we
DON"T
> know if he/they do it too.
I'm not surprised about it at all. I thought American parties worked a bit
differently from Canadian parties, but guess not.
Here in Canada, pretty much every political party (though we have more than
two big ones here) must follow the leader and do what he/she says. All
their views, stances, etc., everything must follow the leader of the party.
If he/she speaks out against the leader, or one of his/her views, then that
candidate could not only lose party funding but be removed entirely from the
party itself.
Which is why in legislature the entire political party always has the exact
same vote. If they don't, its a shock.
Me, I don't get why we even have political parties. I kinda wish we'd just
have independents. But its doubtful that the world will ever go that way.
nav...@lucent.com
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020722014257...@mb-cg.aol.com...
> >Yes, yes, the "platform". Again, it begs the question, "What do the
> >Democrats (or any other party) do differently, if anything?"
>
> I don't know. Does one legitimize the other? If both are doing something
> wrong, does it mean therefore that either are free from criticism? I've
> never understood this logic: "Well, HE does it too." So? And in this case
> we DON"T know if he/they do it too.
In article <9qV_8.27165$v53.1...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>,
Moose <contik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I'm not surprised about it at all. I thought American parties worked a bit
>differently from Canadian parties, but guess not.
>Here in Canada, pretty much every political party (though we have more than
>two big ones here) must follow the leader and do what he/she says. All
>their views, stances, etc., everything must follow the leader of the party.
>If he/she speaks out against the leader, or one of his/her views, then that
>candidate could not only lose party funding but be removed entirely from the
>party itself.
It's one thing to sway from party line when the leadership has been
established (though it's still possible, see below). However, in this
case, the party was chosing their candidate for the presidential election
before the fact, not the populace which is how it's suppose to work in
the USA. The primaries are to weed out the various members of each party
to run for the office. Then comes the general election where the winners
of the primary from each party vie for the office, one democrat, one
republican and whatever independents want to run as well.
In the case of the last presidential election, members of the party who
wield the most influence, decided they wanted Bush to win the primary
so they tried to blackmail any republican candidate into supporting Bush
if they wanted to get funding from the party. That's flat out wrong.
>Which is why in legislature the entire political party always has the exact
>same vote. If they don't, its a shock.
It doesn't quite work that way in the USA. Yes, the party will create
a platform that they support. Yes, one among them (whichever received the
most votes in the primaries) is selected as their representative for the
general election. However, any individual politician within the party
still has the right to dissent from the official party line. It may cause
problems later on with getting support from the party, but that doesn't
mean it isn't done. Quite the contrary. Probably because freedom of
speach is such a fundamental belief in this country.
--
JRP
"How many slime-trailing, sleepless, slimy, slobbering things do you know
that will *run and hide* from your Eveready?"
--Maureen Birnbaum, Barbarian Swordsperson
Robert Perkins
>And here you just shoot yourself in the foot, because the WGA is about the
>least organized organization in the world. Further, a walkout has to do with
>economic issues and contracts up for renewal; the Republican issue has to do
>with elections and the fate of a nation that at least nominally is about fair
>play between two candidates.
Back in '92, I seem to recall that Clinton pushed the domestic
economic issues, complete with the "Stupid!" epithet. And Perot really
pushed the contracts up for renewal bit. And again, in '96, the same
issues were repeated, with players in opposite seats. (Personally, I
think the bridge the Democrats built to the 21st century is burning
behind them. Bush hasn't had enough time yet for his presidency to
bend the economy in any direction, IMO.)
The problem isn't that Democrats do or don't deserve the White House
or Congress. The problem, IMO, is that the *leaders* of *both* major
parties don't seem to deserve *any* position of power.
Rob
Reed Snellenberger
>
> But they were not acting like republicans. The primaries were still in effect.
> Both individuals, McCain and Bush, were republicans, both running for the
> nomination of their party. But the party hierarchy decided *in advance of
> hearing the will of the people* that they would ONLY support Bush, and used
> economic blackmail to force the issue.
>
You appear to be using as a premise here that the Republican leadership
didn't have a clue about who would be a better candidate for the party
before they made this decision. But Bush had been campaigning, on at
least an unofficial basis, for a year or more before the primaries
started -- and had locked up support most of the leadership before
McCain even declared himself a candidate. This is the same model that
Gore used to stomp Bradley -- locking up support from the labor unions
and other party leaders (with an assist from Clinton, as I recall) well
before Bradley declared.
> Is that what Republicans stand for? I somehow doubt the rank and file
> civilians out there would cotten to it.
>
Don't forget that McCain had momentum coming out of New Hampshire, and
probably *would* have been the Republican candidate -- regardless of
what the leadership wanted -- in the event that he'd been able to
convince a majority of Republicans to vote for him in the following
weeks. It was his own inability to capitalize on Bush's early weakness,
coupled with his own mistakes and a poor showing in debate that preceded
the South Carolina primary, that derailed the Straight Talk Express.
In other words -- if Republicans had cottened to McCain, they'd have
voted for him. They didn't.
> And the comparison to the Elks and the other groups is specious, one is a
> political party, the others are not. We are talking about the acts of one of
> the two parties that control the electoral fate of the country; let's keep this
> an apples-and-apples discussion, not apples and oranges.
>
It's far from a specious example -- organizations of all sorts have
rules and customs that you sign up for when you join. If you don't
agree with those rules and customs, and dont' think that you can change
them to suit your preferences, you either don't join or (if you find out
afterwards) you quit.
Applying apocolyptic rhetoric to the description of the parties doesn't
turn them into quasi-governmental agencies. They're each just
organizations of people who happen to reflect (on average) 50% of the
views of the populace -- if the parties both lost their respective
minds, and nominated as their tickets in 2008 the tickets
Carville/Begala and Buchanan/Schlafly, Ventura/McCain would have a real
shot at victory.
>
> And here you just shoot yourself in the foot, because the WGA is about the
> least organized organization in the world. Further, a walkout has to do with
> economic issues and contracts up for renewal; the Republican issue has to do
> with elections and the fate of a nation that at least nominally is about fair
> play between two candidates.
>
Of course, the issue you raised had to do with economic issue for the
candidate of "who'll help pay for my campaign". If this mystery guy
just wanted to run as a Republican, nobody was forcing him to take money
from the party. All he has to do is file his application, pay the
filing fee (Ms Reno just paid $7000 to run for governor of Florida, so
that's all he needs), and start campaigning. If his ideas are popular
enough with the electorate (or the opposing is sufficiently unpopular),
he'll win.
Since he wanted something from the party (money or its equivalent in
support or materials), I don't have a problem with the party saying
"Sure, but here's what you need to do in return...".
Andrew Swallow
news:3D3C8096...@houston.rr.com...
> Jms at B5 wrote:
> >
[snip]
>
> You appear to be using as a premise here that the Republican leadership
> didn't have a clue about who would be a better candidate for the party
> before they made this decision. But Bush had been campaigning, on at
> least an unofficial basis, for a year or more before the primaries
> started -- and had locked up support most of the leadership before
> McCain even declared himself a candidate. This is the same model that
> Gore used to stomp Bradley -- locking up support from the labor unions
> and other party leaders (with an assist from Clinton, as I recall) well
> before Bradley declared.
>
Andrew Swallow
rossiele
> Yes, we pay. Most people with any foresight will have health insurance
> that covers most things under most circumstances. People with jobs at
> big corporations will have this insurance as a benefit of employment
> (where the employer pays most of the insurance costs). People who are
> working independently, such as writers, artists, and musicians, and
> "consultants" or "contract employees" (people hired to do work of
> "regular employees" but are not on the payroll, and can be fired at will
> without affecting unemployment statistics) are on thier own as far as
> health insurance goes. Most opt to purchase it privately, if they can
> afford it. There are always people who don't have it, and they get stuck
> with less than adequate care, or sent to free clinics. Hospitals are
> required to provide services, regardless of ability to pay, but that
> does cause ruinous financial dealings to people with no insurance in
> many cases (and the cause for benefit concerts or spaghetti dinners at
> the local Elks club, to raise money to pay off medical bills for
> uninsured community members). Clinton tried to get something passed
> through congress, but it never made it out of committee, I think.
Then I am very happy to live here (Italy). 10 years ago I needed an
important surgery for a very rare problem (let's say you have more
possibility to win a major lottery than being diagnosed with it). Of
course I could have never paid for it, but I got it completely free.
And I can't think of a State that denies to a part of his citizens
the best cures available only because they can't afford to pay for
them. (Only the rich deserve to live?)
But that system must be approved by citizens, I suppose, or it would
have been changed long ago (but this is really OT so I stop).
Bye
Elena
(Milano, Italy)
Matthew Vincent
>...I've noticed, Joe, that when you make political speech,
>it's virtually always criticism directed at the Republicans,
>and virtually never a comment about the Democrats,
The Republicans are a far worse party than the Democrats are, and
their actions typically warrant more criticism. This doesn't change
the fact that any individual acts that the Democrats do wrong should
also be criticised, though. Like we all say, two wrongs don't make a
right. Overall, though, the Republicans are by far the worse party.
<snipped, mostly agreement>
Matthew
Matthew Vincent
<snip>
>So much for the marketplace of free ideas.
Seems like what was once the Land of the Free has turned into the Land
of the Hustle. It makes all Bush's propaganda about the US being a
"democracy" look like a bunch of hot air.
Political office is one of the items mentioned in the blocked
exchanges list; others include anthrax; blood; freedom of
speech/press/association/religion; hard drugs; human beings (e.g.
slavery); prizes and awards; forced prostitution and forced marriages;
criminal justice; basic welfare services; and "desperate exchanges"
(i.e. people in poverty, mainly in third-world countries, selling body
parts or organs.) This is a list of items that shouldn't be available
on the free market.
I mean, heck, why bother having democratic elections at all? Why not
just turn it all into an auction? If the oil companies, and the
Religious Right with their tax-exempt church funds, are willing to pay
more for the Republican candidate to be president than anyone else is
willing to pay for any other candidate to be president, then let's
just make the Republican candidate into the president. That's what the
free market is all about, right?
Matthew
James Bell
news:44aa4edb.02072...@posting.google.com...
Do you think you could be any more dogmatic, Matthew?
If you had said that the platform of the Republicans is one that you
disagree with far more often than the platform of the Democrats and
therefore you feel they warrant more criticism, that would have been a
rational comment. "Worse party" is certainly not a phrase I would expect
from an open-minded person; it is more like something I would expect from an
extremist.
Jim