Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 511
Default Cleaning up the shop


wrote in message
...
On Jan 26, 1:24 am, Hawke wrote:
Some of the less
perceptive insurance companies were publishing studies showing
that to be on the safe side, the typical couple should have about
1,000,000$ in savings when they retired. Just how is it possible
that the typical couple could accumulate 20 years of pre tax
income over even a 50 year working life? [20-70] especially with
*NEGATIVE* savings interest?


In that situation you have to do what they guy in the TV show Breaking
Bad does. You go into the meth business in your spare time. Other than
that there is no way to save yourself into financial security on 50K a
year.

Hawke


Actually you can save enough to have financial security on 50K$ a
year. It just requires that you start saving and investing early in
life. I don't think you can do it putting your money in a savings
account. But you can do it by having some money put in a savings
account every week. And then when you have a chunk of money, looking
for a good place to invest it. Right now I would be looking at buying
rental property and investing some sweat equity in managing the rental
property. Might be a bad idea in some parts of the country. But there
are lots of places to invest.

Dan

Reply: Instead of rental property, we do our two houses in Vegas as
vacation rentals. You can get twice the monthly mortgage in a week. Less
hassle than renters. Not for everyone, and location is everything. Check
out www.vrbo.com to skip around the world and see what types of houses you
can rent for your next location, mostly anywhere. The prices are very
reasonable, as most rentals have pots, pans, etc, and you just bring clothes
and food. Cooking in lessens costs, and makes it a more family vacation.
Many houses have pools, and that's better than swimming in the common hotel
pools. Not for everyone, but perfect for some. And a good money maker,
too.

Steve


  #42   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,152
Default Cleaning up the shop

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:38:19 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Jan 26, 1:24 am, Hawke wrote:
Some of the less
perceptive insurance companies were publishing studies showing
that to be on the safe side, the typical couple should have about
1,000,000$ in savings when they retired. Just how is it possible
that the typical couple could accumulate 20 years of pre tax
income over even a 50 year working life? [20-70] especially with
*NEGATIVE* savings interest?


In that situation you have to do what they guy in the TV show Breaking
Bad does. You go into the meth business in your spare time. Other than
that there is no way to save yourself into financial security on 50K a
year.

Hawke


Actually you can save enough to have financial security on 50K$ a
year. It just requires that you start saving and investing early in
life. I don't think you can do it putting your money in a savings
account. But you can do it by having some money put in a savings
account every week. And then when you have a chunk of money, looking
for a good place to invest it. Right now I would be looking at buying
rental property and investing some sweat equity in managing the rental
property. Might be a bad idea in some parts of the country. But there
are lots of places to invest.

Dan

Reply: Instead of rental property, we do our two houses in Vegas as
vacation rentals. You can get twice the monthly mortgage in a week. Less
hassle than renters. Not for everyone, and location is everything. Check
out www.vrbo.com to skip around the world and see what types of houses you
can rent for your next location, mostly anywhere. The prices are very
reasonable, as most rentals have pots, pans, etc, and you just bring clothes
and food. Cooking in lessens costs, and makes it a more family vacation.
Many houses have pools, and that's better than swimming in the common hotel
pools. Not for everyone, but perfect for some. And a good money maker,
too.

Steve

================
This segues into a long running discussion in vocational
education called the individual/case v aggrigate/generic debate.

An expansion of this discussion can be seen at
Tussing, D. (1997 Fall) ECN 358 / WSP 358 Economics of U. S.
Poverty and
Discrimination. Syracuse University:
http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/classes/ECN358/
http://www1.maxwell.syr.edu/uploaded..._CV.pdf?n=6060
http://www.gdrc.org/sustdev/causes-poverty.html

What this boils down is that what may work and work well for an
individual, or even a limited number of individuals, does not
work as a universal rule or for even a significant fraction of
the population.

High wage skills or high return investments depend on two
factors: (1) the market demand and (2) the supply. When either
factor is missing the value falls. For example, there may be a
market demand for CNC machinists, but if there are 10 qualified
applicants for every available jobs the wages will drop, possibly
to minimum wage because of the oversupply.

The same holds true for vacation house rentals in Vagas. If
thousands of people do this, the resulting glut will quickly
drive the rental prices down to less than break-even.

As for the suggestion that the individual invest in other than
government insured instruments such as FDIC savings account and T
bills, for a higher return, I suggest looking at the record,
including the banks and quasi governmental operations such as
Freddy and Fanny. Names like Enron, Silverado and LTCM also rise
to the top. see
http://www.bankruptcyresources.net/2...-bankruptcies/
http://www.dirjournal.com/business-j...went-bankrupt/
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
  #43   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,152
Default Cleaning up the shop

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:07:56 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:
snip a bunch of good stuff
This segues into a long running discussion in vocational
education called the individual/case v aggrigate/generic debate.

snip more good stuff
==========
Following up my follow-up...

For a discussion of how major corporate bankruptcies impact the
aggregate economy see
http://www.simon.rochester.edu/news-...omy/index.aspx

Mainly a discussion about GM/Chrysler but applies to all.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
  #44   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 511
Default Cleaning up the shop


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:38:19 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Jan 26, 1:24 am, Hawke wrote:
Some of the less
perceptive insurance companies were publishing studies showing
that to be on the safe side, the typical couple should have about
1,000,000$ in savings when they retired. Just how is it possible
that the typical couple could accumulate 20 years of pre tax
income over even a 50 year working life? [20-70] especially with
*NEGATIVE* savings interest?

In that situation you have to do what they guy in the TV show Breaking
Bad does. You go into the meth business in your spare time. Other than
that there is no way to save yourself into financial security on 50K a
year.

Hawke


Actually you can save enough to have financial security on 50K$ a
year. It just requires that you start saving and investing early in
life. I don't think you can do it putting your money in a savings
account. But you can do it by having some money put in a savings
account every week. And then when you have a chunk of money, looking
for a good place to invest it. Right now I would be looking at buying
rental property and investing some sweat equity in managing the rental
property. Might be a bad idea in some parts of the country. But there
are lots of places to invest.

Dan

Reply: Instead of rental property, we do our two houses in Vegas as
vacation rentals. You can get twice the monthly mortgage in a week. Less
hassle than renters. Not for everyone, and location is everything. Check
out www.vrbo.com to skip around the world and see what types of houses you
can rent for your next location, mostly anywhere. The prices are very
reasonable, as most rentals have pots, pans, etc, and you just bring
clothes
and food. Cooking in lessens costs, and makes it a more family vacation.
Many houses have pools, and that's better than swimming in the common
hotel
pools. Not for everyone, but perfect for some. And a good money maker,
too.

Steve

================
This segues into a long running discussion in vocational
education called the individual/case v aggrigate/generic debate.

An expansion of this discussion can be seen at
Tussing, D. (1997 Fall) ECN 358 / WSP 358 Economics of U. S.
Poverty and
Discrimination. Syracuse University:
http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/classes/ECN358/
http://www1.maxwell.syr.edu/uploaded..._CV.pdf?n=6060
http://www.gdrc.org/sustdev/causes-poverty.html

What this boils down is that what may work and work well for an
individual, or even a limited number of individuals, does not
work as a universal rule or for even a significant fraction of
the population.

High wage skills or high return investments depend on two
factors: (1) the market demand and (2) the supply. When either
factor is missing the value falls. For example, there may be a
market demand for CNC machinists, but if there are 10 qualified
applicants for every available jobs the wages will drop, possibly
to minimum wage because of the oversupply.

The same holds true for vacation house rentals in Vagas. If
thousands of people do this, the resulting glut will quickly
drive the rental prices down to less than break-even.

As for the suggestion that the individual invest in other than
government insured instruments such as FDIC savings account and T
bills, for a higher return, I suggest looking at the record,
including the banks and quasi governmental operations such as
Freddy and Fanny. Names like Enron, Silverado and LTCM also rise
to the top. see
http://www.bankruptcyresources.net/2...-bankruptcies/
http://www.dirjournal.com/business-j...went-bankrupt/
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis


Unka George (George McDuffee)


I didn't say it was for everyone. If you READ my post, I have more than one
disclaimer. It is only MY opinion, and what I do, and am sure it would not
work for everyone.

It's just a hell of a lot better than putting up with POS renters.

Steve


  #45   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,984
Default Cleaning up the shop

On Jan 26, 6:07*pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-

Actually you can save enough to have financial security on 50K$ a
year. *It just requires that you start saving and investing early in
life. *I don't think you can do it putting your money in a savings
account. *But you can do it by having some money put in a savings
account every week. *And then when you have a chunk of money, looking
for a good place to invest it. *Right now I would be looking at buying
rental property and investing some sweat equity in managing the rental
property. *Might be a bad idea in some parts of the country. But there
are lots of places to invest.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan



As for the suggestion that the individual invest in other than
government insured instruments such as FDIC savings account and T
bills, for a higher return, I suggest looking at the record,
including the banks and quasi governmental operations such as
Freddy and Fanny. *Names like Enron, Silverado and LTCM also rise
to the top. seehttp://www.bankruptcyresources.net/2010/01/11/major-bankruptcies/http://www.dirjournal.com/business-journal/some-major-us-companies-th...
andhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis

Unka George *(George McDuffee)


If you want to get a reasonable return on your money, you have to put
in some effort. Many people will spend more time reading the sports
section of the paper than the financial section. They are probably
better off investing in a FDIC insured savings account. But if you
are willing to put some effort into investing, you will do a lot
better than investing in a savings account.

Think about it. What are the banks doing? They are taking the money
deposited in savings accounts and putting in some effort. They loan
the money out to people that the banks have determined are likely to
pay the money back. And thereby getting a higher return than they pay
on the savings accounts. The same applies to mutual funds. They do
the thinking for you and take some of the money.

I too suggest looking at the record. Say Iggy's record. Or Steve's
record. Or anyone that actually put some effort into investing.

Dan




  #46   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,562
Default Cleaning up the shop

Ignoramus22882 wrote:

Wes, did you tow your bridgeport with a car??????



For that I borrowed my uncle and his truck and the same for the lathe.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
  #47   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,562
Default Cleaning up the shop

Gunner Asch wrote:

Mine is store bought be it avoids my having to have a truck.

http://wess.freeshell.org/usenet/rec...railerload.jpg

Wes



Whats the weight rating on that garden trailer Wes? I see some of the
local landscapers using these, and have repair welded a number of them.
Any problems with yours?



Says 2000# GVWR. I haven't had any problems other than I need to do a repaint. Powder
coat hasn't held up well. Everyone in my family loves borrowing it.

I consider it one of my better investments in tools.


Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
  #48   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,562
Default Cleaning up the shop

Ignoramus29432 wrote:

Very good. The risk is taken by the party that is able to pay
(insurance co). The drivers pay a bit extra for the peace of mind.


The insurance company takes no risk, there is a pool that is funded by the drivers subject
to increases or decreases. We do get piece of mind but the insurance company doesn't have
additional risk.

If I understand it correctly, the insurance company insures you up to a certain dollar
amount and after that, the state pool takes over.


Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
  #49   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Cleaning up the shop

On 2010-01-26, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus22882 wrote:

Wes, did you tow your bridgeport with a car??????


For that I borrowed my uncle and his truck and the same for the lathe.


OK, I am calming down a little bit. You have a great uncle.

i
  #50   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,562
Default Cleaning up the shop

Ignoramus22882 wrote:

On 2010-01-26, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus22882 wrote:

Wes, did you tow your bridgeport with a car??????


For that I borrowed my uncle and his truck and the same for the lathe.


OK, I am calming down a little bit. You have a great uncle.

i



Yes I do. He has one of the door openers for the garage, er shop, my tools are his tools.
I've only extended that philosopy to one or two of my guns though. You have to draw a
line somewhere.

Wes



--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller


  #51   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Cleaning up the shop

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:20:42 -0800, John R. Carroll wrote:

Give me a break.
Carly Fiorina is just as bad and she's running for the US Senate seat
Boxer occupies.
I watched her say that she's very pleased to run on her record of
acomplishments in business.
..
The board at HP got rid of her ass just in time.


Let's not forget that before HP she was at AT&T/Lucent, and that didn't
turn out that well either. I believe she owns part of the responsibility
for gutting Bell Labs.
  #52   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Cleaning up the shop

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:16:22 -0800, John R. Carroll wrote:

You couldn't say that tort
reform is a key to health care cost reductions after reading it and yet
that is the first thing out of many mouths when rapidly increasing costs
come up.


Tort reform can't work without health care insurance reform.
At the core of the current medical malpractice system is the assumption
that injured people are on their own, so they have to claw back enough
resources to take care of themselves for the rest of their lives. Between
"preexisting condition" exclusions, lack of guaranteed lifetime
continuity of insurance and arbitrary coverage limits, nobody can count
on being covered. We are all just one job loss and one illness away from
an existential threat.

Under such circumstances, suing for damages is simply the most rational
choice for someone saddled with a long-term health handicap. The money,
nominally for past events, can't really compensate for damage already
done -- instead, it ensures that future needs are met.

If health-insurance reform gave an assurance of some level of care to
people injured by malpractice, there would be much less incentive to sue.
The entire moral, economic and legal argument for the tort system would
change, making it much easier to reform.


  #53   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 600
Default Cleaning up the shop

Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:16:22 -0800, John R. Carroll wrote:

You couldn't say that tort
reform is a key to health care cost reductions after reading it and
yet that is the first thing out of many mouths when rapidly
increasing costs come up.


Tort reform can't work without health care insurance reform.
At the core of the current medical malpractice system is the
assumption that injured people are on their own, so they have to claw
back enough resources to take care of themselves for the rest of
their lives. Between "preexisting condition" exclusions, lack of
guaranteed lifetime continuity of insurance and arbitrary coverage
limits, nobody can count on being covered. We are all just one job
loss and one illness away from an existential threat.

Under such circumstances, suing for damages is simply the most
rational choice for someone saddled with a long-term health handicap.
The money, nominally for past events, can't really compensate for
damage already done -- instead, it ensures that future needs are met.

If health-insurance reform gave an assurance of some level of care to
people injured by malpractice, there would be much less incentive to
sue. The entire moral, economic and legal argument for the tort
system would change, making it much easier to reform.


The idea that reforming America's tort system will meaningfully reduce the
cost of health care is provably, and proven, false.
The numbers, industry or other, reveal that malpractice awards are a sliver
of policy premiums on the one hand, and the places where it's been done have
seen no reduction in the cost of either malpractice policies or health care.
It's just that simple.

When you want to reduce the cost of something, you go where the money is,
not where it isn't.

--
John R. Carroll


  #54   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 600
Default Cleaning up the shop

Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:20:42 -0800, John R. Carroll wrote:

Give me a break.
Carly Fiorina is just as bad and she's running for the US Senate seat
Boxer occupies.
I watched her say that she's very pleased to run on her record of
acomplishments in business.
..
The board at HP got rid of her ass just in time.


Let's not forget that before HP she was at AT&T/Lucent, and that
didn't turn out that well either. I believe she owns part of the
responsibility for gutting Bell Labs.


Her move to HP circumvented what certainly would have been her dismissal.

The only thing she didn't screw up was her compensation/severance package.

--
John R. Carroll


  #55   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,984
Default Cleaning up the shop

On Jan 28, 9:42*am, "John R. Carroll" wrote:


When you want to reduce the cost of something, you go where the money is,
not where it isn't.

--
John R. Carroll


I think it is more like " When you want to reduce the cost of
something, you go to all the places the money is. "

Dan


  #56   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default Cleaning up the shop


wrote in message
...
On Jan 28, 9:42 am, "John R. Carroll" wrote:


When you want to reduce the cost of something, you go where the money is,
not where it isn't.

--
John R. Carroll


I think it is more like " When you want to reduce the cost of
something, you go to all the places the money is. "

Dan


Not speaking for John, but it seems to me that his point is that you set
your priorities based on where there can be the largest savings. Tort reform
will be a big disappointment to many people, should it happen, when they
find out that the total awards in malpractice suits (and estimated
out-of-court settlements) amounts to roughly 0.5% of our health bill. And
that's from a study done by the insurance industry itself. They have every
incentive to inflate the number.

Substantially larger is the cost of malpractice *insurance*. But that amount
is still small. Much larger than either is the cost of "defensive medicine"
that supposedly is the result of all of the lawsuits. Some estimates(by
Price Waterhouse, for example) put it as high as 12% of our total health
care costs. Charles Krauthammer, not known for making cautious claims g,
says it's something over 20%. But no serious or independent study ranks it
that high.

The thing is, the "defensive medicine" issue is not what it appears to be,
either. The evidence is self-reported and those doing the surveys say there
is a strong reason to believe that doctors overrepresent the numbers by a
large amount. Also, there's little evidence that it will be reduced by
"reforming" tort laws, for a variety of reasons. In some cases, insurers
expect more misdiagnoses, and thus more lawsuits that would result from
shielding doctors from large liabilities.

So tort reform is a good idea, for psychological reasons if nothing else,
but you won't find much money there to be saved. We have a 50% problem --
our rates are 50% higher than most of the developed world, with similar
results -- and saving 10% or so, if that really is possible, isn't going to
heal the wound.

We need to look under some other rocks for the money.

--
Ed Huntress


  #57   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,984
Default Cleaning up the shop

On Jan 28, 9:20*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 28, 9:42 am, "John R. Carroll" wrote:

When you want to reduce the cost of something, you go where the money is,
not where it isn't.


--
John R. Carroll
I think it is more like " When you want to reduce the cost of
something, you go to all the places the money is. "


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan


Not speaking for John, but it seems to me that his point is that you set
your priorities based on where there can be the largest savings. Tort reform
will be a big disappointment to many people, should it happen, when they
find out that the total awards in malpractice suits (and estimated
out-of-court settlements) amounts to roughly 0.5% of our health bill. And
that's from a study done by the insurance industry itself. They have every
incentive to inflate the number.

Substantially larger is the cost of malpractice *insurance*. But that amount
is still small. Much larger than either is the cost of "defensive medicine"
that supposedly is the result of all of the lawsuits. Some estimates(by
Price Waterhouse, for example) put it as high as 12% of our total health
care costs. Charles Krauthammer, not known for making cautious claims g,
says it's something over 20%. But no serious or independent study ranks it
that high.

The thing is, the "defensive medicine" issue is not what it appears to be,
either. The evidence is self-reported and those doing the surveys say there
is a strong reason to believe that doctors overrepresent the numbers by a
large amount. Also, there's little evidence that it will be reduced by
"reforming" tort laws, for a variety of reasons. In some cases, insurers
expect more misdiagnoses, and thus more lawsuits that would result from
shielding doctors from large liabilities.

So tort reform is a good idea, for psychological reasons if nothing else,
but you won't find much money there to be saved. We have a 50% problem -- *
our rates are 50% higher than most of the developed world, with similar
results -- and saving 10% or so, if that really is possible, isn't going to
heal the wound.

We need to look under some other rocks for the money.

--
Ed Huntress


Agreed. But my point is that if you are trying to save money, you do
everything that will save money. You don't say that is only a quarter
on the floor, I will not bother to pick it up.

Passing Tort Reform might be only good for psychological reasons, but
it would help.

We need to look under all the rocks for the money.

Dan
  #58   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 600
Default Cleaning up the shop

wrote:
On Jan 28, 9:20 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 28, 9:42 am, "John R. Carroll" wrote:

When you want to reduce the cost of something, you go where the
money is, not where it isn't.


--
John R. Carroll
I think it is more like " When you want to reduce the cost of
something, you go to all the places the money is. "


Dan


Not speaking for John, but it seems to me that his point is that you
set your priorities based on where there can be the largest savings.
Tort reform will be a big disappointment to many people, should it
happen, when they find out that the total awards in malpractice
suits (and estimated out-of-court settlements) amounts to roughly
0.5% of our health bill. And that's from a study done by the
insurance industry itself. They have every incentive to inflate the
number.

Substantially larger is the cost of malpractice *insurance*. But
that amount is still small. Much larger than either is the cost of
"defensive medicine" that supposedly is the result of all of the
lawsuits. Some estimates(by Price Waterhouse, for example) put it as
high as 12% of our total health care costs. Charles Krauthammer, not
known for making cautious claims g, says it's something over 20%.
But no serious or independent study ranks it that high.

The thing is, the "defensive medicine" issue is not what it appears
to be, either. The evidence is self-reported and those doing the
surveys say there is a strong reason to believe that doctors
overrepresent the numbers by a large amount. Also, there's little
evidence that it will be reduced by "reforming" tort laws, for a
variety of reasons. In some cases, insurers expect more
misdiagnoses, and thus more lawsuits that would result from
shielding doctors from large liabilities.

So tort reform is a good idea, for psychological reasons if nothing
else, but you won't find much money there to be saved. We have a 50%
problem -- our rates are 50% higher than most of the developed
world, with similar results -- and saving 10% or so, if that really
is possible, isn't going to heal the wound.

We need to look under some other rocks for the money.

--
Ed Huntress


Agreed. But my point is that if you are trying to save money, you do
everything that will save money. You don't say that is only a quarter
on the floor, I will not bother to pick it up.


Only if you either have an infinite amount of time.
Otherwise, you focus resources and energy where it will yield the most
value.


Passing Tort Reform might be only good for psychological reasons, but
it would help.

We need to look under all the rocks for the money.


Ok, but starting with boulders rather than pebbles is only good sense.



--
John R. Carroll


  #59   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,984
Default Cleaning up the shop

On Feb 1, 3:57*am, "John R. Carroll" wrote:


Passing Tort Reform might be only good for psychological reasons, but
it would help.


We need to look under all the rocks for the money.


Ok, but starting with boulders rather than pebbles is only good sense.

--
John R. Carroll


Normally I would agree. But in this case I think passing some sort of
Tort reform would take away the claim that the Democrats are not
serious about reducing costs ( because they are not addressing tort
reform ).

Dan

  #60   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 511
Default Cleaning up the shop


wrote in message
...
On Feb 1, 3:57 am, "John R. Carroll" wrote:


Passing Tort Reform might be only good for psychological reasons, but
it would help.


We need to look under all the rocks for the money.


Ok, but starting with boulders rather than pebbles is only good sense.

--
John R. Carroll


Normally I would agree. But in this case I think passing some sort of
Tort reform would take away the claim that the Democrats are not
serious about reducing costs ( because they are not addressing tort
reform ).

Dan

I would agree if there is a portion that reforms the worker's comp laws that
allow workmen to be screwed by the "law".

Steve




  #61   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 600
Default Cleaning up the shop

Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Feb 1, 3:57 am, "John R. Carroll" wrote:


Passing Tort Reform might be only good for psychological reasons,
but it would help.


We need to look under all the rocks for the money.


Ok, but starting with boulders rather than pebbles is only good
sense.

--
John R. Carroll


Normally I would agree. But in this case I think passing some sort of
Tort reform would take away the claim that the Democrats are not
serious about reducing costs ( because they are not addressing tort
reform ).


There is no argument that tort reform will significantly reduce health-care
costs Steve.
What the Dems really ought to do is tort reform on its own rather than as
what is effectively and earmark stuck on unrelated legislation.


I would agree if there is a portion that reforms the worker's comp
laws that allow workmen to be screwed by the "law".


I guess you, and a lot of other people, haven't figured out that workman's
comp coverage would look a lot different if basic health-care coverage were
universally mandated. Hell, homeowners, or really any, insurance rates would
drop if they had a health-care component.
Health-care is the single largest component, by far, in any workman's comp
claim. Wage replacement as disability income payments is a tiny portion in
comparison.

Workman's compensation policy premiums would go nearly to zero and that
would be a real BOON for business, especially small business. They are
unfairly dissadvantaged the most because of the nature of underwriting in
that area.
In the skilled trades, it would amount to a decrease in real wage labor
costs of between ten and twenty percent here in California.

Were anyone to do the math on the tax credit being extended for new hires VS
the unemployment insurance fund payments if you lay that new hire off, it
becomes easy to see that the tax credit isn't going to get a single new hire
into a place that has anyone with an IQ higher than a pea running it. You
get an opportunity to expose yourself to ten or fifteen thousand dollars of
payments if you lay off the hired person for a one time shot at five grand.
It's the dumbest thing I've seen yet.
Well, almost.



--
John R. Carroll


  #62   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,024
Default Cleaning up the shop

wrote:
On Jan 28, 9:20 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 28, 9:42 am, "John R. Carroll" wrote:

When you want to reduce the cost of something, you go where the money is,
not where it isn't.
--
John R. Carroll
I think it is more like " When you want to reduce the cost of
something, you go to all the places the money is. "
Dan

Not speaking for John, but it seems to me that his point is that you set
your priorities based on where there can be the largest savings. Tort reform
will be a big disappointment to many people, should it happen, when they
find out that the total awards in malpractice suits (and estimated
out-of-court settlements) amounts to roughly 0.5% of our health bill. And
that's from a study done by the insurance industry itself. They have every
incentive to inflate the number.

Substantially larger is the cost of malpractice *insurance*. But that amount
is still small. Much larger than either is the cost of "defensive medicine"
that supposedly is the result of all of the lawsuits. Some estimates(by
Price Waterhouse, for example) put it as high as 12% of our total health
care costs. Charles Krauthammer, not known for making cautious claims g,
says it's something over 20%. But no serious or independent study ranks it
that high.

The thing is, the "defensive medicine" issue is not what it appears to be,
either. The evidence is self-reported and those doing the surveys say there
is a strong reason to believe that doctors overrepresent the numbers by a
large amount. Also, there's little evidence that it will be reduced by
"reforming" tort laws, for a variety of reasons. In some cases, insurers
expect more misdiagnoses, and thus more lawsuits that would result from
shielding doctors from large liabilities.

So tort reform is a good idea, for psychological reasons if nothing else,
but you won't find much money there to be saved. We have a 50% problem --
our rates are 50% higher than most of the developed world, with similar
results -- and saving 10% or so, if that really is possible, isn't going to
heal the wound.

We need to look under some other rocks for the money.

--
Ed Huntress


Agreed. But my point is that if you are trying to save money, you do
everything that will save money. You don't say that is only a quarter
on the floor, I will not bother to pick it up.

Passing Tort Reform might be only good for psychological reasons, but
it would help.

We need to look under all the rocks for the money.

Dan



First off, you don't do everything you can to save money you do what
makes sense. You don't waste time on things that bring minimal gains.
You go for the things that make real differences. Do you pick up pennies
when you find them? No, you don't because it's not worth the bother.
Same with saving in health care. You make the major structural changes
and you save a lot of money. There is no sense in saving a pittance when
changing the big things saves a lot of dough.

But everyone knows that already. Talking about things like tort reform
is just a diversionary tactic by the anti reform side. They know the
savings there isn't anything. But it means they aren't talking about
what has to be done, which is switching from what we have to a universal
system. Only when that happens will the major savings be made. Until you
do that all you are doing is fiddling around the edges. But when your
goal is to impede progress toward achieving the goal of a national
health care system you take every opportunity to change the subject to
things that are irrelevant. That is all the talk about tort reform is,
it's a way to avoid addressing the real problem.

Hawke
  #63   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,984
Default Cleaning up the shop

On Feb 3, 6:59*pm, Hawke wrote:
.. That is all the talk about tort reform is,
it's a way to avoid addressing the real problem.

Hawke


That is what I said. Pass tort reform and then Congress will have to
address the problem realistically.

Or don't pass tort reform and spend years trying to pass healthcare
reform.

Dan

  #64   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 475
Default OT Cleaning up the shop


wrote in message
...
On Feb 3, 6:59 pm, Hawke wrote:
.. That is all the talk about tort reform is,
it's a way to avoid addressing the real problem.

Hawke


That is what I said. Pass tort reform and then Congress will have to
address the problem realistically.

Or don't pass tort reform and spend years trying to pass healthcare
reform.

Dan

pass campaign finance reform and they'd have to deal with tort reform and
pass health care reform.

b.w.


  #65   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Cleaning up the shop

On 1/25/2010 10:34 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:18:52 -0600, Ignoramus29432
wrote:

On 2010-01-25, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:09:32 -0500, Wes wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

So, a hypothetical guy who loses a job and does not even have money to
pay very reasonable COBRA rates, does not get too much of my sympathy,
personally.

Nor I. I paid for my health insurace for the 8 months I was between jobs.


How did you do this?

I saved money in good times against bad times. I have modest needs and wants.

Wes


And you didnt have an uninsured wife with serious medical issues?


In your case, you are divorced, right?


No, Im not. And I have my (ex-)wife living with me in the same house.


Wait - you're not divorced, but you have an ex-wife living with you in the
same house? Does that mean you were divorced and remarried, and both your
wife and ex-wife live with you?

But wait! In May 2017, you said you had been married to "this wonderful
woman" for 43 years.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

2017 - 43 = 1974. So were you married to your ex-wife some time before
1974? But you only graduated from high school in 1971, and then you said
you *immediately* went off to kill Vietnamese. If you married your current
wife in 1974, why would your ex-wife be living in your house with you in 2010?

You just can't keep your lies straight, you goddamned dole chiseler and
*THIEF*.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cleaning up the shop Steve B[_3_] Metalworking 10 January 23rd 10 04:45 PM
Cleaning up the shop Steve B[_3_] Metalworking 5 January 23rd 10 04:13 PM
Cleaning up the shop Don Foreman Metalworking 0 January 22nd 10 06:15 AM
Shop cleaning Tom Gardner Metalworking 19 April 9th 08 06:06 PM
Cleaning my shop... Slowhand Woodworking 5 August 24th 04 11:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"