Topics Topics Help/Instructions Help Edit Profile Profile Member List Register  
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Visit The Brewery's sponsor!
Brews & Views Bulletin Board Service * World Expressions * Alcohol 'as dangerous as heroin' < Previous Next >

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1556
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 24.123.94.154
Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 05:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I think these Brit scientists have officially lost it! Alcohol is more dangerous than ecstasy and LSD?

http://www.itv.com/news/britain_b3cbe0d877b5bda9d51a382a73979cf2.html
 

michael atkins
Advanced Member
Username: Mga

Post Number: 537
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 71.214.21.54
Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 05:22 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Those Brit scientists were obviously biased in their opinion of Alcohol. They surely have been influenced by too many readings of the old comic strip, "Andy Capp".
Love This Hobby!

http://msnusers.com/micksbrewery
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 6778
Registered: 01-2002
Posted From: 24.57.224.220
Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 05:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

This is more fodder for the neo-Prohibitionists. I have seen figures (from AA perhaps) that one in twelve adults either has or has had problems with alcohol. In general, I wouldn't dispute that. Of course the converse is that 11 out of 12 do not. There will always be arguments about whether a minority who have problems is reason to restrict the majority who do not. My own opinion is that we need to educate people, especially the young, about responsible consumption, as well as provide treatment options for those with a tendency toward abuse. But the long social and cultural sanction given to alcohol throughout human history cannot be ignored and should justify its acceptance.
 

Mike A.
Intermediate Member
Username: Mike_a

Post Number: 292
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 128.173.15.155
Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 06:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Physical harm on a scale of 1-3:
Heroin = 2.78
Alcohol = 1.40

How does one conclude "alcohol is as dangerous as heroin" from this? Interesting study, but terrible reporting.
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1557
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 24.123.94.154
Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 06:05 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike, where did you see alcohol at 1.4? The article says "just under 2" which I agree is nowhere near 2.7 on a scale of 0-3, but still. I agree they hyped up the headline beyond what the story states, but that's no different than any other story with an agenda.
 

Mike A.
Intermediate Member
Username: Mike_a

Post Number: 293
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 128.173.15.155
Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 06:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

From the full text of the study.
 

Hophead
Senior Member
Username: Hophead

Post Number: 2519
Registered: 03-2002
Posted From: 167.4.1.41
Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 06:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

This reminds me of many moons ago when my kids were in elementary school, and they "taught" them that tobacco was a drug, just like cocaine (presumably a scare tactic to keep them off cigarettes).

The krap I caught the next weekend when they saw me smokin a cigar after brewin, almost had me down at the principal's office the next day (not that I've ever been there before)...
 

Tom Gardner
Advanced Member
Username: Tom

Post Number: 961
Registered: 01-2001
Posted From: 75.71.106.238
Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 06:39 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I guess that all depends on how "dangerous" you think the others are, or aren't.
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1558
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 24.123.94.154
Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 06:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Well there ya go Mike, reading the whole study instead of the news snippets! Aren't we just supposed to believe everything the media tells us?

I didn't feel like registering to read the study, so I take you at your word that the study says 1.4. Evidently those journalists not only need to go to ethics school, but they also need to take basic math as well, eh? Last I checked 1.4 is not just below 2 and is not between 2.3 and 1.7 like the article would have you believe. Wow, that one is a dandy!

I would expect that from American journalists in a heartbeat, but it looks like the British ones are just as prone to hyperbole.
 

Master B
Member
Username: Cwixon

Post Number: 147
Registered: 11-2005
Posted From: 67.149.67.117
Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 10:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

According to AA I'm willing to bet (conservatively) more than 90% of us are alcoholics. I have experience with AA since I got a dui (because I blew a 0.08 after I parked my car safely). Anyone who drinks regularly (even once a month is regular to them) is technically an alcoholic.

As for the hallucinagenics, that is a different story. I've studied them a bit before when I was a youngster. LSD and mushrooms are not addicting. Most people who do them have no desire to take them for months afterwards; even if they experience a pleasurable "trip". The kicker with this classification of drugs is that science cannot explain what happens when one takes these. From what I've read it is impossible to even test someone for these drugs. In my opinion it is impossible to rate the danger of a drug that science cannot even explain.

That being said the whole study should be thrown out because they are rating things they don't know about. It's like rating a movie you've never seen.

Mike: I don't trust a British journalist any more than an American. I'd rather listen to the BBC than CNN, but both require some leg work before I'll buy anything they say. Luckily for us in this information age with a little effort we can pursue a more accurate "version" of the truth compared to past generations. And you are absolutely right about the "just below two" comment. I think a fourth grade math student would round 1.4 down to 1; because 1.4 is closer to 1 than two {duh}.

Nice thread...
We're not here for a long time. We're here for a good time.
Cheers to life!!
 

gregory gettman
Advanced Member
Username: Gregman

Post Number: 549
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 204.60.184.1
Posted on Saturday, March 24, 2007 - 11:36 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

How does this thread relate to beer?
 

Rob Farrell
Intermediate Member
Username: Robf

Post Number: 417
Registered: 02-2003
Posted From: 68.50.104.138
Posted on Saturday, March 24, 2007 - 01:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I was hoping to see a gap setting for crushing your own poppies.
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1559
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 69.21.247.113
Posted on Saturday, March 24, 2007 - 06:51 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Greg - Doesn't beer contain alcohol?
 

Brad Petit
Member
Username: Voodoobrew

Post Number: 210
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 24.233.57.47
Posted on Sunday, March 25, 2007 - 06:47 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Good points about halucinogens, Master B. The biggest "danger" associated with these types of drugs is the perceived danger, not the actual one. So what if alcohol is more dangerous than mushrooms and LSD? The only reason that statement has any weight is because everyone assumes those drugs to be so imminently dangerous, although they can't explain why. To me this is no more significant than saying alcohol is more dangerous than caffeine. Great, I agree with that. What's the point?
 

gregory gettman
Advanced Member
Username: Gregman

Post Number: 552
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 204.60.184.174
Posted on Sunday, March 25, 2007 - 07:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I was trying to be funny mike.............

The joke fell flat.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 6789
Registered: 01-2002
Posted From: 24.57.224.220
Posted on Sunday, March 25, 2007 - 07:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I know, gregory, but sometimes it's hard to separate the humor from the problem (or the perceived problem). There are places (Russia, for example) where some people don't view beer as being alcoholic (after all, it's a lot less strong than vodka). Or there are those who down a 12-pack of Bud Light each night and don't believe they might have a drinking problem.
 

Brad Petit
Member
Username: Voodoobrew

Post Number: 211
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 24.233.57.47
Posted on Sunday, March 25, 2007 - 08:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

> Or there are those who down a 12-pack of Bud Light each night and don't believe they might have a drinking problem.

The problem isn't really how much they're drinking but what they're drinking... Sorry, couldn't resist....

By the way, I had a college professor whose favorite lecture was on how alcohol is more dangerous for you than heroin, because while one can't die from heroin withdrawl (directly), one CAN die from alcohol withdrawl. Of course, this presumes that you are enough of an alcoholic to experience withdrawl of such accute severity. His was an interesting argument, but I don't think I'd go so far as to draw the same conclusion.

Besides, can you think of any beers named after heroin withdrawl? Well can you??
 

Paul Edwards
Senior Member
Username: Pedwards

Post Number: 1329
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 70.236.6.206
Posted on Sunday, March 25, 2007 - 09:01 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

hmmm, Methadone IPA...

Seriously, it is possible to have a drink without becoming inebriated. (MADD would disagree with me on this...)

It's a lot harder to shoot heroin, snort coke, smoke pot or crack or meth, or drop acid w/o becoming "under the influence."
 

Michael
Advanced Member
Username: Hoppop

Post Number: 819
Registered: 03-2002
Posted From: 69.132.121.114
Posted on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 01:04 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

http://63.134.214.153/Portals/0/download/all_pdfs/tables/Drinking%20Guidelines.p df

Depends on where you live..........France government puts limit at 60 grams per day (~5 drinks per day). Australia (no more than 6 drinks per day). On the other hand, the US guidelines average 2 per day.

To each their own. It is everything taken in combination. If you are having a six pack a night, not exercising, and best friends with the Dominos delivery person...welp, maybe an issue with all around health.

Oh, the article....witchcraft, IMO.
 

Bob Wall
Advanced Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 764
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.204.15.75
Posted on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 05:42 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I am still trying to figure out why pot is illegal.

Before it became a career choice for me, I really enjoyed it...shock and horrors!

About the only negative thing I can attribute to it is that is makes me generally lazy. If I get drunk...I get a hangover the next day. If I smoke my brains out, I eat a box of twinkies and watch Spongebob.

(Message edited by BrewDudeBob on March 26, 2007)
"If ignorance is bliss, this lesson would appear to be a deliberate attempt on your part to deprive me of happiness, the pursuit of which is my unalienable right according to the Declaration of Independence. I therefore assert my patriotic prerogative not to know this material. I'll be out on the playground."
-- Calvin
 

Joakim Ruud
Advanced Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 619
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 84.209.9.213
Posted on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 06:01 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bob, I totally agree.
For to accuse requires less eloquence, such is man's nature, than to
excuse; and condemnation, than absolution, more resembles justice.
-Hobbes, Leviathan
 

Paul Edwards
Senior Member
Username: Pedwards

Post Number: 1330
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 70.227.31.209
Posted on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 12:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

All things in moderation, especially moderation...
 

Joakim Ruud
Advanced Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 620
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 84.209.9.213
Posted on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 12:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

What was that he said in the first Thomas Covenant book? Something about privation fortifying the spirit, but "I say it is enough to fortify the spirit when the body has no other choice." Or something along those lines :-)

Mmmm, right now enjoying a hefeweizen in the warm spring sun while my Old Ale is mashing
For to accuse requires less eloquence, such is man's nature, than to
excuse; and condemnation, than absolution, more resembles justice.
-Hobbes, Leviathan
 

Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver

Post Number: 1005
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.32.253.156
Posted on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 02:48 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Sounds like paradise, Joakim!

There is no doubt that alcohol has spiralled out of control for many and has resulted in disastrous consequences for their health, their careers, and their families. It probably is more dangerous than LSD (aside from my comments below), which I feel isn't that dangerous at all in normal usage, though I have no personal basis for making that statement - it's not like I grew up in the 70's and early 80's listening to Pink Floyd But as dangerous as Ecstasy?! That's ridiculous. Aside from the deleterious physical effects of the drug, let's not forget to consider the other "big picture" risk factors, like acquiring illegal drugs from questionable sources, the purity, or lack therof, of the product, having to use the drug in a clandestine environment, the potential for arrest, prosecution, and incarceration simply for possessing the drug, etc., etc. Absurd. What a classic case of an agenda driving "science." (cough * algore * cough)
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 4177
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 216.23.59.245
Posted on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 03:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The other "big picture risk factors" are very real but have nothing to do with the action of the substance itself, rather the prohibition of that substance. You don't see these "risk factors" in alcohol. One should not defend the prohibition against things because there is a prohibition against them.

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver

Post Number: 1007
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.32.253.156
Posted on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 03:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dan, I'm neither attacking nor defending the prohibition against Ecstasy. It is what it is, and it isn't going to change, so I feel that it fair to include those factors in any discussion of the drug itself.

(As an aside, I'm taking a correspondence course for Military Policemen - long story - and I just got through the chapter on narcotics and other illegal drugs, so yes, I have read up on this recently.)

Let's hope the prohibition against our favorite recreational drug never returns.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 4178
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 216.23.59.245
Posted on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 04:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I wasn't taking a shot at you Graham, but you frequently read the "other factors" listed as defenses of the drug prohibition. These "other factors" could be eliminated with the stroke of a pen as Roosevelt did in regard to alcohol.

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1561
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 24.123.94.154
Posted on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 06:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Graham, how dare you pick on algore!! He's the patron saint of the global warming lobby!

I find it funny how the scientists who question the theory of human-caused global warming can't be credible because they are funded by entities such as oil companies, yet the scientists who algore used to make his shockumentary make megabucks claiming humans cause global warming are automatically assumed to be credible. Is oil company money really that much more corruptible than the global warming lobby's money? I also wonder if those were the same scientists that were sounding the global cooling alarms in the 70's?

Anyway, back to the original topic, I've seen people on some serious acid trips from one hit. I've never seen anyone that freaked out and dangerous after one drink of alcohol, even grain alcohol. So to me, yes, things like LSD are more dangerous than alcohol, at least in the short term effects. The long-term effects of both can be debated forever.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 6793
Registered: 01-2002
Posted From: 24.57.224.220
Posted on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 09:32 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike, let's not confuse the messenger with the message. Al Gore is certainly interested in furthering his own visibility (after all, he's a politician) and arguably guilty of inflating his role in a number of issues. However, that doesn't diminish the seriousness of global warming. The vast majority of scientists today believe this has been greatly accelerated by human activity, and while there are those who disagree, they are clearly in the minority.

Of course you are free to form your own opinion. I'm merely saying that it's an important issue regardless of how anyone feels about Al Gore.
 

Joakim Ruud
Advanced Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 621
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 84.209.9.213
Posted on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 09:48 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Shouldn't this be in World Expressions? :-)
For to accuse requires less eloquence, such is man's nature, than to
excuse; and condemnation, than absolution, more resembles justice.
-Hobbes, Leviathan
 

Joakim Ruud
Advanced Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 622
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 84.209.9.213
Posted on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 09:50 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Sorry, double post.

(Message edited by joques on March 26, 2007)
For to accuse requires less eloquence, such is man's nature, than to
excuse; and condemnation, than absolution, more resembles justice.
-Hobbes, Leviathan
 

Jake Isaacs
Intermediate Member
Username: Jake

Post Number: 393
Registered: 04-2002
Posted From: 68.54.237.64
Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 01:08 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

You kids are scoring very low on reading comprehension. The authors used three classifications of harm, not just physical. The "just under 2" is 1.85, the average of the three category scores for alcohol. But I guess being reactionary and taking shots at Al Gore (a big target, to be sure) is more fun ;)

I see no problem with the statement that started this thread. Alcohol is easily more dangerous than ecstasy or especially LSD. If memory serves, LSD is about 50 times less toxic than aspirin and I've seen people do waaaaay crazier things drunk than tripping. Unlike alcohol, on LSD you might see things that aren't there, but you won't NOT see things that ARE there. Or so I've read...

The authors rank alcohol second only to heroin in social harm. And this is in the UK. I would wager that in the US, alcohol easily trumps heroin in terms of social harm (probably by a wide margin).

Without revealing too much personal information, I can definitely say that alcohol has gotten me into more physical and social trouble than anything else on the list. And since it's the most addictive one on the list that I've tried in earnest (I'm somewhat allergic to tobacco), I guess it tops that category for me, too.

There ya go, alcohol is dangerous. So is driving, but I'm not about to quit that either.
 

Geoff Buschur
Senior Member
Username: Avmech

Post Number: 1467
Registered: 06-2004
Posted From: 70.249.136.201
Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 01:33 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

This article tells a slightly different story:


"I've been drunk for 14 years...my judgment isn't what it used to be."
 

Master B
Member
Username: Cwixon

Post Number: 153
Registered: 11-2005
Posted From: 67.149.67.117
Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 02:23 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Not to beat a dead horse, but to my knowledge there has never been a death due to overdose of either LSD or psilocybin ("magic mushrooms").
i have read accounts where people about to be arrested have eaten incredible amounts of lsd and have not died (although they did not have a fun time) in attempt to avoid arrest.

THE LESSON: Rats do not equal humans. Noteable point. There has never been a human who has overdosed on any hallucinagen. Again, there has never been a human who has consumed half of his body weight in lsd. Lsd is actually the strongest drug known to man per gram. This is probably what skewed the graph.
We're not here for a long time. We're here for a good time.
Cheers to life!!
 

Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver

Post Number: 1010
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.32.253.156
Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 02:51 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Jake sez: "You kids are scoring very low on reading comprehension. The authors used three classifications of harm, not just physical. The "just under 2" is 1.85, the average of the three category scores for alcohol. But I guess being reactionary and taking shots at Al Gore (a big target, to be sure) is more fun ;)"

You're right, he is a big target, and by my casual observation, he's getting bigger, and it is delightful to take shots at a hypocrite such as Al Gore whose primary home uses 22 times the energy of the average American home.
That's not to mention his other homes or his private jets or his SUV's or any of the other (in)conveniences that he decries for the rest of us sinning peons out here. It's OK for him and his Hollywood friends, just not for the rest of us. What a bleeping bleep-hole.

When asked in Senate testimony if he was ready to change his life, as he challenges the rest of us to do in the mockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth," he responded, "I live a carbon-neutral lifestyle." Sorry, algore, the atmosphere doesn't know that you are paying yourself "carbon credits" through a company you have financial interests in - the fact is, your 22x primary residence is still polluting the planet at 22x the going rate for an average family. Not to mention your other environmental transgressions.

How can any thinking individual take this hypocritical liar seriously?

But Jake, back to your original observation, I didn't bother to read the obviously-biased article in question, so no problems with my reading comprehension.

My friend Bill Pierce sez: "The vast majority of scientists today believe this has been greatly accelerated by human activity, and while there are those who disagree, they are clearly in the minority.

Bill, I love you, man, and I respect you, but the vast majority of scientists thought the world was flat and/or the center of the universe in the Middle Ages. More apropos, the vast majority of cardiologists thought that angioplasty and stents were the answer to arterial blockage for the past couple of decades - until today. The findings of a study were released from the very hotel I was staying at two nights ago (Coincidence? One wonders...) that said that most individuals with coronary blockage and other risk factors could be more successfully treated with drugs and lifestyle changes than with traditional surgical angioplasty.

Falling in with the majority without critical thought is, politely, "questionable."
 

Brad Petit
Member
Username: Voodoobrew

Post Number: 212
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 24.233.57.47
Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 05:07 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

> Falling in with the majority without critical thought is, politely, "questionable."

So the answer then is to reject everything on the basis that it *might* one day be shown to be false?

Suppose that (as is suggested in your summary), on the basis of this new arterial-blockage study, the *majority* of doctors embrace drugs, diet, and exercise as the best treatment options. What then? You should become philosophically compelled to reject this as being too much in line with "majority thought."

Science can only be as good as its latest endeavors. For every few dead-ends such as flat-earth and geocentrism, there are many more scientific *advancements* that serve as building blocks for further progress.

I applaud a sense of healthy skepticism. It keeps us on our toes. But we would be unwise to totally discard the major scientific works of the day simply because we think there's a *chance* they might not completely pass muster.

Unless, of course, one has a *political* reason for selectively embracing or dismissing certain scientific viewpoints... Then, I'm afraid, the answer will always be that which you seek...
 

Joakim Ruud
Advanced Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 623
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 85.166.27.17
Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 07:32 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I posit that this no longer has any relevance to beer or brewing. Is it possible for a moderator to move the entire discussion to World expressions?
For to accuse requires less eloquence, such is man's nature, than to
excuse; and condemnation, than absolution, more resembles justice.
-Hobbes, Leviathan
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1562
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 24.123.94.154
Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 12:39 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yes Joakim, you are correct, let it be moved if deemed necessary. However, since it is not yet moved I feel compelled to reply here to Brad.

Brad, much of the science behind human caused global warming is political in itself. There are HUGE dollars available to scientists who claim to believe in human caused global warming. The point I was trying to make earlier is why is it deemed only possible to be corrupted by money from the oil companies? Do not the megabucks coming in from other companies with a financial interest in proving human caused global warming also have the potential to be corrupting as well?

Those who go on the attack against the scientists who are skeptics because of how they are funded but blindly accept the advocate view without looking at the funding behind said view are the reason I question the whole thing. That and the fact that 30 years ago we were freaking out about global cooling and the next rapidly approaching ice age.

I don't doubt the earth is currently warming. I do doubt that we are the main cause of it and I do doubt that it is a continual warming trend. The articles and stories that I have read that make the most sense *to me* are ones that show us in a cyclical climate. I completely expect my girls to be hearing alarmist reports of global cooling 30-50 years from now.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 4180
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 216.23.59.245
Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 01:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I wonder who the last flat earth believing "scientist" was.


Wait, in this day and age, one might question my choice of tense.



(Message edited by listermann on March 27, 2007)

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

Joakim Ruud
Advanced Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 625
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 84.209.9.213
Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 02:06 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike, one of the largest problems may be that the population at large don't really understand scientific method. That's why there's a huge debate in scientific communities about how findings should be published.

Some scientists are of the opinion that most everything about anything is hypothesis and that nothing can be really proven. And strictly speaking they are right, but this is a standpoint that can easily be spun to mean "there is no evidence that humans cause global warming" by a crafty oil lobbyist.

Other scientists see this as a problem, and are therefore making claims that are more categoric of nature that is allowed by a strict adherence to scientific method.

The way I see this, nothing is certain and we shouldn't stop thinking critically, whatever our standpoints. But that doesn't mean that we can't draw certain inferences and act on them. Especially since global warming, if real, has such huge consequences.

I mean, if it turns out that we _didn't_ cause global warming, and the international community started burning less oil, where's the harm? That you got in better shape biking to work rather than riding your car? That our oil reserves will last a little longer? That (insert Bush administration witticism here)?
For to accuse requires less eloquence, such is man's nature, than to
excuse; and condemnation, than absolution, more resembles justice.
-Hobbes, Leviathan
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1563
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 24.123.94.154
Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 03:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Joakim,

I have no problem with reducing consumption, riding more and driving less, etc. Things like that make sense and they don't waste money.

I have a real problem with throwing millions of tax dollars at concepts to prevent global warming that have been proven to have a negligible benefit like Kyoto, just because some scientists said we should.
 

Jake Isaacs
Intermediate Member
Username: Jake

Post Number: 394
Registered: 04-2002
Posted From: 68.54.237.64
Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 05:06 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Geoff, that chart echoes what I said. LSD is far less toxic than alcohol and heroin is somewhat more so. How is that telling a different story?

I'm trying hard to stay out of the global warming debate, since that really should be in World Expressions. But as a scientist who is getting $0 from big oil or whoever the "human caused global warming lobby" might be, it's abundantly clear to me that global warming is real and is being accelerated by human activity.

But like anything else, people are going to believe whoever is telling them what they want to hear. I think it's amusing that until recently, the oil companies were using many of the same "scientists" that the tobacco companies used to report that tobacco wasn't harmful or addictive.
 

Mike A.
Intermediate Member
Username: Mike_a

Post Number: 295
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 128.173.15.155
Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 07:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

You kids are scoring very low on reading comprehension. The authors used three classifications of harm, not just physical. The "just under 2" is 1.85, the average of the three category scores for alcohol.

Yeah, I picked the physical harm score, I guess I'm biased too :-)
 

Vance Barnes
Senior Member
Username: Vancebarnes

Post Number: 2701
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 208.49.148.10
Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 08:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"So the answer then is to reject everything on the basis that it *might* one day be shown to be false? "

Nobody out there with 6 legged and 2 headed kids from the "scientific fact" of the 60's that LSD caused chromosome damage?

Now what might happen if you gave LSD to yeast?
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 6802
Registered: 01-2002
Posted From: 24.57.224.220
Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 09:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The "scientific fact" about chromosome damage from LSD was highly anecdotal, even 40 years ago. In fact, it was not made illegal until 1966. Not that I'd recommend operating motor vehicles or machinery while under the influence. Don't ask how I would know.
 

Andrew Bales
Intermediate Member
Username: Bales

Post Number: 449
Registered: 10-2002
Posted From: 12.179.16.194
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 03:46 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I agree with graham on the global warming phenomena, I never met a politician that did not have a vested interest in removing my wallet regardless of party affiliation. Even though it does appear that global warming is man made - I highly suspect it does not occur as we think becuase we are of limited mindset and little minds [no you are not stupid, you just don't understand anymore than I do].

More over - since most of Europe is obsessed with it - I tend to be very very skeptical of it. My usual rule, if Europeans get a wild idea a million people must die, might well apply to this, it did for Communism, Facisism, Religion, Socialism,,,so I am very leary of their current drive in that direction. Not to say that man doesn't cuase changes in the environment, but I am highly suspicous of those that support massive change becuase of their beliefs. I would never make someone else change their live based on my beliefs - however that continent would. They might be right, but they also might be wrong.

I am too libertarian to tolerate their idealism.
 

Tom Callen
Junior Member
Username: Tc2642

Post Number: 73
Registered: 07-2005
Posted From: 194.72.37.252
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 09:51 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

When did socalism cause a million people to die? Clement Atlee's government helped gave us the national health service, the welfare state, a higher standard of living and further education for the working class.

I find your mindset rather parochial.

You may also want to think what your country is based on if not the enlightenment? You don't think the "Rights of Man" is at all idealistic?.
 

The Jolly Brewer
Senior Member
Username: Matfink

Post Number: 1523
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 81.132.152.30
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 10:23 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I've stayed out of this discussion for a while, and while I agree with some of the comments on man made global warming etc, I feel I must make a few comments.

Whether we feel it will help prevent global warming or not, we cannot continue consuming at the rate we are going and expect the planet to always provide. The US have been one of the biggest consumers worldwide for decades and as such should take some responsibility for this.

Where can the harm be in recycling what we can, reducing the need to rape the countryside for raw materials. Why is it a bad thing to make more energy efficient vehicles, light bulbs, ways of heating our houses, generating electricity etc. It makes perfect sense to me. We are growing short of fossil fuels so we should find alternatives regardless of whether burning fossil fuels contribute to global warming or not.

"if Europeans get a wild idea a million people must die" Sorry Andrew, I find that wholey offensive, being European, I'm quite aware of our history but a sweeping statement like that is utterly ridiculous no matter how many examples you may be able to quote me. I don't believe cutting down carbon emisions, lowering the amount of waste we produce, recycling where we can and generally trying to cut down the amount of resources we consume can lead to a million deaths. Maybe starting a war to gain oil might, but not the exact opposite!
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1565
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 24.123.94.154
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 12:56 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Tom, you tout national health service and the welfare state as though they are a good thing. Not buying it. They both cause citizens to be dependent on the government and not themselves and they waste tons of cash paying bureaucrats to make medical and social decisions for you.

Those are two of the biggest issues most libertarians and conservatives despise and fear of liberal and socialist policy.

Mat, before I write this let me state that I am not opposed to recycling, I recycle everything I can and I feel good doing it. However, what about the studies that show recycling uses more energy than it saves? Other than the fact we are reusing some of the already claimed resources, doesn't burning more energy than we are saving just to try and save resources kinda defeat the purpose?
 

Steve Sampson
Intermediate Member
Username: Sampsosm

Post Number: 354
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 129.137.246.177
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 01:20 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I think maybe the American way of recycling is a little different than the European way. In Europe you can buy beer in bottles that have obviously been used previously.

I suspect in America, the reason its more energy costly to recycle is that when we recycle, we melt and reform bottles, so they look brand new. This is probably because beer and soda manufacturers know that their product will sell better if the bottle is "pristine" looking (and has cool commercials!).

When I was in Germany this past Summer, I witnessed the ultimate in recycling. At an outdoor event to watch the opening soccer match against Costa Rica, you had to pay a 50 euro cent deposit on the plastic cup you used! The cups had obviously been around a while, and were soaked in a sanitizer before re-use. I would welcome with open arms the day that happens at a football game here!

As far as global warming, I agree with Jolly Brewer, can't hurt to use less. Although there are other obstacles, such as the setup of our cities where everyone lives really far away from the central areas, and lack of good public transportation that also hurts this cause.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 4181
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 216.23.59.245
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 01:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I wonder if we can all agree that the burning of fossil fuels adds to the atmosphere's CO2 level? We might debate the significance of this increase, but I don't think that its existence can be debated.

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1566
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 24.123.94.154
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 01:46 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Steve, that brings up a good point. Why did our returnable beer and soda bottles all go away? I'm assuming it was a money thing, but I never heard the actual reason. Anyone know?
 

Paul Edwards
Senior Member
Username: Pedwards

Post Number: 1337
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 70.227.31.68
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 01:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I think recycling works for some things better than it does for others. Recycling aluminum cans is more cost eefective than mining bauxite and refining "new" aluminum, for example.

As for bottles, there's a cost to collect, sort, and clean if the bottle will be re-used. So maybe melting an reforming bottles is a "wash"

Plastic milk & soda jugs and plastic grocery sacks get re-used for all sorts of things. You can get deck board made from recycled plastic bags and wood chips. It lasts longer and needs less maintenance than deck boards milled "whole" wood.

We have a few grocery stores around here that have collection bins for the used plastic bottles and bags.

I think newsprint is another thing that make sense to recycle, from what I've read. We have it picked up by our trash collector, who has separate bins on the trucks for recyclables.

We've replaced most of the incandescent light bulbs in our house with compact fluorescent bulbs, as the incandescent ones burn out. This works especially well for a few fixtures we have that are hard to reach w/o a step ladder. We have seen a decrease in our monthly electric bill.

We've blown insulation into the sidewalls of the house, added insulation to the attic and replaced all the windows with ones that are more energy efficient (and less drafty). We've seen a dcrease in our monthly natural gas bill, too.

We drive little anymore, and we have fuel effective vehicles. I walk or ride my bike for my neighborhood errands most of the time. Fortunately, I live in an older area of town with grocery, post office, pharmacy, etc, close by. Oh, and we have two brewpubs within walking distance, too.

People who live in the surrounding sprawl have to drive for ANYTHING they need, even the ones living in the "new urbanism" areas. Some of them think they're gettting what I have in my neighborhood in terms of services, but then they object to retail like grocery stores in their "planned" communities.

Indianapolis has very poor mass transit partly becasue Hoosiers are addicted to driving their gas-hogs. Fuel prices would have to hit 7 or 8 dollars a gallon to get them out of their cars.

Mostly, I do the things I do because it saves me money. In the long run, it probably helps the "bigger " picture.

Global warming? I think the jury is still out on how big an impact human activity is having. Al Gore has jumped to the extreme, and even some of the sources he uses for support are guesstimating, and they admit it. These are some of the same peope who predicted we would be entering another Ice Age in the early 1970's.

Will the ocean levels rise 3 inches or 300 inches in the next century? or will it take 500 years? or will we enter a natural cooling period sometime down the road?

I can't say. But the earth has gone thru other periods of warming and of cooling. Atmospheric CO2 levels have been higher at times in the past than they are now.

I'll do what I think makes sense, but I'm not jumping on Uncle Al's bandwagon


(Message edited by pedwards on March 28, 2007)
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 4182
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 216.23.59.245
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 02:01 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The end of recycled bottles was probably a money / marketing decision. Evidently the cost of collecting and cleaning used bottles ran into increases in efficiencies of bottle manufacture. It is probably cheaper to make new, thinner, bottles than it is to collect and clean heavier returnable bottles. Plus new bottles are squeaky clean and look better on the shelf.

The end of returnable bottles has had an impact on the level of dangerous litter. All along our roads there are shards of broken glass just waiting for somebody to cut. They will be there a very long time. When I was a child back in the 60s, a kid could make a bit of money walking along the roads picking up returnable bottles. They did not break as easily and they had value!

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

Paul Edwards
Senior Member
Username: Pedwards

Post Number: 1338
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 70.227.31.68
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 02:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dan, in states with can and bottle deposit laws, there's a whole lot less litter on their roads. I've ridden my bicycle up in Michigan a few times. Their roads are a whole lot cleaner than the roads in Indiana are. Same thing in Vermont and Iowa.

I'm told there is a small added cost for retailers that have to collect the cans & bottles, and to have someone on hand to issue deposit refunds to people who bring stuff in.
 

Tom Callen
Junior Member
Username: Tc2642

Post Number: 76
Registered: 07-2005
Posted From: 194.72.37.252
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 02:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hmmm, yes suprisingly I do find a system whereby the most vunerable and least able are cared for in society, I don't mind paying for it and would willingly pay more. If you ask anybody in this county the overwhelming majority would agree with me. You would find that with most tories as well as liberals and labour voters too. I don't think it's just the rich have the right to good healthcare. The NHS took care of my mother when she was dying of cancer and provided all the drugs she needed including the nurses to administer them, me and my family didn't need to worry about being thousands of pounds in debt to find that medical care. I sometimes wonder where one "person's self" reliance is another's access to sub standard/non existant medical care and a miserable painful death. Glad I'm not poor and American.

You actually spend more per capita on healthcare than we do although you don't get any better results for it.
 

The Jolly Brewer
Senior Member
Username: Matfink

Post Number: 1524
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 81.132.152.30
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 02:20 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"However, what about the studies that show recycling uses more energy than it saves? Other than the fact we are reusing some of the already claimed resources, doesn't burning more energy than we are saving just to try and save resources kinda defeat the purpose?"

That may be true in some cases, but when the raw materials are finite and the effort to get them causes severe damage to often fragile ecosystems it is a balance that is hard to define.

Beer used to be sold in Imperial Quart bottles with internal screw tops here in Britain. They were reused and were the staple of all homebrewers. The only part that needed replacing occasionally were the rubber washers. Then we also went down the NRB route. A real shame. I recently picked up 25 of these bottles for 3 from an ebayer, just needed to replace the washers, now they are happily in service again storing my session beers. Three cheers for recycling and reusing!
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1567
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 24.123.94.154
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 02:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Good post Paul, I liked it.

Before building our house (2000) we wanted to buy semi-fixer-upper near downtown. But when we started looking at pre-existing homes we were turned off rather quickly. To get anything that put us in a neighborhood like you describe we were looking at $120K or more for a 100 year old house. The typical house had some shoddy remodeling, inefficient oil heat, no insulation to speak of in the ceilings and walls, and a leaky basement. We built ours for $132K with a large lot for the kids to play in and a three car garage.

It was kinda hard to justify buying something old that would have cost more than a new house within a year once I started remodeling and replacing a furnace and fixing the basement.

But yeah, living in typical suburbia gives us the problems of having the closest convenience store being a mile away and the closest grocery store being two miles away. Kinda hard to carry groceries two miles without having stuff spoil or melt. Not to mention fearing for your life walking or riding down a road that's supposed to be 25mph but every minivan driving soccer mom is going 50.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 4183
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 216.23.59.245
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 02:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Anymore most shopping zones in suburbia don't even bother with sidewalks. A pedestrian is risking their lives trying to walk along these roads not to mention the mud when it is wet. Plus it looks bad too.

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

The Jolly Brewer
Senior Member
Username: Matfink

Post Number: 1525
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 81.132.152.30
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 02:39 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

When we went to Nashville a couple of years ago, we made the mistake of trying to walk from a deli where we had lunch, to downtown Nashville, a distance of about 2 miles, something I'd do without thinking here at home. It must have taken us the best part of an hour to do. The roads are so un-pedestrian friendly it is incredible. The grid system doesn't allow you to walk more than about 100m at a time before having to stop and wait for traffic.

There also seemed to be a real lack of shops of pretty much any kind. No where to buy a paper, or a bottle of water or a snack. We had to drive about 5 miles from our hotel just to buy some fruit. Extrordinary when here in England I can pretty much walk 200m in any direction and reach a small shop.
 

Vance Barnes
Senior Member
Username: Vancebarnes

Post Number: 2702
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 208.49.148.10
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 02:41 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Returnable bottles were killed by AL cans with their pop top tabs that were soon covering the country. We can probably thank Coke and AB for that. Coors was the first cans I remember that didn't have throw away tabs. They actually had two holes in the can top. Guess I can give them credit for that even if I can't for their water (beer).

Re-using bottles is much more cost and energy eff. than recycling glass.
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1568
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 03:01 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Tom, how many of those most vulnerable and least able are in that position because they are forced, and how many are there because they can? Here in the US we have major welfare abuse. We have large numbers of people in all areas of the country (urban to rural) that abuse the system because they can. I have no problem providing help for those who legitimately need it. I have big problems with my tax dollars providing food and care for someone who's just too lazy to get off the couch.

As for health care, I have very good healthcare and I'm hardly rich, far from it actually. My employer pays something towards it (minimal) and I pay the rest. You don't have to be rich to get good healthcare in the US.

We spend so much money on healthcare here because our doctors pay astronomical fees for malpractice insurance due to our sue happy public and we get to pay ridiculous prices for medication from companies that have record profits year after year.

Dan, in these parts they are FINALLY putting in some "trails" (basically wide blacktop sidewalks) so people can get around on foot and bikes. Last summer was a busy one for me and I never was able to ride, but the summer before that I rode to work about once a week or so, 15 miles each way. Maybe 4-5 miles of those 15 are on the "trail" system. The rest of the ride I spend my time going through various neighborhoods to avoid the extremely dangerous main roads. Cars around here do not look out for bikes (or motorcycles for that matter) and the main roads are probably almost as dangerous to a cyclist as they are to a bike messenger in NYC. I'm exaggerating, but not much.
 

Paul Edwards
Senior Member
Username: Pedwards

Post Number: 1339
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 03:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Geez, Mike sounds like you're ridng your bike the same places I do!!

Actually, Indianapolis is laid out on a grid, so getting around the city on a bike and avoiding busy roads is pretty easy from our house. We have a rail-to-trail conversion that runs near our house, but it's so crowded with rollerbladers, people walking dogs on flexi-leads, mommies walking three abreast and pushing strollers on the wrong side of the trail centerline, that we don't use it for biking unless it's really early in the day. Sometimes, the city streets are actually safer and quicker than the trail.

The suburban areas around here have much more of a problem because each development is pretty much dead-ended, and they don't connect to each other. To get from one to another you HAVE to get out on the major roads (what used to be the two-lane county farm roads). Most of them don't even have sidewalks, let alone a mulit-use path wide enough for bikes and pedestrians. The city fathers and town council leaders in these areas had very little foresight about alternative means of transportation. So it's pretty much gridlock all the time up in the burbs near here. Sprawl is alive and well.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 6810
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 03:32 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike H., I know your strong libertarian/conservative leanings, but I have to disagree strongly with your views on health care. I have lived for a considerable time in two countries with rather divergent attitudes about this, so I think I can comment with some authority.

Health is not a privilege but a resource, and a nation without a healthy population is resource-poor, no matter what other material wealth it may possess. The fact that one in six Americans has no health insurance is a travesty for a wealthy country. Citizens in places as diverse and economically less well-off as Costa Rica and Thailand enjoy better access (if not always higher technology) to health care.

Tom is right that universal national health insurance enjoys almost complete support in the UK from all the political parties. The same is true here in Canada, where more that 80 percent of people say they are better off with it. Indeed there are complaints about the level of coverage (roughly equal to that of Medicare for seniors in the US) and the wait times for non-emergency procedures. There are those who favor augmenting it with a privately financed system (beyond the supplemental insurance many employers provide). But fewer than one in ten people express the desire to scrap the current system (in Ontario and most provinces a single-payer quasi-government insurer but private providers) altogether.

Of course there is no free lunch (the first law of economics) and taxes are higher to pay for the health insurance. However, the percentage of GDP spent on health care is lower (partly a result of a more healthy population in general) and there are other offsetting economic benefits. For example, the large multinational auto manufacturers have shifted some of their production to Canada in order to avoid the average $1300 per car spent on employee health insurance in the US.

I'm self-employed and able to piggy-back on my wife's supplemental insurance from her employer. But even if I were by myself I would have a basic level of medical care that would cost me about $1000 a month for individual insurance if I were in the US. The cost of my wife's supplemental insurance is about $150 per month, and it provides coverage (dental, orthodontics, vision, prescriptions, etc.) that would cost ten times more there. It allows middle-class Canadian workers and taxpayers to have health care that only the wealthy in the US enjoy, and it makes for a healthier society.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 4184
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 03:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Here in the US we have major welfare abuse. We have large numbers of people in all areas of the country (urban to rural) that abuse the system because they can. I have no problem providing help for those who legitimately need it. I have big problems with my tax dollars providing food and care for someone who's just too lazy to get off the couch. "

Typical right wing talking points. Did Gingrich and Co. do nothing to "end welfare as we know it" or are you having a hard time giving up the welfare queen stereotype?

"We spend so much money on healthcare here because our doctors pay astronomical fees for malpractice insurance due to our sue happy public "

More talking points.

"we get to pay ridiculous prices for medication from companies that have record profits year after year. "

Woo! Where did that come from?

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

Tom Callen
Junior Member
Username: Tc2642

Post Number: 77
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 03:40 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike, I have worked in an unemployment office and there are those who will just sit on their all day claiming dole, I regard these people (unless they have mental or physical health problems) as a drain on society, for example, someone who just kept popping out sprogs so they can claim even more benefit, these are in the minority though. The vast majority of people I came across (including those who would be termed 'chavs') actually wanted work and didn't want to sit around watching daytime tv claiming 54 a week, there were some who were never going to get a job (would you employ someone who hadn't worked since 1992?) but most were just in a difficult situation. I will be unemployed again at the end of this month, through no fault of my own (contract is ending) and I will need to claim benefit, it's not fun, actually it's quite depressing because I enjoy working and have a strong work ethic. The last time I was out of work it was for five months, I had applied for countless jobs and signed up with thirty temping agencies (even after hassing them every week they never found me anything). According to your system I would have no safety net at all, where would that leave me then?
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1571
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 04:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bill, $1000/month? When I got downsized back in '03 from my corporate American job I had to buy insurance on my own for my family until early '05. The family plan with not too unreasonable deductibles ($250 individual, $500 family) was $306/month. This year the insurance I have is partially (very minimally) paid by my work and I pay the rest. To get family coverage with good dental I pay about $350/month now. Nowhere near $1000/month. And that's for medical/dental that focuses on preventative care, i.e. annual physicals, 2x/year dental checkups, and annual eye exams are all included for free under the plan. Same thing as when I paid on my own.

As for the auto manufacturers, that's their own fault for getting in bed with the UAW. The UAW kept taking what the companies would give (100% paid health care, etc) and now their costs are so prohibitive that they had to move production to Canada and Mexico. Wonder how proud the UAW is now that pushing for all those bene's for their members caused so many thousands of their members to now be out of a job.

Not talking points Dan, personal experience. Where I'm from (the sticks in central WI) there are a TON of people who mooch off the system because they are too lazy to work. I have RELATIVES that live in Milwaukee that mooch off the system because they can. Welfare is still a huge problem.

As for frivolous lawsuits, are you trying to deny that doctors pay tons each year for malpractice insurance? Are you saying that's just due to all doctors being incompetent and nothing else?

As for the drug companies, I'm an equal opportunity offender. I think we need tort reform in the worst way, but I also think drug companies don't need to be making record profits every year while people are paying $100/pill to live.

(Message edited by mikhu on March 28, 2007)
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1572
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 04:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Tom, no, in our system you are covered by unemployment just like yours. When I lost my job I used the unemployment system for a month until I got another job. That's why it is there and it works well. But unemployment and welfare are two totally different things to me.

As a side note, FWIW I LOVE British terminology! "claiming dole", "popping out sprogs", etc. I love it!
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 6811
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 04:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike, I'm 59 years old, so that places me in a high individual health insurance rate category. Were I in the US I would have to wait six more years before being eligible for Medicare. The fact that I'm generally healthy (I would have no problem passing a physical exam) would allow me to obtain the insurance but it would not reduce the cost.

My wife's supplemental insurance is ridiculously cheap ($150 per month) considering the benefits. There is only a $250 annual family medical deductible, orthodontics (we have two teenagers with braces) are covered 90 percent, each of us is entitled to up to $500 per year in vision care, and there is only a $10 per prescription co-pay. Just last week my wife filled a prescription that would have been $140 without the insurance. The pharmacist told her he has customers from the US (we're about an hour from the border) who say it is more than $200 there.
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1574
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 04:51 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bill, I don't doubt one bit that the cost of health insurance there is cheaper than here. But what percentage of his salary does the average Joe pay in taxes in Canada? I mean is the health care TRULY cheaper, or does it just seem cheaper because you pay less at the point of service or on your monthly insurance premium even though you are paying higher taxes to offset it?

I'm not some cold-hearted SOB, I believe we should support those who truly need it. But something needs to change. Do we really think paying more taxes than we already do is really going to help those in need, or will it just get spent somewhere else? You all know where I believe it will go.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 6812
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 05:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike, the average "bite" of income tax for a middle-class wage earner in Canada is about 25 percent of gross salary. The tax system is more "progressive," so the rate for higher income taxpayers is higher. That's after the various deductions (for example, Canadians don't enjoy the mortgage interest deduction US taxpayers do but there are more generous child care credits). Additionally, here in Ontario, for example, there is a total 15 percent provincial and federal sales (goods and services) tax on almost everything but unprepared food items.

The result is that about 45 percent of total income goes to various taxes (property taxes in Ontario seem about average by US standards). That's a little higher than in the US. Canadians pay for their health care system, but they aren't burdened by a war in Iraq, even if there are about 2000 Canadian forces in Afghanistan.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 4186
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 05:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I would be more sympathetic to attacks on single payer health insurance ( socialized medicine to right wingers) if it shown to deliver reduced health levels at greater costs than our for-profit insurance companies. But the fact of the matter is that this is not the case. Our insurance system covers fewer people at greater per capita cost and we aren't as healthy as single payer systems. It is all propped up by insurance company lobbyists who are paid with - money from insurance premimums!

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 4187
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 05:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Not talking points Dan, personal experience. Where I'm from (the sticks in central WI) there are a TON of people who mooch off the system because they are too lazy to work. I have RELATIVES that live in Milwaukee that mooch off the system because they can. Welfare is still a huge problem. "

The right just loves its welfare queens. It is just too predictable.

"As for frivolous lawsuits, are you trying to deny that doctors pay tons each year for malpractice insurance? Are you saying that's just due to all doctors being incompetent and nothing else? "

I don't say that frivolous lawsuits don't happen, but the magnitude of the problem is wildly exagerated by the right. Again, repeating these things really turns them on.

"As for the drug companies, I'm an equal opportunity offender. I think we need tort reform in the worst way, but I also think drug companies don't need to be making record profits every year while people are paying $100/pill to live."

A little crack in the right wing armor, huh? Don't they have every right and even a duty to charge as much as the market will bare with only the stockholders interest in mind?

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1575
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 05:42 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dan, look at the costs Bill listed for insurance, and then add in how much Canadians pay in taxes. Granted, all of those taxes don't go to healthcare, but I'll bet a large majority of them do. I'm not sure our real costs are that much higher per capita if at all.

Does something need to be done to fix our system? Yep. But I'm not so sure all of this class warfare stuff flies when you apply the facts. Fact is, someone who is poor can walk in to the ER without insurance, get treatment, and not pay a dime. We taxpayers pay for it all.

I'd be ok with a socialized medicine plan if they didn't increase taxes to do it. Take out the pork and use it for programs like that. I'll bet the money from the indoor rain forest in North Dakota and the bridge to nowhere in Alaska could have treated a large number of people who otherwise couldn't have afforded it.
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1576
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 05:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"The right just loves its welfare queens. It is just too predictable."

Which part of me having seen it with my own eyes in my own family don't you understand? Are you calling me a liar? I've seen the abuse with my own eyes, not just via talking points from my local GOP office like you seem to think.

"I don't say that frivolous lawsuits don't happen, but the magnitude of the problem is wildly exagerated by the right. Again, repeating these things really turns them on."

Yeah, because charging an extra $50 or $100 per prescription really drives our healthcare costs out of control but making a doctor's insurance company pay millions on bogus "science" doesn't increase our costs one bit? All it takes is ONE multi-million dollar settlement to jack up rates on malpractice insurance. And I wonder how the doctors pay for those jacked up rates? Oh, that's right, they DON'T. They just pass the higher cost of doing business on. Wonder who pays it then....
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 6815
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 06:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The Alaska "bridge to nowhere" and the North Dakota rainforest have huge costs per benefited taxpayer, but they pale in comparison to US defense expenditures. As obvious targets, the money paid to Halliburton and other military contractors would pay for health care to hundreds of thousands if not millions of people.
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1577
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 06:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

One of the main purposes of forming our federal government was to protect our shores. Yes, I agree, the validity of the money spent on defense is a big issue. However, at least that is the feds doing what they are supposed to be. Nowhere is it written that the federal government is supposed to be a welfare support system for ridiculous pork projects.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 4190
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 06:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Dan, look at the costs Bill listed for insurance, and then add in how much Canadians pay in taxes. Granted, all of those taxes don't go to healthcare, but I'll bet a large majority of them do. I'm not sure our real costs are that much higher per capita if at all. "

The Canadians are not stupid. They know full and well that their higher tax rate is due to health care. Getting something that you pay for is not a bad thing. They get better health care for less money than we do. They are not taxaphobes like the righties in this country.

I am diabetic and self-employed. My wife's COBRA will run out in December if her old company stays in business that long. I am having a hell of a time getting coverage. I would happily pay all my medication costs ( around $1000 per month) if I could get coverage that would pay for an accident, but that has shown itself to be easier said than done.

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 6816
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 06:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike, I know the talk show hosts are fond of talking about "tax freedom day," that is, the calculated point in the year until which the "average person" would pay 100 percent of income in taxes and then no more.

As a comparison, I know it occurs around May 1 in the US. Here in Canada it's sometime toward the end of the same month. That's not a huge difference and it offers great comfort for those who would otherwise not have adequate health care for themselves and their families. Taking out a second mortgage or declaring bankruptcy because of medical expenses is all but unheard of.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 4191
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 06:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Which part of me having seen it with my own eyes in my own family don't you understand? Are you calling me a liar? I've seen the abuse with my own eyes, not just via talking points from my local GOP office like you seem to think. "

I don't doubt that you "have seen it with your own eyes." I have too, but the right likes to jump all over the fairly small problem and make it seem like that is the root of all evil and everything would be all better if we just stopped all welfare. "Welfare Queens" is a catch phrase that the right uses to make themselves feel better.

"I don't say that frivolous lawsuits don't happen, but the magnitude of the problem is wildly exagerated by the right. Again, repeating these things really turns them on."

Yeah, because charging an extra $50 or $100 per prescription really drives our healthcare costs out of control but making a doctor's insurance company pay millions on bogus "science" doesn't increase our costs one bit? All it takes is ONE multi-million dollar settlement to jack up rates on malpractice insurance. And I wonder how the doctors pay for those jacked up rates? Oh, that's right, they DON'T. They just pass the higher cost of doing business on. Wonder who pays it then...."

I will bet that you have a exaggerated idea of what percentage of a doctor's bill is for malpractice insurance. Again, jacking this up fits the right's agenda.

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1578
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 06:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I did a quick search to see what doctors pay for malpractice insurance. One example I found with real dollars was a family doctor that does OB makes on average $150K and pays $45K in malpractice insurance. So YES, it is obscene.

Now granted, I will admit it is not solely the fault of the crackpot lawyers, the insurance companies are at fault as well. Unfortunately between the two of them the doctors pay through the rear and therefore so do we.

That being said, I trust companies that have to answer to their stockholders and Wall Street far more than I would the federal government to manage my health care.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 4193
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 07:06 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"I did a quick search to see what doctors pay for malpractice insurance. One example I found with real dollars was a family doctor that does OB makes on average $150K and pays $45K in malpractice insurance. So YES, it is obscene. "

That may well be the amount he pays, but one must remember that the doctors own compensation is also a fraction of his total billings. You need to find out what percent of billings is dedicated to malpractice insurance, not his pay.


"That being said, I trust companies that have to answer to their stockholders and Wall Street far more than I would the federal government to manage my health care."

"As for the drug companies, I'm an equal opportunity offender. I think we need tort reform in the worst way, but I also think drug companies don't need to be making record profits every year while people are paying $100/pill to live. "

I suppose you could always refuse to buy the pill.

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1579
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 07:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dan, has our federal government done anything in the last 50 years that gives you any confidence that they would be able to manage our health care system with any sort of efficiency?

I mean if it takes months to get an MRI in Canada with a population one tenth the size of the US, how long do think it would take our already bloated federal government to process such a request for us?
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 4194
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 08:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Dan, has our federal government done anything in the last 50 years that gives you any confidence that they would be able to manage our health care system with any sort of efficiency? "

More droning right wing cynicism.

Hey, it is not like there aren't successful models out there that we could look at, like the rest of the industrialized world. . .

"I mean if it takes months to get an MRI in Canada with a population one tenth the size of the US, how long do think it would take our already bloated federal government to process such a request for us?"

Some people don't need MRIs as fast as other. How about worrying about wasting resources on unnecessary MRI machines just so a hospital can produce a new "profit center?"

There are problems with any and all systems. Just because you can cite a system's perceived problem, does not negate the whole system. Medical resources need to be rationed in any system. It is best to do this rationing in a rational way. We cut off the poor until they are very ill and can go to an emergency room for what should have been a minor problem had it been addressed sensably. This is not rational.

You want to know who we really screw over? The self-employed. Medical insurance is probably the greatest barrier to small business. Usually the small businessman has to have his wife employed somewhere to get health insurance. I would like to see the tax cut that would stimulate small business like single payer health would.

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 6817
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 08:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike, my wife was able to schedule an MRI scan (for a non-critical condition) within a little less than a month. Is that ideal? No, but it seems at least reasonable given that she was not in any real danger and the procedure was only to confirm her doctor's finding of no major problems.

As for the government being in charge of health care, in Ontario the providers are private and the government (actually a quasi-governemnt corporation along the lines of the postal service) functions as the insurer and payer. Do people have confidence in the system? The answer is about as much as they do in private insurance companies. There is the level of bureaucracy inherent in any large organization, but only very isolated charges of incompetence or abuse.
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1580
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 08:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dan, plenty of "right wing" politicians have proposed group insurance buy plans for small businesses. You shouldn't be blindly opposed to all things from the right. There are some ideas there that might actually benefit you.

My MRI example was just that, an example. I wasn't intending on it being a debate over the value of elaborate traveling or in-house MRI centers. Pick whatever non-emergency procedure you desire, they all apply. There has to be some reason there are people in Canada who come in to the US for medical procedures and willingly pay out of their pocket for those procedures.

There are two sides to every story. For every needless test a hospital performs to make some extra cash another one is performing a needless test so the doctor can cover his butt against litigation.

You know Dan, for people like you who don't mind paying higher taxes it sounds like Canada has a pretty sweet deal. You seem to be pretty fond of their governmental system. You wouldn't have to pay for health insurance for you and your employees, you could pay your employees less because they don't have to pay much for health insurance, and from the sounds of it on this board Canada could use some more LHBS's.

Some of us in this country like the principles of the Founding Fathers, i.e. LESS government intervention in our daily lives, not more. It seems to me if someone would want more governmental control of their lives they would WANT to live in Canada.
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1581
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 09:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bill, I'm guessing the Canadian government has a better handle on it than the US government would. If we took more tax dollars in, or even just reallocated the ones we have coming in, I'm fairly certain all they would do is rob it blind for pet pork projects just like they've done to social security.

Guys, I'm not disagreeing that our healthcare system needs to be fixed, it is desperately in need of fixing. But I have zero faith that our federal government is capable of fixing it.
 

Andrew Bales
Intermediate Member
Username: Bales

Post Number: 451
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 10:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I was wondering if I would strike a nerve....and who would pick up socialism as a deadly form of government. ;) It was added a joke but the others were not.

nationalism, militarism were others I left off.

jolly you are correct that idealism in Europe did lay the ground work for US government, however it also laid the ground work for French Rev/Napolean who laid seige to Europe for decades politically. Many of the bad ideas of Eurpean style governance today still come from him.

We don't want their oil, we want Iraq to be a democracy. However we are letting the least capable leaders in the world (ours) help them, and they (Iraqis, hell all Arabs) are not really wise enough to use help that well anyway in a productive manner. Like other continents, they need to fight out their wars until they realize peace is only way. Muslims are a long long ways from realizing what the west figured out in 1865 [usa] and 1945 [eu]. Regardless of W, they have alot more self slaughtering to do. Millions need to die first. Hope no one reading this does.

But i don't mean to tout an American horn, even as libertarian as I am, NHS sounds wonderful. I pay $1000 a month for insurance, when I can find it. How come with all of taxes we can't have free clinics in the richest nation on the planet!!! Here Europe has it dead right and we are just ***ing around in circles. But one should note that if the US does go Euro on health care you can expect that there will no longer be any new discoveries in the US for medicine. Just like Europe has forgone new developments in medicine in exchange for price controls [leaving most new devlopment to USA-China-India], so we might as well. If I was 20 I would argrue against it, but being 43 with back problems, I'll take the Euro route.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 6820
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 12:30 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike, not all portions of the government here are beyond reproach. The current scandal in Ontario involves lottery retailers manipulating the system to give them an edge in winning prizes, with the possible collusion of some people in the agency that runs the games.

(Message edited by BillPierce on March 29, 2007)
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 4195
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 01:11 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Dan, plenty of "right wing" politicians have proposed group insurance buy plans for small businesses. You shouldn't be blindly opposed to all things from the right. There are some ideas there that might actually benefit you. "

As a potential participant is such "systems" and a diabetic, I have to report that they are not what you might think of them. My next step, according to my wife, is some sort of GOVERNMENT program.

"There has to be some reason there are people in Canada who come in to the US for medical procedures and willingly pay out of their pocket for those procedures."

There are probably not as many as right wing talk radio would have you believe.

"There are two sides to every story. For every needless test a hospital performs to make some extra cash another one is performing a needless test so the doctor can cover his butt against litigation. "

Perhaps, but perhaps there is a doctor also ordering a test to line the pockets of his "group" as well.

"You know Dan, for people like you who don't mind paying higher taxes it sounds like Canada has a pretty sweet deal. You seem to be pretty fond of their governmental system. You wouldn't have to pay for health insurance for you and your employees, you could pay your employees less because they don't have to pay much for health insurance, and from the sounds of it on this board Canada could use some more LHBS's"

I don't cover my employees with health insurance. I am not proud if this, but to do so would be too expensive. It would easily put me out of business and they would not have a job.

"Some of us in this country like the principles of the Founding Fathers, i.e. LESS government intervention in our daily lives, not more. It seems to me if someone would want more governmental control of their lives they would WANT to live in Canada."

Some like to wrap themselves in the flag and question the patriotism of their fellow citizens for disagreeing with them. I say fix the problem.

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

Jake Isaacs
Intermediate Member
Username: Jake

Post Number: 395
Registered: 04-2002
Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 05:42 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Beer is bad for you.
 

Tom Callen
Junior Member
Username: Tc2642

Post Number: 78
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 09:30 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Glad to make someone happy with my colloquialisms Mike!
 

Steve Sampson
Intermediate Member
Username: Sampsosm

Post Number: 356
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 12:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"my wife was able to schedule an MRI scan (for a non-critical condition) within a little less than a month."

I've heard thats about the same time you wait for a non-emergency MRI in the US.

Maybe the long wait times in Canada are overblown????
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 6826
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 12:40 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Steve, my father-in-law had to wait about a year for cataract surgery. The wait for hip replacement is about 18 months. I had a hip replacement in the US (I was a resident and covered by my employer's insurance at the time) within a month of first going to the doctor. So yes, the wait times are somewhat longer in Canada but not as long as some of the critics of a single-payer system would have you believe.

Most of the complaints in Canada center around the lack of a patient-paid option in any of the provinces (they each run their own system) except for Alberta. Apart from going to the US or another country for care, you are forced to wait even if you wish to pay for it yourself. Defenders of the current system say it would create two-tier health care and allow providers excessive profits.

The system does tend to keep costs lower, and providers do not make as much. The average annual salary for a family physician in Ontario is less than $150,000, and some of them have emigrated to the US because they can earn more money there.

(Message edited by BillPierce on March 29, 2007)
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1582
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 12:48 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dan, some of your arguments might have more merit if you stopped using "right wing" in every response. Accusing someone of just using "right wing" talking points in everything they say doesn't lend itself to a civilized discussion. But then again, I have a hunch that's not what you are after. You seem to just be out to rile up the "opposition".

Not that it matters or that I should have to clarify myself, but for the record I haven't listened to *any* talk radio in years. I have no idea what the current talking points are on either side.

The only other comment I have is I didn't realize wanting our country to stick by the fundamentals under which it was formed was wrapping myself in the flag and questioning your patriotism. You go ahead and spin it however you want.
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1583
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 01:06 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bill, I've always assumed the alarmists were exaggerating the wait times and you've confirmed that they are, other than the hip replacement. 18 months vs 1 month when you are in pain from a bad hip? Seems like a significant difference to me. Or was he not yet to the point of being in pain while he waited?
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 4198
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 01:08 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike, I also think that my position is "sticking by the fundamentals of our founders." The right seems to think that it has the monopoly on patriotism and founding fundamentals. They do not and I resent it when they act like they do.

Might I say that I consider myself a deeply patriotic American and I am in absolute awe of the accomplishments of the founding fathers. Their creation has finally caused a check to be placed on an out of control executive branch.

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1584
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 01:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dan, I'm not trying to get in to a tit for tat argument here, but I'm not following how your position coincides with our founding fathers?

They envisioned a minimalist federal government primarily to protect our shores. They felt the states were best suited to govern individuals and provide needed services. They never had any intention of the federal government having any involvement in individual's lives such as managing their health or supporting them if they had no income.

I realize this is a completely different day and age from when they were around, but they distinctly stated minimal involvement in people's daily lives by a federal entity. Having the feds govern our healthcare and income for the downtrodden is definitely against what they envisioned.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 6827
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 01:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike, my father-in-law had cataract surgery rather than hip replacement. His other eye had relatively clear 20/30 vision, so it was not such a problem for him. As for my own hip replacement, I was never in much pain, although I was stiff and had difficulty walking more than about a quarter-mile. I also had known for several years that the surgery would be necessary, so I could have easily arranged to get in line for it.

Exceptions to the wait are granted to those patients who have a compelling need, for example, those are in extreme pain or victims of an accident.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 4200
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 01:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I doubt that you would deny the importance of providing for the common defense any more than promoting the general welfare.

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

Jake Isaacs
Intermediate Member
Username: Jake

Post Number: 396
Registered: 04-2002
Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 11:53 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Dan, some of your arguments might have more merit if you stopped using "right wing" in every response."

Mike, it might not be in all your responses, but you tend to overuse "liberalism", "liberal mindset", "liberal media", etc.

You might give some thought as to how this reflects on the merit of your own arguments
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1586
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 12:11 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Jake, to me liberal is a legitimate term like conservative or libertarian, Democrat or Republican. Did you ever see Dan use conservative or libertarian like Bill did? "Right wing" is intended as an insult when it is used. I don't recall Hillary calling it a "Conservative Conspiracy" did she?
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1587
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 12:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dan, first let me say this is an honest question, I'm not trying to make you defensive or egg you on.

Most small business owners I know tend to have political views similar to me. What I'm curious about is what a small business owner who tends to lean the opposite way than me politically thinks of raising the minimum wage?

Again, this is an honest question, I'm legitimately interested in hearing your response if you are willing to give it, I'm not just trying to get you wound up.
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 6271
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 06:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I'm probably an even smaller business owner than Dan. I support raising the minimum wage. It's a moral issue to me. I have been known to pay employees more than I pay myself.
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
 

Ron Siddall
Intermediate Member
Username: El_cid

Post Number: 288
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 10:45 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

My father in law owned a small mechanics shop. He was from Germany and always talked about how business owners there would give people time off (vacation) and also give them additional money during that time to enjoy themselfs better. I asked him if he did for his employee here in the States. He said no he didn't.

I keep hearing that entry level jobs mostly pay more than the minimum wage. I am not exactly sure of this since I spend the time and energy to get college degree and without Dad and Moms help.
This space open to interpretation
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1589
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 12:21 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Denny, that's good of you. I'm glad you are able and willing to do that, seriously. Many small business owners don't have that option. They'll go out of business if they do.

The business owners that I wonder about are the ones that have just a few employees and are just making it by currently. I'm rounding off here, but if they are paying their employees $5/hr now and we make them start to pay $7/hr, simple math tells me that approximately every third employee is going to have to be let go to keep costs the same. How does raising the minimum help the employees when two of them don't have a job anymore? Just because the government tells the owner he has to pay his employees more they don't give him the extra money to make up the difference, so something has to give.

Simply put, if I have 6 part time high school student employees making $5/hr working 20 hrs/week, I'm paying out $600/week in wages. If I have to start paying $7 I can only afford to keep 4 employees unless the wage fairy comes along and gives me an extra $240/week.

This whole principle is just so wrong. The minimum wage was never intended to be a "living wage". It was intended for entry level non-skilled positions like fast-food joints. If you want to support a family without an education you shouldn't be applying there, you need to be applying for the always available (at least around here) entry level jobs at the factories that start at $10-12/hr.
 

Steve Sampson
Intermediate Member
Username: Sampsosm

Post Number: 357
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 02:45 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike, your math is correct, but I think the benefits of a higher minimum wage extend beyond the immediate ones gained by the person in the position. It really is better for society.

Ron, if I'm reading your comment right, you are sort of saying you don't know what an entry level job pays because you are getting educated, and you stress "without mom and dads help". You are sort saying anybody can do it? I agree, but really the road is much more difficult for many. If you had two slightly supportive parents while growing up, I guarantee that they helped in your higher education (even if they didn't pay for it directly), many don't have that luxury. Now maybe you had it tough, I don't know, I'm just making a point.

Not trying to insult, but I hear the whole "I did it all myself" thing a little too much. I payed for all my education through student loans (and am still paying), but I also have the sense to realize that others do not have a fraction of the family support I had.
 

Steve Sampson
Intermediate Member
Username: Sampsosm

Post Number: 358
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 03:02 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Oh one more thing...

There was a story on the news tonight about how Walgreens filled a couple prescriptions wrong, and one woman had a stroke and eventually died in her thirties, and another 8 year old was left permanently mentally handicapped. It struck me as an argument for government regulations, because the person incharge of filling the actual pill bottle was not even a high school graduate.

It seemed having more qualified people in health care roles is beneficial, even if it means "more government", and wouldn't that interest (of more qualified workers) be of lower priority than profit margins to Walgreens?

Do you want a high school dropout filling your pill bottles, where the difference between 1 mg and 10 mg will kill you?

And don't give me the argument that these people should be checking every pill and prescription label for mistakes. If you can't trust a pharmacy to fill the prescription correctly, well, thats pretty messed up....
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 6279
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 04:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike, I'm so close to out of business that it doesn't matter! I sincerely believe that the foundation of this country is a social network of people taking care of each other. I firmly believe that's how the "founders" wanted it.
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1591
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 05:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Denny, I agree with that. And given the choice most people will reach out to those in need. Some of us just resent the government forcing us to do it.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 6846
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 07:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike, it can be argued that government-funded health insurance eases the burden on small businesses. This lowers the barriers for those who take the risk of starting a business, and it also provides their employees with basic medical care.

The minimum wage here in Ontario is now $8 per hour (there are a few exceptions such as for part-time students under age 18), and many employers find they have to pay somewhat more in order to keep good employees. It's considered a fact of life, just as are energy costs.
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 6280
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 07:22 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike, if more people were willing to think as highly of others as they do of themselves, there would be no need for the gov't. to intervene. Unfortunately, human nature seems to be greedy and self centered. In that case, gov't is just ensuring that the people have to do what the founders intended. At least, that's the way I see it.
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
 

Steve Sampson
Intermediate Member
Username: Sampsosm

Post Number: 359
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, April 01, 2007 - 04:18 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Uh, yeah, there's pretty much no way in hell that businesses would voluntarily start raising wages.

Nice pipe dream though!
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 4201
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Sunday, April 01, 2007 - 05:34 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Most small business owners I know tend to have political views similar to me. What I'm curious about is what a small business owner who tends to lean the opposite way than me politically thinks of raising the minimum wage? "

Mike, I can't recall ever paying an employee the minimum wage. At that level I can't get the skills and dependability that I need. Now what would be very good is if I could afford to make sure that they got health care, but that is out of reach for the moment. My key employees depend on their wives' health care as I depend on mine for the moment. Is this a great country or what?

As for "Most small business owners I know." You may be making some assumptions here. We don't all goose step to the Republican drummers.

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1592
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Sunday, April 01, 2007 - 07:06 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Damn Dan, can you ever post without accusing me of just using GOP talking points?

I have known a quite a few restaurant owners over the years, worked at a small one for four years in high school and the year after - almost all minimum wage employees because they are almost all high school kids. When I was going to school I worked at a cycle shop assembling bikes and working the parts counter. I made minimum wage and I have no reason to suspect that place is any different today. I'm pretty sure the LHBS pays their guys more than minimum, and they aren't high school kids. Imagine that, as the skill set requirement gets higher they pay higher than minimum. The problem the Dems are having here is being under the illusion that minimum wage earners are trying to support families and other than in rare circumstances it's just not true. Nice fodder for the bleeding hearts I guess though.

Steve, business owners will raise wages to get better people if they get frustrated with what they are getting at their current wages. It's not a pipe dream.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 4203
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Sunday, April 01, 2007 - 11:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Damn Dan, can you ever post without accusing me of just using GOP talking points? "

I am getting tired of "conservative," if you must, catch phrases and talking points. They are just too predictable.

I have read that states which have raised their minimum pay don't seem to have lost business to abuting states that did not. This would be the acid test. Ohio just raised its minimum, but here in Cincy, you don't hear about anybody going to Covington, Ky to get a cheaper "Big Mac."

The minimum wage, in my opinion, is a non-issue mostly because it has not been raised in 8 years and has become mostly irrelevent. I would hope that "conservatives" would have a more potent issue to argue. How about that opened ended commitment to the self-induced disaster in the Mid-East? There is something to get behind!

(Message edited by listermann on April 02, 2007)

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1593
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Sunday, April 01, 2007 - 11:56 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Fine Dan, you're right, I'm wrong. Everything I say is just a GOP talking point and everything you say is the non-negotiable only answer to every question. Happy now?
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 4204
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 12:21 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Pretty much. Thank you.

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

Spartacus
Junior Member
Username: Spartacus_manly

Post Number: 63
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 12:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dan,

Your village called and wants you back
Sorry Roger, You Tiger now!
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 4207
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 01:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Your village called and wants you back"

Nice variation on a classic, Scott.

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 6283
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 03:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Like Dan, I have never paid an employee minimum wage. I try to pay them what I feel their work is worth. If I can't afford to do that, I don't hire.
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
 

Tim Wi
Advanced Member
Username: Riverkeeper

Post Number: 807
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 08:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

And if you were forced to pay more than you thought they were worth?

Tim
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 4216
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 09:20 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Remember that the Republicans have not allowed a raise in the minimum wage in eight years. The natural demand for labor exceeds the minimum wage for the most part. It is no big deal to catch up the laggards. I am not going to run to northern Kentucky on the off chance that a "Big Mac" will be cheaper there because Ohio raised its minimum wage.

Again, is this issue the best the "conservatives' want to argue at this time?

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

Mike
Intermediate Member
Username: Macker

Post Number: 401
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 09:39 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Should telemarketers be allowed to make minimum wage or receive benefits?
 

Steve Sampson
Intermediate Member
Username: Sampsosm

Post Number: 360
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 01:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Tim,

The minimum wage in OH is going to be raised to 6.85, from I think 6.00.

I don't think its that big of a deal. Denny and Dan are small business owners and have already state that they pay their employees more than that.
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1595
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 02:20 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike, I think they should have to pay ME an hour's minimum wage every time they call me.

I can't think of a profession other than maybe politician where you offend more people doing your job. It's beyond me why anyone would want to be a telemarketer. I can't imagine they enjoy getting the phone slammed in their ear 9 times out of 10.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 4223
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 02:29 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Having "telemarketer" on your resume might show that you handle rejection well.

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

Steve Sampson
Intermediate Member
Username: Sampsosm

Post Number: 361
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 03:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Should telemarketers be allowed to make minimum wage or receive benefits?"

Actually, due to the crappy nature of that job, it exceeds minimun wage easily from my experience. My first job, when I was 15 years old was in telemarketing, and I made $8.00/hour there, this is in 1994, when minimum wage was $4.15. Didn't care about health insurance of course.
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1597
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 05:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Steve, I will admit I am impressed. You, at age 15 when so many people are emotionally instable, were a telemarketer? WOW! Talk about things that only make you stronger!
 

Steve Sampson
Intermediate Member
Username: Sampsosm

Post Number: 362
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 05:53 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Well, I wasn't actually selling things (those people get most of the crap, and rightfully so). I would conduct a short 30 second survey about what radio stations the person listened to. The company was owned by Jacor, which was bought out by Clear Channel eventually I think.

I will say that most people would stay on the phone and take the survey, and rarely did anyone unload on me! Still a very monotonous job, I quit to go wash dishes at a pizza parlor that was closer to home.
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1599
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 06:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Same here, I worked at a restaurant from ages 14-18. Started out washing dishes and then started cooking at 16. To this day it was still the most fun I ever had at a job. Far more fun than the engineering I've been doing for the last 17 years.
 

John Nixon
New Member
Username: Neptunesgardener

Post Number: 10
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Monday, April 09, 2007 - 12:45 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Since CO2 is generally the limiting factor on plant growth,and the world is being deforested at such a high rate a little extra CO2 might do the world some good.
 

Jake Isaacs
Intermediate Member
Username: Jake

Post Number: 398
Registered: 04-2002
Posted on Monday, April 09, 2007 - 09:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hoping and praying that was a trolling attempt, John.
 

John Nixon
New Member
Username: Neptunesgardener

Post Number: 11
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Monday, April 09, 2007 - 11:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hope and pray into one hand and defecate into the other...........see which one fills up first.
 

Jake Isaacs
Intermediate Member
Username: Jake

Post Number: 399
Registered: 04-2002
Posted on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 03:29 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I think we can see which hand this thread has ended up in...

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: