ASA insurance... cost rising again!

[geojet707]

This has got to be the stupidest pissing contest in flightinfo history.

you r right... how about this....bump..bump...

 

[PCL_128]

WHATEVER!!!!!!!(In my best valley girl impersenation.)

Au contrair, mosieur! This goes to the heart of all arguements. Benefits are just that, benefits. And when you let the government get involved in it, it turns into a goat fvck.

Some people want to live in America, and turn it into France. Not me!

You can move to Gay ole' Pariee if you like, just leave it over on the other side of the pond when you get tired of the great big social experiment.

Dick Gozinya

Dick, I wasn't talking about the health care debate. I was talking about the ridiculous pissing match that Gator started with John P. about who flies the better airplane, and who works in a better segment of the industry.

But for the record, I agree somewhat with John P. about the health care issue. The government either needs to require all employers to pay for health insurance for their employees, or the government needs to create a universal system. I personally prefer the first method, but the second might have to do. With the cost of health care skyrocketing, and with the constantly shrinking middle class, something has to be done about health care in this country.

 

[Richard Gozinya]

OH Tay! I gotcha.

More to follow on the health care debate though.

Dick Gozinya

 

[Gator1999]

Dick, I wasn't talking about the health care debate. I was talking about the ridiculous pissing match that Gator started with John P. about who flies the better airplane, and who works in a better segment of the industry.

But for the record, I agree somewhat with John P. about the health care issue. The government either needs to require all employers to pay for health insurance for their employees, or the government needs to create a universal system. I personally prefer the first method, but the second might have to do. With the cost of health care skyrocketing, and with the constantly shrinking middle class, something has to be done about health care in this country.

Awww, c'mon man. It's been entertaining and enlightening and it's just a matter of time before CFI2766 and JP get so pissed off that they storm off back into the hole from which they emerged.

Seriously, do you really expect all the conversations to be of serious debate, if so, you need to search for another message board. Like I said, this is flightinfo.com. It's a website that was born of the weary and down trodden airline pilots of this country. It has the sole purpose for those to spew their hated or profess their love for how much they hate Gulfstream or how wonderful FedEx is. It is a gatering place so that all of us can exercise our First Amendment rights to tell the rest of the community that J. Orenstein is a scum bag. So that General Lee can hold the record for pissing the most pilots off with his viewpoint. It's been a rocky road and there have been some casualites along the way...we miss you Tina Fey's Scar! We've supported the slow and hanicapped pilots...we miss you too The Guat. But we will survive, we will persevere through all the needless flame and banter that has made this website what it is today. After all, this is America...the greatest country in the world and we should have the right to speak up and voice our opinions no matter how wrong they may sound or whoever they may insult.

U S A, U S A, U S A, U S A!

 

[Richard Gozinya]

a website that was born of the weary and down trodden airline pilots of this country.

Well, this describes 99% of the pilots out there. The rest are the management types.

Dick

 

[JoeMerchant]

Govt. run health care is not the answer. Ask yourself how many govt. agencies you enjoy dealing with and how many of them run efficiently..... Look at Veteran health care.... There have been some terrible cases of poor health care in the VA hospitals....

The health care in Canada isn't as good as it is here....

Better solutions...

More Health Savings Accounts with high deductible catastrophic insurance policies.... Makes us more of a consumer....

Ala Carte insurance policies.... You want Chiropratic, Maternity, Vision, etc.... you pay more..... If you don't want it, you pay less.....

If your healthy, you pay less..... If you aren't, you pay more

Tort reform..... that will reduce some of the CYA tests and care.... You can pay for the tests if you want them, but don't give them simply to CYA in the case of a lawsuit.... That costs everyone......

Make health care coverage mandatory.... like auto insurance.... You have to have it unless you fall below a certain income level.... For some that will mean giving up their daily Starbucks and the 35,000 new car every 4 years......

The free market can solve this better than Hillary can....

 

[PCL_128]

Sorry Joe, but those things won't solve the problem. People simply can't afford health insurance in this country. The costs are going up at astronomical rates. High deductible HSAs don't help people that can't afford to pay the high deductible. Unhealthy pay more = lots of unhealthy people that need insurance who can't afford it. Reasonable tort reform is always a good idea, but it won't solve this problem. Everyone needs to be insured, and you can't force the poor and lower middle classes to spend what little money they have on health insurance. It needs to either be covered by the employers or by the government.

 

[CFI2766]

Govt. run health care is not the answer. Ask yourself how many govt. agencies you enjoy dealing with and how many of them run efficiently..... Look at Veteran health care.... There have been some terrible cases of poor health care in the VA hospitals....

The health care in Canada isn't as good as it is here....

Better solutions...

More Health Savings Accounts with high deductible catastrophic insurance policies.... Makes us more of a consumer....

Ala Carte insurance policies.... You want Chiropratic, Maternity, Vision, etc.... you pay more..... If you don't want it, you pay less.....

If your healthy, you pay less..... If you aren't, you pay more

Tort reform..... that will reduce some of the CYA tests and care.... You can pay for the tests if you want them, but don't give them simply to CYA in the case of a lawsuit.... That costs everyone......

Make health care coverage mandatory.... like auto insurance.... You have to have it unless you fall below a certain income level.... For some that will mean giving up their daily Starbucks and the 35,000 new car every 4 years......

The free market can solve this better than Hillary can....

Wow, this is the most logical thing that has been said on this whole post. Who knew there would be a day I'd agree with Mr. Merchant on something?

Let's add one more piece to the puzzle of American health care: Abolish the AMA. Here's the logic: The certification standards to become a physician are incredibly difficult to obtain. Allow more physicians in the market. More physicians mean more of a supply of the services that physicians provide. This means a lower cost for those of us who are consumers of health care. This is, by the way, the exact same logic behind the airline deregulation act of 1978.

 

[hmmurdock]

Govt. run health care is not the answer. Ask yourself how many govt. agencies you enjoy dealing with and how many of them run efficiently..... Look at Veteran health care.... There have been some terrible cases of poor health care in the VA hospitals....

The health care in Canada isn't as good as it is here....

Better solutions...

More Health Savings Accounts with high deductible catastrophic insurance policies.... Makes us more of a consumer....

Ala Carte insurance policies.... You want Chiropratic, Maternity, Vision, etc.... you pay more..... If you don't want it, you pay less.....

If your healthy, you pay less..... If you aren't, you pay more

Tort reform..... that will reduce some of the CYA tests and care.... You can pay for the tests if you want them, but don't give them simply to CYA in the case of a lawsuit.... That costs everyone......

Make health care coverage mandatory.... like auto insurance.... You have to have it unless you fall below a certain income level.... For some that will mean giving up their daily Starbucks and the 35,000 new car every 4 years......

The free market can solve this better than Hillary can....

Greetings..Do you think that health care should be a for profit business? In other words, after insurance companies pay all of their expenses, pay the CEO a fat salary, the employees and other expenses, then they could put any profits towards allowing more people to be able to afford health care. I think this could possibly work.

 

[CFI2766]

Greetings..Do you think that health care should be a for profit business? In other words, after insurance companies pay all of their expenses, pay the CEO a fat salary, the employees and other expenses, then they could put any profits towards allowing more people to be able to afford health care. I think this could possibly work.

YES! Health care should be a for profit business. However, it should be a business that is completely controlled by the free market, not one that is artifically constrained by limiting the number of physicians practicing medicine.

 

[PCL_128]

Let's add one more piece to the puzzle of American health care: Abolish the AMA. Here's the logic: The certification standards to become a physician are incredibly difficult to obtain. Allow more physicians in the market. More physicians mean more of a supply of the services that physicians provide. This means a lower cost for those of us who are consumers of health care. This is, by the way, the exact same logic behind the airline deregulation act of 1978.

This is one of the scariest things I've ever heard. I don't want my health entrusted to some reject who couldn't get make the cut in today's medical school, but suddenly is able to get in tomorrow because of the "free market." God bless the AMA.

 

[John Pennekamp]

YES! Health care should be a for profit business. However, it should be a business that is completely controlled by the free market, not one that is artifically constrained by limiting the number of physicians practicing medicine.

Well, for what its worth, the AMA is onto something. We as a pilot union could learn a lot from the AMA's practice of controlling entry into the profession to boost our value and compensation.

But I don't think the high salaries doctors get it the problem. The problem is that every medical bill, especially hospital bills, is padded to compensate for care of the uninsured. My wife recently had an emergency room visit (food poisoning). She was there about two hours. According to the bill, they charged our insurance $208.80 for 1000cc of basic IV solution, $508.50 for a hydration IV (1 hour), $19.97 for the plastic IV tubing, and $7.00 to $82.50 PER DOSE for the meds they gave her.Now you can't tell me that this is cost. It's well documented that hospitals inflate bills to pass along these costs.

This is why we have the insurance mess with rising premiums and deductibles that the middle class can't afford. If everyone had an insurance program, this wouldn't be as much of a problem. Medicaid covers the very poor. There is nothing for the lower middle class, and these are the highest percentage of the uninsured.

Fix this with a national insurance program and you've fixed a lot of the mess in our system.

 

[CFI2766]

This is one of the scariest things I've ever heard. I don't want my health entrusted to some reject who couldn't get make the cut in today's medical school, but suddenly is able to get in tomorrow because of the "free market." God bless the AMA.

DING!! DING!! DING!!

Now that you've bit on my Swiftian logic, ISN'T THIS EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE AIRLINES NOW?!?!?!? Reference the requirements posessed by the current crop of new FO's at the regional level.

"I don't want my <life> entrusted to some reject who couldn't get make the cut in today's <regional airline hiring environment>, but suddenly is able to get in tomorrow because of the "free market.""

Sound familiar?

[For reference, I'm a relatively new hire]

It's also true that the airlines are in one of the safest periods that there has ever been. However, average airfare is lower than it has ever been.

 

[JoeMerchant]

DING!! DING!! DING!!

Now that you've bit on my Swiftian logic, ISN'T THIS EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE AIRLINES NOW?!?!?!? Reference the requirements posessed by the current crop of new FO's at the regional level.

"I don't want my <life> entrusted to some reject who couldn't get make the cut in today's <regional airline hiring environment>, but suddenly is able to get in tomorrow because of the "free market.""

Sound familiar?

[For reference, I'm a relatively new hire]

It's also true that the airlines are in one of the safest periods that there has ever been. However, average airfare is lower than it has ever been.

You got him.... hook line and sinker....

As JP said, we could learn a lot from the AMA.... You can't pay $30,000 dollars and become a doctor in 11 months..... Why do we allow it for it pilots......

AMA has protected it's profession more than we have.....

 

[JoeMerchant]

Sorry Joe, but those things won't solve the problem. People simply can't afford health insurance in this country. The costs are going up at astronomical rates. High deductible HSAs don't help people that can't afford to pay the high deductible. Unhealthy pay more = lots of unhealthy people that need insurance who can't afford it. Reasonable tort reform is always a good idea, but it won't solve this problem. Everyone needs to be insured, and you can't force the poor and lower middle classes to spend what little money they have on health insurance. It needs to either be covered by the employers or by the government.

As Boortz would say.... what a load of horsesqueeze...

You are sounding more like a socialist every day....

Somehow health care became an "entitlement".... You want those of us who work hard to subsidize those who choose to not work as hard, or who choose to spend their money on other things....

Someone has to pay one way or the other..... You just want the "haves" to pay for the "have nots"..... That's called redistribution of wealth...... Hillary is your dream come true....

 

[John Pennekamp]

DING!! DING!! DING!!

Now that you've bit on my Swiftian logic, ISN'T THIS EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE AIRLINES NOW?!?!?!? Reference the requirements posessed by the current crop of new FO's at the regional level.

"I don't want my <life> entrusted to some reject who couldn't get make the cut in today's <regional airline hiring environment>, but suddenly is able to get in tomorrow because of the "free market.""

Sound familiar?

[For reference, I'm a relatively new hire]

It's also true that the airlines are in one of the safest periods that there has ever been. However, average airfare is lower than it has ever been.

Nice....!

 

[JoeMerchant]

Can't wait to watch PCL128 try and dig his way out of this trap he fell into..... Time to make some popcorn.....

 

[PCL_128]

What's there to dig out of? I think it would be great if we could set up a system similar to what the AMA has to limit entry to this profession. The AMA has the right idea.

 

[Medeco]

As Boortz would say.... what a load of horsesqueeze...

You are sounding more like a socialist every day....

Somehow health care became an "entitlement".... You want those of us who work hard to subsidize those who choose to not work as hard, or who choose to spend their money on other things....

Someone has to pay one way or the other..... You just want the "haves" to pay for the "have nots"..... That's called redistribution of wealth...... Hillary is your dream come true....

Wow, you listen to Boortz so much you sound just like him and his words.

Now, I agree with this statement, but you should really give credit to BOORTZ for your statement since those are exactly what he has said many times before.

Give credit were credit is due.

Now, PCL and JP, have you ever heard of anyone being turned down for health care in this country?

Have you ever heard of anyone not being able to get credit because they had unpaid hospital bills?

The system is expensive because of many factors, one of which is lawsuits and malpractice insurance cost to the doctors.

Universal health care is far from the answer.

Recently in the news, its been noted that high risk mothers to be are flying/driving to Washington state because the health care in British columbia cannot provide these women with the required care, how do you explain this, if socialized med is so good?
By the way those are Boortz statements too.

Medeco

 

[JoeMerchant]

What's there to dig out of? I think it would be great if we could set up a system similar to what the AMA has to limit entry to this profession. The AMA has the right idea.

So why hasn't ALPA pursued this? You are the ALPA cheerleader here.... what is the problem? Controlling entry requirements is key to the problem, but I don't see any leadership from Herndon..... Why not?

 

[JoeMerchant]

Wow, you listen to Boortz so much you sound just like him and his words.

Now, I agree with this statement, but you should really give credit to BOORTZ for your statement since those are exactly what he has said many times before.

Give credit were credit is due.

Medeco

Sorry Medeco, but the only quote from him I used is the "horsesqueeze"...... We think alike and we may sound the same, but the rest is my own quote....

I don't believe the govt. is the answer to many of our problems...

I know it's hard for you to admit that you agree with me, but try it.....

 

[PCL_128]

So why hasn't ALPA pursued this? You are the ALPA cheerleader here.... what is the problem? Controlling entry requirements is key to the problem, but I don't see any leadership from Herndon..... Why not?

Because it isn't workable at this time. Much like a single seniority list, a national SOS, and the plethora of other red herring dream ideas that ALPA rank-and-file members come up with, this just isn't achievable at present. Maybe if we get a pro-labor government, but it's even a long shot then.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Because it isn't workable at this time. Much like a single seniority list, a national SOS, and the plethora of other red herring dream ideas that ALPA rank-and-file members come up with, this just isn't achievable at present. Maybe if we get a pro-labor government, but it's even a long shot then.

So ALPA can't do what the AMA and ABA did...... even though they aren't unions..... thanks for confirming my belief that ALPA has been a failure....

You preach about giving to the ALPA PAC, but they have never approached this problem the same way that other professions have..... Forget about whether or not it is achievable..... ALPA hasn't even attempted to regulate the entry requirements.....

That never stopped them from pushing for age 60 and other issues...... More excuses from the cheerleading section.....

Why wasn't it pushed during the Clinton years? Save me the anti-Republican BS for ALPA's failures..... ALPA had 8 years under Clinton to push for tighter restrictions on entry and they didn't.....

Waiting for the next excuse....

 

[PCL_128]

Clinton wasn't exactly the most labor-friendly President in the last century. He was certainly better than Bush, but NAFTA was a perfect example of how Clinton fu&^ed over labor. Besides that, there was an anti-labor Congress for 6 of the 8 Clinton years. Not a favorable environment for huge change in our favor.

"Forget about whether or not it is achievable?" Yeah, that's a smart idea Joe. Let's just throw money and resources at an idea that we know is unworkable at this point. While you have the luxery of sitting in front of your computer and arm-chair quarterbacking ALPA, the real ALPA leaders have to actually work on real solutions. Fantasies don't enter the equation.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Clinton wasn't exactly the most labor-friendly President in the last century. He was certainly better than Bush, but NAFTA was a perfect example of how Clinton fu&^ed over labor. Besides that, there was an anti-labor Congress for 6 of the 8 Clinton years. Not a favorable environment for huge change in our favor.

"Forget about whether or not it is achievable?" Yeah, that's a smart idea Joe. Let's just throw money and resources at an idea that we know is unworkable at this point. While you have the luxery of sitting in front of your computer and arm-chair quarterbacking ALPA, the real ALPA leaders have to actually work on real solutions. Fantasies don't enter the equation.

More excuses PCL... The AMA and ABA and other professional organizations have pushed thru barriers to entry..... ALPA has failed miserably in this area and you blame Bush.... When I point out Clinton, you say he wasn't all that labor friendly and you blame it on Congress..... More excuses.....

Have you watched the RBS commercials.... More action and less talk......

It takes more time to get an Associates Degree in underwater basketweaving than it does to become a 121 pilot.... and yet you still defend ALPA because that isn't their fault.... they have failed.... pure and simple...

 

[Speedtape]

So why hasn't ALPA pursued this? You are the ALPA cheerleader here.... what is the problem? Controlling entry requirements is key to the problem, but I don't see any leadership from Herndon..... Why not?

Joe,

The FAA determines the standards for pilot certifications and ratings--not ALPA. Achieving those required certificates and ratings cost alot of money.
As in medical certification, economic discrimination restricts many from pursuing the profession. As you well know, anyone that wants to play, has to pay.

Since entry requirements are determined by a pilot's willpower and ability to pay for the same, one has to determine his/her method to achieve the goal. Some do it through the military. Some do it with Daddy's Money. Some do it with scholarships. Some do it the old fashioned way--they bust their arses to earn it! Of course, some do it by self-dealing themselves a pay-for-training bonus!

 

[JoeMerchant]

Joe,

The FAA determines the standards for pilot certifications and ratings--not ALPA. Achieving those required certificates and ratings cost alot of money.
As in medical certification, economic discrimination restricts many from pursuing the profession. As you well know, anyone that wants to play, has to pay.

The entry requirements are also determined by a pilot's ability to pay for the same. Some do it through the military. Some do it with Daddy's Money. Some do it with scholarships. Some do it the old fashioned way--they bust their arses to earn it! Of course, some do it by self-dealing themselves a pay-for-training bonus!

Another cheap shot from the ALPA cheerleading section......

So tell me Speedtape, can anyone become a doctor or a lawyer in 11 months by enrolling in a puppy farm in Florida? Why not? Why is it harder to enroll in medical school and law school? Why does it take longer? Maybe, just maybe, the AMA and ABA has done better at controlling the entry requirements....

You say that the "FAA determines the standards for pilot certification and ratings" Your implication is that ALPA can't influence those standards.... If that is so, then why all the fuss over age 60 and ALPA's position.... Why did ALPA oppose it initially, then support it, and now oppose it again.....

As usual, you argument doesn't hold water.....

As to the PFT argument, I held out for a year back in '93 and all it did was cost me some seniority....That was my first lesson that it doesn't pay to hold out....

If ALPA was serious about stopping the slide, it would do something about the dangerously low entry requirements..... until then it proves that this union has no teeth.....

 

[Speedtape]

Another cheap shot from the ALPA cheerleading section......

Sorry, but it is true, not a cheap shot.

So tell me Speedtape, can anyone become a doctor or a lawyer in 11 months by enrolling in a puppy farm in Florida? Why not? Why is it harder to enroll in medical school and law school? Why does it take longer? Maybe, just maybe, the AMA and ABA has done better at controlling the entry requirements....

First, your argument compares apples to oranges, but the answer is NO! But since you asked, the last time I applied to Medical School, my GPA, from a required
prerequisite undergraduate program, and my MCat scores were used to evaluate my eligibility to proceed with the application process. Doctors on the School Board ran the interviews and admissions process. Yes, school admissions are controlled and limited, and so are the number of medical schools. It also helps if your Daddy is a Doctor--really.

The last time I applied to Law School, my GPA and LSAT score were used to determine a composite score in the admission process. I did not have to interview, but a board made up of law professors and administrators determined successful candidates. Although admissions are limited, there are a lot of law schools. FYI, quite a few ASA pilots make more than the average lawyer. You are one of them.

When I got my ratings, I took the required ground schools and then the tests for the written portion. I paid for flight instruction for the mechanical and technical part. I was tested by either the FAA or FAA designee pilots. All it really took was MONEY, some average motor skills, and a small amount of brain power. No college is required. In fact, I don't think you even have to have a high school education. You just have to speak and read English, and have about $60 G's.

You say that the "FAA determines the standards for pilot certification and ratings" Your implication is that ALPA can't influence those standards.... If that is so, then why all the fuss over age 60 and ALPA's position.... Why did ALPA oppose it initially, then support it, and now oppose it again.....

ALPA can influence. ALPA cannot dictate or set the standards.

The age 60 rule change initiative was advanced by the FAA through the process of Rules Making. Apparently, parallel to that initiative, both the House and Senate were advancing legislation to make the change. It's my understanding, that due to some hearing procedures, and since there is going to be a change, that ALPA could not have a seat at the table to influence, since their long standing position was in opposition to the change. Seeing that change was eminent, ALPA, had to convince it's membership that the only way that ALPA could have a seat at the table was to change it's official position in opposition. Surely, you understand and know the politics in this matter.

As usual, you argument doesn't hold water.....

With all due respect, check your spelling. However, as usual, just because you say it's so, doesn't make it a fact.

As to the PFT argument, I held out for a year back in '93 and all it did was cost me some seniority....That was my first lesson that it doesn't pay to hold out....

Hmmm! I want hold that against you. We all got here in different ways. And to your defense, that was the requirement then. But for participating or more directly patronizing that system, along with others, did you not perpetuate that onerous method?

If ALPA was serious about stopping the slide, it would do something about the dangerously low entry requirements..... until then it proves that this union has no teeth.....

I understand the concerns with the low entry requirements, but ALPA does not control or dictate those requirements. I am sure they are trying to influence. Through a political process, and their PAC, they can only influence. By the way, do you contribute to ALPA's PAC? I know you know that the medical and legal professions both have very strong PACs. And, that is the way that game is played!

 

[John Pennekamp]

Now, PCL and JP, have you ever heard of anyone being turned down for health care in this country?

Yes. Go to a hospital emergency room (other than a large government run hospital like Grady), and witness it for yourself.

Have you ever heard of anyone not being able to get credit because they had unpaid hospital bills?

Yes. In fact, I know people who have filed bankruptcy after being buried in medical bills after they got cancer and hit the $1,000,000 lifetime cap of many insurance policies.

The system is expensive because of many factors, one of which is lawsuits and malpractice insurance cost to the doctors.

Agreed. A socialized medicine system would include tort reform and immunity from certain lawsuits.

Universal health care is far from the answer.

I disagree. It would not be a perfect solution, but it would provide a safety net for catastrophic illnesses and for the poor. The rich will still be able to secure the best care, as they do now. It will just cost them more. This is really the crux of the nationalized healthcare debate. The upper middle class don't want to have to pay more. It's all about number one.

Recently in the news, its been noted that high risk mothers to be are flying/driving to Washington state because the health care in British columbia cannot provide these women with the required care, how do you explain this, if socialized med is so good?
By the way those are Boortz statements too.

Medeco

As I said, the rich will still be able to secure the best care if they're willing to pay for it. Your anecdote proves it is possible.