[eavesdropper]

[quote=jstoesz][quote]I don’t believe that there is a fear or distrust of religion in, and of, itself. I think the fear is based on what many people on the right are doing in the NAME of religion, and supposedly in the name of God. [/quote]

Eavesdropper…For every atrocity done in the name of religion, there has been similar done in the name of Secularism (or in the name of selfishness)…Look no further than Salin and Moa. The inquisition has nothing on the modern day implementation of Communism…

Fact is evil people do evil things. It doesn’t matter in what name they do it. Evil people justify their evil actions in all sorts of ways. At least Religion upholds community, morality, responsibility, and many other socially beneficial beliefs. But evil things are done by many in religion and many out…because both groups are comprised of people. [/quote]

I agree, js. In fact, the tactics in such battles are the same, and the script outlines virtually indistinguishable from each other. This is because, as in almost all situations in which human beings inflict cruelty upon other human beings, the stated reason is never the real reason.

But I think that people who wage war and inflict death “in the name of the Lord” are a special breed. Their belief that an omnipotent God has placed a mantle of power upon their shoulders opens the doors to a wealth of possibilities where warfare is concerned. But it is the belief of the masses in an omnipotent God that not only excuses, but endorses and encourages the actions of the “chosen” leader. I think that recognition of this limitless potential is truly frightening to people who cannot reconcile deliberate executions of evil with the God of love portrayed in the Bible and other religious texts.

[quote=jstoesz][quote]There are many, many people who describe themselves as politically liberal and who actively practice some form of Christian religion. In addition, there are a large number who, although they do not follow or belong to a formal religious group, describe themselves as believers in God and observant of Judeo-Christian laws and principles[/quote]

I completely agree that Religious people are not all conservative. In fact I have many friends who are strong Christians and are liberal. Anyone who says differently is quite frankly wrong. I was saying that the resistance from the liberal piggs who have responded to God in public schools seemed to border on fear of God. Fear of your child’s exposure to God. But in my view of a public school, you should be able to send your Child to a parochial school or secular school. It should be your choice, and you should not be at a disadvantage if you wish the parochial.

If we had a voucher system and open districts, you would get that choice.
[/quote]

I can’t speak for others, js, but I will say that I am NOT afraid of my children’s exposure to God. However, over the years, I have been stunned and very distressed and disillusioned by the way I see God portrayed, and the twisted and perverted manner in which religion has been used – to frighten people, to bribe them, to make them do things completely against their natures, to rob them of hope by making them believe in false hopes. I was raised Catholic, taught by a group of highly educated Sisters of St. Joseph, and received a (mostly) well-balanced education that taught me to have faith, but also to question, which was a privilege I had as a result of my God-given free will.

I was fortunate. I’ve known several hundred Catholics over the years, and I never would have believed such a firmly-structured religion could be interpreted in so many different ways. When I add in all of the many people that follow non-Catholic faiths, and then those who are non-Christian, and some who believe in no religion at all, the thought of God and religion being “taught” in the schools is really disturbing. Religion is very subjective, and very open to interpretation, for lack of a better phrase. There’s a reason they don’t teach philosophy or ethics in elementary or secondary schools, and I believe that religion belongs in that category.

I don’t understand the fuss. A student is free to take classes in a wide variety of religions and religious topics when he/she enters college, even using taxpayer-funded college loans at taxpayer-funded state and regional colleges. As you say, parents can also choose to send their kids to parochial or church-sponsored private schools (as my parents did). However, I cannot agree with the voucher system, even though I fully recognize that many children would receive a higher quality education, and that vouchers would ease the significant burden on middle-class families.
(1) Money spent on vouchers would be unavailable to the public schools, and that would create serious operational shortfalls for them, and an unfair advantage for students who could not attend any school but their local public institution.
(2) Education would become a free-for-all, with unqualified individuals and groups opening “schools” in an effort to access federal and state education funds.
(3) The administration of education would become a bureaucratic nightmare (yes, far worse than presently exists). Assessing school and teacher qualifications, approving curricula and teaching materials, facility inspections, liability and risk management……the list is endless. This would create an even more serious restriction on funding.
So, no, I can’t agree with the voucher system as proposed. But I do think that parents that send their children to qualified private schools should receive some sort of tax relief to try to ease the burden. I also believe that property-based school taxes should be limited to some extent for taxpayers whose children have been out of the school system for over 20 years. There are too many seniors losing homes paid for in the 1980s because they are strapped by unreasonable school taxes based on property values that rose exponentially in the 2000s.

[quote=jstoesz][quote][quote]js, I like the suggestions you make in your second paragraph IN THEORY, and I applaud you for your concern about content and diversity. However, it is simply not possible or practical in the public schools. There are too many children at a variety of basic knowledge capacity and learning capabilities whom the schools are expected to educate at a minimum level so that they can leave school at 18 and gain employment. It used to be that the only way you could get the kind of diversity in content you suggest was to send your child to private school. [/quote]

Didn’t you just say that there are too many kids coming from too many different places? Why don’t we want them all entering the world with different sets of knowledge? I agree everyone should be able to read, write, and understand math at some basic level, but I would like some schools to focus more on literature or philosophy or engineering or geopolitics. I see it as the solution to the diversity of children that we have in society. We should not seek to pump out drones like every other child out there. Why couldn’t every school be a private school, or something like a private school? Why do we need state control, owning the buildings and paying the teachers directly.

To your comment on parents…I completely agree! This is actually why most private schools have higher achieving students. It may be that their kids are smarter, but more likely it is that there parents care. If they are willing to sacrifice to send their kids to private school, they almost certainly care about their children’s welfare in a big and involved way. Good schools can help foster kids, but without good parents their efforts are largely wasted. Our society has left our children to be raise by video games and tax payer paid babysitters (teachers) while the parents work two jobs to stay in the middle class. It is really sad.[/quote]

I did, indeed, say that we have kids coming into school at widely-varying levels of preparedness. I do agree with graduating kids with as many skill sets as possible. However, the sheer numbers of students alone prohibits public school teachers from tailoring the curriculum.

Further down in my response, I mentioned magnet schools as a potential source of specialized education. Many of them have enjoyed great success over the years. I think that they probably could use many more of them, and I’m not sure what the issue is with that. But for many years now, there have been public high schools that specialized in engineering, the sciences, performing arts, literature and language arts, and more. Students flock to them, and admissions can be very competitive, which engenders academic excellence.

Something I didn’t mention, but in which I am a great believer, is vocational-technical education. I don’t know why there seems to be such resistance to it, and why financial cuts always seem to hit these programs first, but it’s been shown that not only are these students better prepared for actual paid work when they graduate, but they do better academically in traditional school subjects (especially math and science), and are more than competitive in their rate of acceptance to four-year colleges.

There is going to be a massive unprecedented shortage of medical specialty graduates (physician assistants, medical technicians, registered nurses, skilled technologists, etc.) within 7 to 10 years, in large part due to a lack of fully developed programs at the post-secondary level. It will be almost impossible to get even with the demands once programs are up and running. It could significantly ease the strain if concentrated preparatory programs in these areas could be set up at the high school level to take care of many of the pre-requisite courses that are necessary for college study in these professions.

You’re correct about the level of interest of many of the parents who send their children to private school. However, I don’t think that it is always lack of money and a need to be away from home at a job that keeps middle class parents from showing interest. Unfortunately, I know many parents who appear to just not give a damn. They have a difficult time even acting in a parental role, and this difficulty starts at age 2 or 3. I see parents looking at their babies and toddlers like they are space aliens, having absolutely no clue as to how to interact. They expect these children to entertain themselves, and while this is something that many children can do once they’ve had some guidance in playing with toys, they can’t learn that in a vacuum. They start putting the kids in front of a TV set when they are 3 or 4 months old, and they think spending quality time with their child means letting him or her sit next to them on the couch while they’re guzzling wine and watching “Nightmare on Elm Street”. The kids crave attention, and they begin to not care whether it engenders negative or positive feedback from their parents. They quickly learn the effectiveness of a tantrum: the parents will do anything to quiet the child down, including buying him/her toys they don’t need or want, and that the parents can’t afford. It would be a fascinating phenomenon to watch, if you could ignore the pain that you know the child is feeling.

I hate to say it, but I think that high school should include mandatory classes in child care and development, along with household budget and financial management, and “borrower” education that teaches the cold, hard facts of debt. Normally, I would say that these are things that the parents should be teaching their kids, but it’s sadly apparent that the parents have no clue how to do any of these things.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=jstoesz][quote]I don’t believe that there is a fear or distrust of religion in, and of, itself. I think the fear is based on what many people on the right are doing in the NAME of religion, and supposedly in the name of God. [/quote]

Eavesdropper…For every atrocity done in the name of religion, there has been similar done in the name of Secularism (or in the name of selfishness)…Look no further than Salin and Moa. The inquisition has nothing on the modern day implementation of Communism…

Fact is evil people do evil things. It doesn’t matter in what name they do it. Evil people justify their evil actions in all sorts of ways. At least Religion upholds community, morality, responsibility, and many other socially beneficial beliefs. But evil things are done by many in religion and many out…because both groups are comprised of people. [/quote]

I agree, js. In fact, the tactics in such battles are the same, and the script outlines virtually indistinguishable from each other. This is because, as in almost all situations in which human beings inflict cruelty upon other human beings, the stated reason is never the real reason.

But I think that people who wage war and inflict death “in the name of the Lord” are a special breed. Their belief that an omnipotent God has placed a mantle of power upon their shoulders opens the doors to a wealth of possibilities where warfare is concerned. But it is the belief of the masses in an omnipotent God that not only excuses, but endorses and encourages the actions of the “chosen” leader. I think that recognition of this limitless potential is truly frightening to people who cannot reconcile deliberate executions of evil with the God of love portrayed in the Bible and other religious texts.

[quote=jstoesz][quote]There are many, many people who describe themselves as politically liberal and who actively practice some form of Christian religion. In addition, there are a large number who, although they do not follow or belong to a formal religious group, describe themselves as believers in God and observant of Judeo-Christian laws and principles[/quote]

I completely agree that Religious people are not all conservative. In fact I have many friends who are strong Christians and are liberal. Anyone who says differently is quite frankly wrong. I was saying that the resistance from the liberal piggs who have responded to God in public schools seemed to border on fear of God. Fear of your child’s exposure to God. But in my view of a public school, you should be able to send your Child to a parochial school or secular school. It should be your choice, and you should not be at a disadvantage if you wish the parochial.

If we had a voucher system and open districts, you would get that choice.
[/quote]

I can’t speak for others, js, but I will say that I am NOT afraid of my children’s exposure to God. However, over the years, I have been stunned and very distressed and disillusioned by the way I see God portrayed, and the twisted and perverted manner in which religion has been used – to frighten people, to bribe them, to make them do things completely against their natures, to rob them of hope by making them believe in false hopes. I was raised Catholic, taught by a group of highly educated Sisters of St. Joseph, and received a (mostly) well-balanced education that taught me to have faith, but also to question, which was a privilege I had as a result of my God-given free will.

I was fortunate. I’ve known several hundred Catholics over the years, and I never would have believed such a firmly-structured religion could be interpreted in so many different ways. When I add in all of the many people that follow non-Catholic faiths, and then those who are non-Christian, and some who believe in no religion at all, the thought of God and religion being “taught” in the schools is really disturbing. Religion is very subjective, and very open to interpretation, for lack of a better phrase. There’s a reason they don’t teach philosophy or ethics in elementary or secondary schools, and I believe that religion belongs in that category.

I don’t understand the fuss. A student is free to take classes in a wide variety of religions and religious topics when he/she enters college, even using taxpayer-funded college loans at taxpayer-funded state and regional colleges. As you say, parents can also choose to send their kids to parochial or church-sponsored private schools (as my parents did). However, I cannot agree with the voucher system, even though I fully recognize that many children would receive a higher quality education, and that vouchers would ease the significant burden on middle-class families.
(1) Money spent on vouchers would be unavailable to the public schools, and that would create serious operational shortfalls for them, and an unfair advantage for students who could not attend any school but their local public institution.
(2) Education would become a free-for-all, with unqualified individuals and groups opening “schools” in an effort to access federal and state education funds.
(3) The administration of education would become a bureaucratic nightmare (yes, far worse than presently exists). Assessing school and teacher qualifications, approving curricula and teaching materials, facility inspections, liability and risk management……the list is endless. This would create an even more serious restriction on funding.
So, no, I can’t agree with the voucher system as proposed. But I do think that parents that send their children to qualified private schools should receive some sort of tax relief to try to ease the burden. I also believe that property-based school taxes should be limited to some extent for taxpayers whose children have been out of the school system for over 20 years. There are too many seniors losing homes paid for in the 1980s because they are strapped by unreasonable school taxes based on property values that rose exponentially in the 2000s.

[quote=jstoesz][quote][quote]js, I like the suggestions you make in your second paragraph IN THEORY, and I applaud you for your concern about content and diversity. However, it is simply not possible or practical in the public schools. There are too many children at a variety of basic knowledge capacity and learning capabilities whom the schools are expected to educate at a minimum level so that they can leave school at 18 and gain employment. It used to be that the only way you could get the kind of diversity in content you suggest was to send your child to private school. [/quote]

Didn’t you just say that there are too many kids coming from too many different places? Why don’t we want them all entering the world with different sets of knowledge? I agree everyone should be able to read, write, and understand math at some basic level, but I would like some schools to focus more on literature or philosophy or engineering or geopolitics. I see it as the solution to the diversity of children that we have in society. We should not seek to pump out drones like every other child out there. Why couldn’t every school be a private school, or something like a private school? Why do we need state control, owning the buildings and paying the teachers directly.

To your comment on parents…I completely agree! This is actually why most private schools have higher achieving students. It may be that their kids are smarter, but more likely it is that there parents care. If they are willing to sacrifice to send their kids to private school, they almost certainly care about their children’s welfare in a big and involved way. Good schools can help foster kids, but without good parents their efforts are largely wasted. Our society has left our children to be raise by video games and tax payer paid babysitters (teachers) while the parents work two jobs to stay in the middle class. It is really sad.[/quote]

I did, indeed, say that we have kids coming into school at widely-varying levels of preparedness. I do agree with graduating kids with as many skill sets as possible. However, the sheer numbers of students alone prohibits public school teachers from tailoring the curriculum.

Further down in my response, I mentioned magnet schools as a potential source of specialized education. Many of them have enjoyed great success over the years. I think that they probably could use many more of them, and I’m not sure what the issue is with that. But for many years now, there have been public high schools that specialized in engineering, the sciences, performing arts, literature and language arts, and more. Students flock to them, and admissions can be very competitive, which engenders academic excellence.

Something I didn’t mention, but in which I am a great believer, is vocational-technical education. I don’t know why there seems to be such resistance to it, and why financial cuts always seem to hit these programs first, but it’s been shown that not only are these students better prepared for actual paid work when they graduate, but they do better academically in traditional school subjects (especially math and science), and are more than competitive in their rate of acceptance to four-year colleges.

There is going to be a massive unprecedented shortage of medical specialty graduates (physician assistants, medical technicians, registered nurses, skilled technologists, etc.) within 7 to 10 years, in large part due to a lack of fully developed programs at the post-secondary level. It will be almost impossible to get even with the demands once programs are up and running. It could significantly ease the strain if concentrated preparatory programs in these areas could be set up at the high school level to take care of many of the pre-requisite courses that are necessary for college study in these professions.

You’re correct about the level of interest of many of the parents who send their children to private school. However, I don’t think that it is always lack of money and a need to be away from home at a job that keeps middle class parents from showing interest. Unfortunately, I know many parents who appear to just not give a damn. They have a difficult time even acting in a parental role, and this difficulty starts at age 2 or 3. I see parents looking at their babies and toddlers like they are space aliens, having absolutely no clue as to how to interact. They expect these children to entertain themselves, and while this is something that many children can do once they’ve had some guidance in playing with toys, they can’t learn that in a vacuum. They start putting the kids in front of a TV set when they are 3 or 4 months old, and they think spending quality time with their child means letting him or her sit next to them on the couch while they’re guzzling wine and watching “Nightmare on Elm Street”. The kids crave attention, and they begin to not care whether it engenders negative or positive feedback from their parents. They quickly learn the effectiveness of a tantrum: the parents will do anything to quiet the child down, including buying him/her toys they don’t need or want, and that the parents can’t afford. It would be a fascinating phenomenon to watch, if you could ignore the pain that you know the child is feeling.

I hate to say it, but I think that high school should include mandatory classes in child care and development, along with household budget and financial management, and “borrower” education that teaches the cold, hard facts of debt. Normally, I would say that these are things that the parents should be teaching their kids, but it’s sadly apparent that the parents have no clue how to do any of these things.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=GH] . . . Regular things like prescriptions, doctors visits, tests etc, should be paid for by individuals. The whole thing should work a lot more like car insurance, where the insurance company only gets involved where a big problem is involved, not for day to day needs.[/quote]

Absolutely, GH! But there are a LOT of people who think they need to make a dr. appt. for everyone in their family for a hangnail or the common cold. These are the ones “clogging the system” with low co-pays and a lot of time on their hands.

These types make it expensive for ALL of us![/quote]

And I definitely like this. The cost of health care will never go down until it becomes competitive. And competition will never come to pass until people become consumers – actual consumers who shop for and compare providers, tests, drugs, etc., and rate their quality and cost-effectiveness. Admittedly, it’s not the same as buying produce at the Safeway, and I don’t mean to downplay the complexity and importance. But until people have more of an investment in the system, things won’t change. People that are heavily insured and who do not experience serious illness, either personally or in their families, are too far removed from the shortcomings and problems of the system to be affected by them. It’s the people who are affected by them that effect change. We need to move people closer to the system, and the suggestions from GH and BG are a good way to do that. Not only will this help to remedy the problems of the existing system, it will significantly reduce the rate of trivial overutilization.

Also, I don’t know about everyone else, but I’ve experienced regular yearly increases in health insurance premiums since the early 90s, at least. This period spans three employers for me, and three for my husband. Every year, we have to pay a larger amount in monthly premium share, which typically reflects a premium hike by the insurer being passed onto employees. Less frequently, our co-pays go up.

Interestingly enough, for those Piggs who have voiced complaints about the health benefits of Federal employees: my husband recently returned to Federal government employment. He is at a high level (as a result of both extensive education and experience), but his pay is comparable to, or a bit less than that offered by private industry (where he has toiled for the past fifteen years). Of the many choices offered, out of medical necessity we enrolled in the most expensive health plan that provided the best coverage across the board. The coverage is must less comprehensive than either of us had in private industry/education, and we are paying much more in out of pocket expenses. For instance, I’ve never paid anything for mammography or ultrasound or MRI examination of the breast; however, I can now look forward to ponying up a couple hundred dollars for the privilege and pleasure of the GE Senographe DMR+ experience, i.e., the equivalent of having the my tits repeatedly put through a wringer washer. For those of you too young to know what that is, I’ve included a link to YouTube footage (is there ANYTHING people won’t put on film?); the comparison to mammography starts about 1 minute into the film clip.

I hope that I’ve cleared up a bit of the misinformation concerning the high life of Federal government employees.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=GH] . . . Regular things like prescriptions, doctors visits, tests etc, should be paid for by individuals. The whole thing should work a lot more like car insurance, where the insurance company only gets involved where a big problem is involved, not for day to day needs.[/quote]

Absolutely, GH! But there are a LOT of people who think they need to make a dr. appt. for everyone in their family for a hangnail or the common cold. These are the ones “clogging the system” with low co-pays and a lot of time on their hands.

These types make it expensive for ALL of us![/quote]

And I definitely like this. The cost of health care will never go down until it becomes competitive. And competition will never come to pass until people become consumers – actual consumers who shop for and compare providers, tests, drugs, etc., and rate their quality and cost-effectiveness. Admittedly, it’s not the same as buying produce at the Safeway, and I don’t mean to downplay the complexity and importance. But until people have more of an investment in the system, things won’t change. People that are heavily insured and who do not experience serious illness, either personally or in their families, are too far removed from the shortcomings and problems of the system to be affected by them. It’s the people who are affected by them that effect change. We need to move people closer to the system, and the suggestions from GH and BG are a good way to do that. Not only will this help to remedy the problems of the existing system, it will significantly reduce the rate of trivial overutilization.

Also, I don’t know about everyone else, but I’ve experienced regular yearly increases in health insurance premiums since the early 90s, at least. This period spans three employers for me, and three for my husband. Every year, we have to pay a larger amount in monthly premium share, which typically reflects a premium hike by the insurer being passed onto employees. Less frequently, our co-pays go up.

Interestingly enough, for those Piggs who have voiced complaints about the health benefits of Federal employees: my husband recently returned to Federal government employment. He is at a high level (as a result of both extensive education and experience), but his pay is comparable to, or a bit less than that offered by private industry (where he has toiled for the past fifteen years). Of the many choices offered, out of medical necessity we enrolled in the most expensive health plan that provided the best coverage across the board. The coverage is must less comprehensive than either of us had in private industry/education, and we are paying much more in out of pocket expenses. For instance, I’ve never paid anything for mammography or ultrasound or MRI examination of the breast; however, I can now look forward to ponying up a couple hundred dollars for the privilege and pleasure of the GE Senographe DMR+ experience, i.e., the equivalent of having the my tits repeatedly put through a wringer washer. For those of you too young to know what that is, I’ve included a link to YouTube footage (is there ANYTHING people won’t put on film?); the comparison to mammography starts about 1 minute into the film clip.

I hope that I’ve cleared up a bit of the misinformation concerning the high life of Federal government employees.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=GH] . . . Regular things like prescriptions, doctors visits, tests etc, should be paid for by individuals. The whole thing should work a lot more like car insurance, where the insurance company only gets involved where a big problem is involved, not for day to day needs.[/quote]

Absolutely, GH! But there are a LOT of people who think they need to make a dr. appt. for everyone in their family for a hangnail or the common cold. These are the ones “clogging the system” with low co-pays and a lot of time on their hands.

These types make it expensive for ALL of us![/quote]

And I definitely like this. The cost of health care will never go down until it becomes competitive. And competition will never come to pass until people become consumers – actual consumers who shop for and compare providers, tests, drugs, etc., and rate their quality and cost-effectiveness. Admittedly, it’s not the same as buying produce at the Safeway, and I don’t mean to downplay the complexity and importance. But until people have more of an investment in the system, things won’t change. People that are heavily insured and who do not experience serious illness, either personally or in their families, are too far removed from the shortcomings and problems of the system to be affected by them. It’s the people who are affected by them that effect change. We need to move people closer to the system, and the suggestions from GH and BG are a good way to do that. Not only will this help to remedy the problems of the existing system, it will significantly reduce the rate of trivial overutilization.

Also, I don’t know about everyone else, but I’ve experienced regular yearly increases in health insurance premiums since the early 90s, at least. This period spans three employers for me, and three for my husband. Every year, we have to pay a larger amount in monthly premium share, which typically reflects a premium hike by the insurer being passed onto employees. Less frequently, our co-pays go up.

Interestingly enough, for those Piggs who have voiced complaints about the health benefits of Federal employees: my husband recently returned to Federal government employment. He is at a high level (as a result of both extensive education and experience), but his pay is comparable to, or a bit less than that offered by private industry (where he has toiled for the past fifteen years). Of the many choices offered, out of medical necessity we enrolled in the most expensive health plan that provided the best coverage across the board. The coverage is must less comprehensive than either of us had in private industry/education, and we are paying much more in out of pocket expenses. For instance, I’ve never paid anything for mammography or ultrasound or MRI examination of the breast; however, I can now look forward to ponying up a couple hundred dollars for the privilege and pleasure of the GE Senographe DMR+ experience, i.e., the equivalent of having the my tits repeatedly put through a wringer washer. For those of you too young to know what that is, I’ve included a link to YouTube footage (is there ANYTHING people won’t put on film?); the comparison to mammography starts about 1 minute into the film clip.

I hope that I’ve cleared up a bit of the misinformation concerning the high life of Federal government employees.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=GH] . . . Regular things like prescriptions, doctors visits, tests etc, should be paid for by individuals. The whole thing should work a lot more like car insurance, where the insurance company only gets involved where a big problem is involved, not for day to day needs.[/quote]

Absolutely, GH! But there are a LOT of people who think they need to make a dr. appt. for everyone in their family for a hangnail or the common cold. These are the ones “clogging the system” with low co-pays and a lot of time on their hands.

These types make it expensive for ALL of us![/quote]

And I definitely like this. The cost of health care will never go down until it becomes competitive. And competition will never come to pass until people become consumers – actual consumers who shop for and compare providers, tests, drugs, etc., and rate their quality and cost-effectiveness. Admittedly, it’s not the same as buying produce at the Safeway, and I don’t mean to downplay the complexity and importance. But until people have more of an investment in the system, things won’t change. People that are heavily insured and who do not experience serious illness, either personally or in their families, are too far removed from the shortcomings and problems of the system to be affected by them. It’s the people who are affected by them that effect change. We need to move people closer to the system, and the suggestions from GH and BG are a good way to do that. Not only will this help to remedy the problems of the existing system, it will significantly reduce the rate of trivial overutilization.

Also, I don’t know about everyone else, but I’ve experienced regular yearly increases in health insurance premiums since the early 90s, at least. This period spans three employers for me, and three for my husband. Every year, we have to pay a larger amount in monthly premium share, which typically reflects a premium hike by the insurer being passed onto employees. Less frequently, our co-pays go up.

Interestingly enough, for those Piggs who have voiced complaints about the health benefits of Federal employees: my husband recently returned to Federal government employment. He is at a high level (as a result of both extensive education and experience), but his pay is comparable to, or a bit less than that offered by private industry (where he has toiled for the past fifteen years). Of the many choices offered, out of medical necessity we enrolled in the most expensive health plan that provided the best coverage across the board. The coverage is must less comprehensive than either of us had in private industry/education, and we are paying much more in out of pocket expenses. For instance, I’ve never paid anything for mammography or ultrasound or MRI examination of the breast; however, I can now look forward to ponying up a couple hundred dollars for the privilege and pleasure of the GE Senographe DMR+ experience, i.e., the equivalent of having the my tits repeatedly put through a wringer washer. For those of you too young to know what that is, I’ve included a link to YouTube footage (is there ANYTHING people won’t put on film?); the comparison to mammography starts about 1 minute into the film clip.

I hope that I’ve cleared up a bit of the misinformation concerning the high life of Federal government employees.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=GH] . . . Regular things like prescriptions, doctors visits, tests etc, should be paid for by individuals. The whole thing should work a lot more like car insurance, where the insurance company only gets involved where a big problem is involved, not for day to day needs.[/quote]

Absolutely, GH! But there are a LOT of people who think they need to make a dr. appt. for everyone in their family for a hangnail or the common cold. These are the ones “clogging the system” with low co-pays and a lot of time on their hands.

These types make it expensive for ALL of us![/quote]

And I definitely like this. The cost of health care will never go down until it becomes competitive. And competition will never come to pass until people become consumers – actual consumers who shop for and compare providers, tests, drugs, etc., and rate their quality and cost-effectiveness. Admittedly, it’s not the same as buying produce at the Safeway, and I don’t mean to downplay the complexity and importance. But until people have more of an investment in the system, things won’t change. People that are heavily insured and who do not experience serious illness, either personally or in their families, are too far removed from the shortcomings and problems of the system to be affected by them. It’s the people who are affected by them that effect change. We need to move people closer to the system, and the suggestions from GH and BG are a good way to do that. Not only will this help to remedy the problems of the existing system, it will significantly reduce the rate of trivial overutilization.

Also, I don’t know about everyone else, but I’ve experienced regular yearly increases in health insurance premiums since the early 90s, at least. This period spans three employers for me, and three for my husband. Every year, we have to pay a larger amount in monthly premium share, which typically reflects a premium hike by the insurer being passed onto employees. Less frequently, our co-pays go up.

Interestingly enough, for those Piggs who have voiced complaints about the health benefits of Federal employees: my husband recently returned to Federal government employment. He is at a high level (as a result of both extensive education and experience), but his pay is comparable to, or a bit less than that offered by private industry (where he has toiled for the past fifteen years). Of the many choices offered, out of medical necessity we enrolled in the most expensive health plan that provided the best coverage across the board. The coverage is must less comprehensive than either of us had in private industry/education, and we are paying much more in out of pocket expenses. For instance, I’ve never paid anything for mammography or ultrasound or MRI examination of the breast; however, I can now look forward to ponying up a couple hundred dollars for the privilege and pleasure of the GE Senographe DMR+ experience, i.e., the equivalent of having the my tits repeatedly put through a wringer washer. For those of you too young to know what that is, I’ve included a link to YouTube footage (is there ANYTHING people won’t put on film?); the comparison to mammography starts about 1 minute into the film clip.

I hope that I’ve cleared up a bit of the misinformation concerning the high life of Federal government employees.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl] …..Regarding social security (OASDI and death benefits), I have posted before that I believe the current laws unjustly enrich those who never worked, did not work the required amount of quarters and minors whose deceased parent did not work enough or for a high enough wage to justify the benefits paid to them. For these reasons, I am wondering if the fund is sustainable enough for those who DID contribute the required amount of quarters of FICA to be able to receive OASDI benefits when their time comes. SS has been totally mismanaged, IMO.[/quote]

BG, with you on this one, and as you well know, I’ve ranted on this topic a few times. I’m so tired of hearing politicians go on about whether or not there will be enough to cover SS payments and Medicare for retiring seniors, yet NEVER mention the other groups that are sucking off the SS teat. There are now more applications for SS disability than there are for SS retirement payments. That’s insane! This assault on the system by the allegedly disabled has been going on since at least the late 70s, and both political parties have stood by and done absolutely nothing. This is not what the SS system was set up to do, and if the politicians decided that there had to be some sort of program for disabled Americans, they should have set up an entirely new and separate program. The umbrella has been enlarged, over and over, to the size of a circus tent, but there’s no fabric left to cover the frame.

They need to look at survivors’ benefits carefully, also. Okay, I have to make a really humiliating confession here, but please don’t let this dilute the message I am trying to send by doing so: I was watching an episode of MTV’s “Teen Mom” recently (There! I said it.), and Farrah is trying to get her 15 month-old Social Security benefits. For the uninformed, Farrah is a 17 year-old high-school dropout with a super-Christian ultra-psychotic ex-cheerleader mother who was arrested for bloodying Farah’s nose (actually, I was cheering the mom on when she did that, but she really is nucking futs!) and a baby girl who has had accidents from being left in dangerous situations so many times that betting pools have been set up in Vegas on when the kid’s going to land up in the PICU. Well, it seems that Farrah got preggers, despite getting As in her advanced-placement abstinence-only education course. She cut off contact with the 18 year-old father 3 mos. into her pregnancy, and he died in an MVA two months prior to the baby’s birth. Farrah has refused to allow the baby any contact with her father’s family, despite their attempts to do so. However, this season we were treated to harrowing scenes of an overwhelmed Farrah struggling to make it as a single teen mom (“It’s not faaaaairrr”, she sobs at regular intervals), and increasingly sentimental revisionist tales of her history with Derek (the father), ultimately revealing that Farrah plans to apply for Social Security Survivor benefits for her daughter “who deserves them”. Great! Taxpayers now get to foot the bill for at least 21 years of SS payments to a kid (actually the kid’s mother) whose sperm donor paid roughly $2.91 into the system.

Okay, I’m pissed off enough about this. But now there will be how many other 15 yr-olds out there, lucky enough to have deceased baby daddies, making a beeline for the nearest SS office so they can cash in on this bonanza. In fact, I predict some sperm donor homicide in cases where the father hasn’t had the decency to croak before his time.

Then there are the television shows and news reports on freaks of nature like Octomom and the Kirton family of “Autism x 6” who reveal how they struggle through their ordeal with NO government aid at all, but then let it slip that their offspring receive social security disability payments for ADHD and Asperger’s Syndrome.

The Social Security Administration’s definition of qualifying disability is as follows: “…condition must be severe enough to prevent them from doing any kind of work for which they are suited”. ANY kind of work for which they are SUITED. That doesn’t mean work that you have performed in the past, or the profession in which you got your degree. It means if you cannot work as an electrician, or as a nurse, or as a draftsman, you may have to take a job as a file clerk or a machine operator. Total disability in its genuine form is not often encountered. In FY 2009, there were over 2.8 million initial applications for disability benefits, over 430,000 more than FY 2008. In FY 2008, the number of initial applications exceeded FY ’07’s by 100,000. Does anyone else have difficulty believing that, in 2008, almost 3 million people developed a condition or sustained an injury that made them umnable to perform any type of work at all? Or that between 2007 and 2008, the number of these conditions/injuries increased by 400%?

But the Social Security Administration continues to approve the applications, and make the payments. Believe it or not, obesity is a qualifying condition, and lawyers recommend that their non-obese patients gain 60 or 70 pounds to increase their chances, not only at approval of benefits for a co-morbid condition, but at a judgement that will not be reviewed in the future, since obesity is so difficult to treat.

I can’t imagine that the fund is large enough to sustain anything NOW, much less years from now. I find it shocking enough that these kinds of payments are being made to individuals who have made little or no contribution to the fund. If lawmakers are ignoring this area of the SS crisis or, worse yet, totally unaware of it, the fallout will be devastating.

BTW, here’s a link to an interesting article published in the Washington Post last March during the health care debate. It’s about a Tea Party leader/activist, quite vocal in his calls against government intervention and interference in the lives of Americans, who apparently doesn’t object to intervention in the form of monthly disability checks. I’m experiencing some doubts regarding his claims of total disability in light of the work he does with his antigovernment group and the blog he manages to maintain. Perhaps I just don’t have a heart….

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032501722.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010032402500

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl] …..Regarding social security (OASDI and death benefits), I have posted before that I believe the current laws unjustly enrich those who never worked, did not work the required amount of quarters and minors whose deceased parent did not work enough or for a high enough wage to justify the benefits paid to them. For these reasons, I am wondering if the fund is sustainable enough for those who DID contribute the required amount of quarters of FICA to be able to receive OASDI benefits when their time comes. SS has been totally mismanaged, IMO.[/quote]

BG, with you on this one, and as you well know, I’ve ranted on this topic a few times. I’m so tired of hearing politicians go on about whether or not there will be enough to cover SS payments and Medicare for retiring seniors, yet NEVER mention the other groups that are sucking off the SS teat. There are now more applications for SS disability than there are for SS retirement payments. That’s insane! This assault on the system by the allegedly disabled has been going on since at least the late 70s, and both political parties have stood by and done absolutely nothing. This is not what the SS system was set up to do, and if the politicians decided that there had to be some sort of program for disabled Americans, they should have set up an entirely new and separate program. The umbrella has been enlarged, over and over, to the size of a circus tent, but there’s no fabric left to cover the frame.

They need to look at survivors’ benefits carefully, also. Okay, I have to make a really humiliating confession here, but please don’t let this dilute the message I am trying to send by doing so: I was watching an episode of MTV’s “Teen Mom” recently (There! I said it.), and Farrah is trying to get her 15 month-old Social Security benefits. For the uninformed, Farrah is a 17 year-old high-school dropout with a super-Christian ultra-psychotic ex-cheerleader mother who was arrested for bloodying Farah’s nose (actually, I was cheering the mom on when she did that, but she really is nucking futs!) and a baby girl who has had accidents from being left in dangerous situations so many times that betting pools have been set up in Vegas on when the kid’s going to land up in the PICU. Well, it seems that Farrah got preggers, despite getting As in her advanced-placement abstinence-only education course. She cut off contact with the 18 year-old father 3 mos. into her pregnancy, and he died in an MVA two months prior to the baby’s birth. Farrah has refused to allow the baby any contact with her father’s family, despite their attempts to do so. However, this season we were treated to harrowing scenes of an overwhelmed Farrah struggling to make it as a single teen mom (“It’s not faaaaairrr”, she sobs at regular intervals), and increasingly sentimental revisionist tales of her history with Derek (the father), ultimately revealing that Farrah plans to apply for Social Security Survivor benefits for her daughter “who deserves them”. Great! Taxpayers now get to foot the bill for at least 21 years of SS payments to a kid (actually the kid’s mother) whose sperm donor paid roughly $2.91 into the system.

Okay, I’m pissed off enough about this. But now there will be how many other 15 yr-olds out there, lucky enough to have deceased baby daddies, making a beeline for the nearest SS office so they can cash in on this bonanza. In fact, I predict some sperm donor homicide in cases where the father hasn’t had the decency to croak before his time.

Then there are the television shows and news reports on freaks of nature like Octomom and the Kirton family of “Autism x 6” who reveal how they struggle through their ordeal with NO government aid at all, but then let it slip that their offspring receive social security disability payments for ADHD and Asperger’s Syndrome.

The Social Security Administration’s definition of qualifying disability is as follows: “…condition must be severe enough to prevent them from doing any kind of work for which they are suited”. ANY kind of work for which they are SUITED. That doesn’t mean work that you have performed in the past, or the profession in which you got your degree. It means if you cannot work as an electrician, or as a nurse, or as a draftsman, you may have to take a job as a file clerk or a machine operator. Total disability in its genuine form is not often encountered. In FY 2009, there were over 2.8 million initial applications for disability benefits, over 430,000 more than FY 2008. In FY 2008, the number of initial applications exceeded FY ’07’s by 100,000. Does anyone else have difficulty believing that, in 2008, almost 3 million people developed a condition or sustained an injury that made them umnable to perform any type of work at all? Or that between 2007 and 2008, the number of these conditions/injuries increased by 400%?

But the Social Security Administration continues to approve the applications, and make the payments. Believe it or not, obesity is a qualifying condition, and lawyers recommend that their non-obese patients gain 60 or 70 pounds to increase their chances, not only at approval of benefits for a co-morbid condition, but at a judgement that will not be reviewed in the future, since obesity is so difficult to treat.

I can’t imagine that the fund is large enough to sustain anything NOW, much less years from now. I find it shocking enough that these kinds of payments are being made to individuals who have made little or no contribution to the fund. If lawmakers are ignoring this area of the SS crisis or, worse yet, totally unaware of it, the fallout will be devastating.

BTW, here’s a link to an interesting article published in the Washington Post last March during the health care debate. It’s about a Tea Party leader/activist, quite vocal in his calls against government intervention and interference in the lives of Americans, who apparently doesn’t object to intervention in the form of monthly disability checks. I’m experiencing some doubts regarding his claims of total disability in light of the work he does with his antigovernment group and the blog he manages to maintain. Perhaps I just don’t have a heart….

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032501722.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010032402500

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl] …..Regarding social security (OASDI and death benefits), I have posted before that I believe the current laws unjustly enrich those who never worked, did not work the required amount of quarters and minors whose deceased parent did not work enough or for a high enough wage to justify the benefits paid to them. For these reasons, I am wondering if the fund is sustainable enough for those who DID contribute the required amount of quarters of FICA to be able to receive OASDI benefits when their time comes. SS has been totally mismanaged, IMO.[/quote]

BG, with you on this one, and as you well know, I’ve ranted on this topic a few times. I’m so tired of hearing politicians go on about whether or not there will be enough to cover SS payments and Medicare for retiring seniors, yet NEVER mention the other groups that are sucking off the SS teat. There are now more applications for SS disability than there are for SS retirement payments. That’s insane! This assault on the system by the allegedly disabled has been going on since at least the late 70s, and both political parties have stood by and done absolutely nothing. This is not what the SS system was set up to do, and if the politicians decided that there had to be some sort of program for disabled Americans, they should have set up an entirely new and separate program. The umbrella has been enlarged, over and over, to the size of a circus tent, but there’s no fabric left to cover the frame.

They need to look at survivors’ benefits carefully, also. Okay, I have to make a really humiliating confession here, but please don’t let this dilute the message I am trying to send by doing so: I was watching an episode of MTV’s “Teen Mom” recently (There! I said it.), and Farrah is trying to get her 15 month-old Social Security benefits. For the uninformed, Farrah is a 17 year-old high-school dropout with a super-Christian ultra-psychotic ex-cheerleader mother who was arrested for bloodying Farah’s nose (actually, I was cheering the mom on when she did that, but she really is nucking futs!) and a baby girl who has had accidents from being left in dangerous situations so many times that betting pools have been set up in Vegas on when the kid’s going to land up in the PICU. Well, it seems that Farrah got preggers, despite getting As in her advanced-placement abstinence-only education course. She cut off contact with the 18 year-old father 3 mos. into her pregnancy, and he died in an MVA two months prior to the baby’s birth. Farrah has refused to allow the baby any contact with her father’s family, despite their attempts to do so. However, this season we were treated to harrowing scenes of an overwhelmed Farrah struggling to make it as a single teen mom (“It’s not faaaaairrr”, she sobs at regular intervals), and increasingly sentimental revisionist tales of her history with Derek (the father), ultimately revealing that Farrah plans to apply for Social Security Survivor benefits for her daughter “who deserves them”. Great! Taxpayers now get to foot the bill for at least 21 years of SS payments to a kid (actually the kid’s mother) whose sperm donor paid roughly $2.91 into the system.

Okay, I’m pissed off enough about this. But now there will be how many other 15 yr-olds out there, lucky enough to have deceased baby daddies, making a beeline for the nearest SS office so they can cash in on this bonanza. In fact, I predict some sperm donor homicide in cases where the father hasn’t had the decency to croak before his time.

Then there are the television shows and news reports on freaks of nature like Octomom and the Kirton family of “Autism x 6” who reveal how they struggle through their ordeal with NO government aid at all, but then let it slip that their offspring receive social security disability payments for ADHD and Asperger’s Syndrome.

The Social Security Administration’s definition of qualifying disability is as follows: “…condition must be severe enough to prevent them from doing any kind of work for which they are suited”. ANY kind of work for which they are SUITED. That doesn’t mean work that you have performed in the past, or the profession in which you got your degree. It means if you cannot work as an electrician, or as a nurse, or as a draftsman, you may have to take a job as a file clerk or a machine operator. Total disability in its genuine form is not often encountered. In FY 2009, there were over 2.8 million initial applications for disability benefits, over 430,000 more than FY 2008. In FY 2008, the number of initial applications exceeded FY ’07’s by 100,000. Does anyone else have difficulty believing that, in 2008, almost 3 million people developed a condition or sustained an injury that made them umnable to perform any type of work at all? Or that between 2007 and 2008, the number of these conditions/injuries increased by 400%?

But the Social Security Administration continues to approve the applications, and make the payments. Believe it or not, obesity is a qualifying condition, and lawyers recommend that their non-obese patients gain 60 or 70 pounds to increase their chances, not only at approval of benefits for a co-morbid condition, but at a judgement that will not be reviewed in the future, since obesity is so difficult to treat.

I can’t imagine that the fund is large enough to sustain anything NOW, much less years from now. I find it shocking enough that these kinds of payments are being made to individuals who have made little or no contribution to the fund. If lawmakers are ignoring this area of the SS crisis or, worse yet, totally unaware of it, the fallout will be devastating.

BTW, here’s a link to an interesting article published in the Washington Post last March during the health care debate. It’s about a Tea Party leader/activist, quite vocal in his calls against government intervention and interference in the lives of Americans, who apparently doesn’t object to intervention in the form of monthly disability checks. I’m experiencing some doubts regarding his claims of total disability in light of the work he does with his antigovernment group and the blog he manages to maintain. Perhaps I just don’t have a heart….

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032501722.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010032402500

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl] …..Regarding social security (OASDI and death benefits), I have posted before that I believe the current laws unjustly enrich those who never worked, did not work the required amount of quarters and minors whose deceased parent did not work enough or for a high enough wage to justify the benefits paid to them. For these reasons, I am wondering if the fund is sustainable enough for those who DID contribute the required amount of quarters of FICA to be able to receive OASDI benefits when their time comes. SS has been totally mismanaged, IMO.[/quote]

BG, with you on this one, and as you well know, I’ve ranted on this topic a few times. I’m so tired of hearing politicians go on about whether or not there will be enough to cover SS payments and Medicare for retiring seniors, yet NEVER mention the other groups that are sucking off the SS teat. There are now more applications for SS disability than there are for SS retirement payments. That’s insane! This assault on the system by the allegedly disabled has been going on since at least the late 70s, and both political parties have stood by and done absolutely nothing. This is not what the SS system was set up to do, and if the politicians decided that there had to be some sort of program for disabled Americans, they should have set up an entirely new and separate program. The umbrella has been enlarged, over and over, to the size of a circus tent, but there’s no fabric left to cover the frame.

They need to look at survivors’ benefits carefully, also. Okay, I have to make a really humiliating confession here, but please don’t let this dilute the message I am trying to send by doing so: I was watching an episode of MTV’s “Teen Mom” recently (There! I said it.), and Farrah is trying to get her 15 month-old Social Security benefits. For the uninformed, Farrah is a 17 year-old high-school dropout with a super-Christian ultra-psychotic ex-cheerleader mother who was arrested for bloodying Farah’s nose (actually, I was cheering the mom on when she did that, but she really is nucking futs!) and a baby girl who has had accidents from being left in dangerous situations so many times that betting pools have been set up in Vegas on when the kid’s going to land up in the PICU. Well, it seems that Farrah got preggers, despite getting As in her advanced-placement abstinence-only education course. She cut off contact with the 18 year-old father 3 mos. into her pregnancy, and he died in an MVA two months prior to the baby’s birth. Farrah has refused to allow the baby any contact with her father’s family, despite their attempts to do so. However, this season we were treated to harrowing scenes of an overwhelmed Farrah struggling to make it as a single teen mom (“It’s not faaaaairrr”, she sobs at regular intervals), and increasingly sentimental revisionist tales of her history with Derek (the father), ultimately revealing that Farrah plans to apply for Social Security Survivor benefits for her daughter “who deserves them”. Great! Taxpayers now get to foot the bill for at least 21 years of SS payments to a kid (actually the kid’s mother) whose sperm donor paid roughly $2.91 into the system.

Okay, I’m pissed off enough about this. But now there will be how many other 15 yr-olds out there, lucky enough to have deceased baby daddies, making a beeline for the nearest SS office so they can cash in on this bonanza. In fact, I predict some sperm donor homicide in cases where the father hasn’t had the decency to croak before his time.

Then there are the television shows and news reports on freaks of nature like Octomom and the Kirton family of “Autism x 6” who reveal how they struggle through their ordeal with NO government aid at all, but then let it slip that their offspring receive social security disability payments for ADHD and Asperger’s Syndrome.

The Social Security Administration’s definition of qualifying disability is as follows: “…condition must be severe enough to prevent them from doing any kind of work for which they are suited”. ANY kind of work for which they are SUITED. That doesn’t mean work that you have performed in the past, or the profession in which you got your degree. It means if you cannot work as an electrician, or as a nurse, or as a draftsman, you may have to take a job as a file clerk or a machine operator. Total disability in its genuine form is not often encountered. In FY 2009, there were over 2.8 million initial applications for disability benefits, over 430,000 more than FY 2008. In FY 2008, the number of initial applications exceeded FY ’07’s by 100,000. Does anyone else have difficulty believing that, in 2008, almost 3 million people developed a condition or sustained an injury that made them umnable to perform any type of work at all? Or that between 2007 and 2008, the number of these conditions/injuries increased by 400%?

But the Social Security Administration continues to approve the applications, and make the payments. Believe it or not, obesity is a qualifying condition, and lawyers recommend that their non-obese patients gain 60 or 70 pounds to increase their chances, not only at approval of benefits for a co-morbid condition, but at a judgement that will not be reviewed in the future, since obesity is so difficult to treat.

I can’t imagine that the fund is large enough to sustain anything NOW, much less years from now. I find it shocking enough that these kinds of payments are being made to individuals who have made little or no contribution to the fund. If lawmakers are ignoring this area of the SS crisis or, worse yet, totally unaware of it, the fallout will be devastating.

BTW, here’s a link to an interesting article published in the Washington Post last March during the health care debate. It’s about a Tea Party leader/activist, quite vocal in his calls against government intervention and interference in the lives of Americans, who apparently doesn’t object to intervention in the form of monthly disability checks. I’m experiencing some doubts regarding his claims of total disability in light of the work he does with his antigovernment group and the blog he manages to maintain. Perhaps I just don’t have a heart….

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032501722.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010032402500

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl] …..Regarding social security (OASDI and death benefits), I have posted before that I believe the current laws unjustly enrich those who never worked, did not work the required amount of quarters and minors whose deceased parent did not work enough or for a high enough wage to justify the benefits paid to them. For these reasons, I am wondering if the fund is sustainable enough for those who DID contribute the required amount of quarters of FICA to be able to receive OASDI benefits when their time comes. SS has been totally mismanaged, IMO.[/quote]

BG, with you on this one, and as you well know, I’ve ranted on this topic a few times. I’m so tired of hearing politicians go on about whether or not there will be enough to cover SS payments and Medicare for retiring seniors, yet NEVER mention the other groups that are sucking off the SS teat. There are now more applications for SS disability than there are for SS retirement payments. That’s insane! This assault on the system by the allegedly disabled has been going on since at least the late 70s, and both political parties have stood by and done absolutely nothing. This is not what the SS system was set up to do, and if the politicians decided that there had to be some sort of program for disabled Americans, they should have set up an entirely new and separate program. The umbrella has been enlarged, over and over, to the size of a circus tent, but there’s no fabric left to cover the frame.

They need to look at survivors’ benefits carefully, also. Okay, I have to make a really humiliating confession here, but please don’t let this dilute the message I am trying to send by doing so: I was watching an episode of MTV’s “Teen Mom” recently (There! I said it.), and Farrah is trying to get her 15 month-old Social Security benefits. For the uninformed, Farrah is a 17 year-old high-school dropout with a super-Christian ultra-psychotic ex-cheerleader mother who was arrested for bloodying Farah’s nose (actually, I was cheering the mom on when she did that, but she really is nucking futs!) and a baby girl who has had accidents from being left in dangerous situations so many times that betting pools have been set up in Vegas on when the kid’s going to land up in the PICU. Well, it seems that Farrah got preggers, despite getting As in her advanced-placement abstinence-only education course. She cut off contact with the 18 year-old father 3 mos. into her pregnancy, and he died in an MVA two months prior to the baby’s birth. Farrah has refused to allow the baby any contact with her father’s family, despite their attempts to do so. However, this season we were treated to harrowing scenes of an overwhelmed Farrah struggling to make it as a single teen mom (“It’s not faaaaairrr”, she sobs at regular intervals), and increasingly sentimental revisionist tales of her history with Derek (the father), ultimately revealing that Farrah plans to apply for Social Security Survivor benefits for her daughter “who deserves them”. Great! Taxpayers now get to foot the bill for at least 21 years of SS payments to a kid (actually the kid’s mother) whose sperm donor paid roughly $2.91 into the system.

Okay, I’m pissed off enough about this. But now there will be how many other 15 yr-olds out there, lucky enough to have deceased baby daddies, making a beeline for the nearest SS office so they can cash in on this bonanza. In fact, I predict some sperm donor homicide in cases where the father hasn’t had the decency to croak before his time.

Then there are the television shows and news reports on freaks of nature like Octomom and the Kirton family of “Autism x 6” who reveal how they struggle through their ordeal with NO government aid at all, but then let it slip that their offspring receive social security disability payments for ADHD and Asperger’s Syndrome.

The Social Security Administration’s definition of qualifying disability is as follows: “…condition must be severe enough to prevent them from doing any kind of work for which they are suited”. ANY kind of work for which they are SUITED. That doesn’t mean work that you have performed in the past, or the profession in which you got your degree. It means if you cannot work as an electrician, or as a nurse, or as a draftsman, you may have to take a job as a file clerk or a machine operator. Total disability in its genuine form is not often encountered. In FY 2009, there were over 2.8 million initial applications for disability benefits, over 430,000 more than FY 2008. In FY 2008, the number of initial applications exceeded FY ’07’s by 100,000. Does anyone else have difficulty believing that, in 2008, almost 3 million people developed a condition or sustained an injury that made them umnable to perform any type of work at all? Or that between 2007 and 2008, the number of these conditions/injuries increased by 400%?

But the Social Security Administration continues to approve the applications, and make the payments. Believe it or not, obesity is a qualifying condition, and lawyers recommend that their non-obese patients gain 60 or 70 pounds to increase their chances, not only at approval of benefits for a co-morbid condition, but at a judgement that will not be reviewed in the future, since obesity is so difficult to treat.

I can’t imagine that the fund is large enough to sustain anything NOW, much less years from now. I find it shocking enough that these kinds of payments are being made to individuals who have made little or no contribution to the fund. If lawmakers are ignoring this area of the SS crisis or, worse yet, totally unaware of it, the fallout will be devastating.

BTW, here’s a link to an interesting article published in the Washington Post last March during the health care debate. It’s about a Tea Party leader/activist, quite vocal in his calls against government intervention and interference in the lives of Americans, who apparently doesn’t object to intervention in the form of monthly disability checks. I’m experiencing some doubts regarding his claims of total disability in light of the work he does with his antigovernment group and the blog he manages to maintain. Perhaps I just don’t have a heart….

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032501722.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010032402500

[eavesdropper]

[quote=jstoesz]I don’t understand how you got on your high horse about people hedged in fear…If anything I find the response from the self described liberals as ANTI-religion and anti-God in general…There seems to be an innate fear or distrust of religion. I do not fear the a-religious. I just want a fair choice.

My suggestion, one that was not well received, was that public schools need to be much more diverse in what they teach and how they teach it. This goes from science and liberal arts to religion and philosophy. We need more ability to choose where our children go, and what they learn. To select a curriculum that is applied to everyone, makes no sense to me and I find it banal and harmful to the ingenuity and diversity of our country.

If we are talking implementation, I think a fairly simple solution would be vouchers…But I am not wed to it, and I am sure there are other models that would work well.

I think our current a-religions education borders on secular humanism, although many of you disagree who have more experience in the matter. But if we have choice in where our child go and what they learn, I will not be concerned about what some other school is teaching children…it is not my business, nor yours. There is a place for God in SOME schools, but there is no place for God in ALL schools

Our current system is anti-creative, anti-energy, anti-diversity. Why are so many little boys medicated? Why are so few kids graduating? No one size education will fit all.

Freedom (choice) ends this debate before it starts…[/quote]

I don’t believe that there is a fear or distrust of religion in, and of, itself. I think the fear is based on what many people on the right are doing in the NAME of religion, and supposedly in the name of God. Go back to your history books and look at the number of times this has happened before, cases where huge numbers were slaughtered and nations were destroyed. Look carefully and almost invariably you will find that the instigators of these events, the leaders of these uprisings, all claimed to be doing this “in the name of the Lord, our God” (insert appropriate name as per personal religion). Yet, no matter how many times I read the New Testament, I never hear Jesus exhorting His disciples and followers to go out and kill massive numbers of people because they worship other gods.

There are many, many people who describe themselves as politically liberal and who actively practice some form of Christian religion. In addition, there are a large number who, although they do not follow or belong to a formal religious group, describe themselves as believers in God and observant of Judeo-Christian laws and principles. I don’t know if your statement, “If anything I find the response from the self described liberals as ANTI-religion and anti-God in general” refers to only people on this board, or to liberals in general. But for an in-depth analysis of how people of particular religious affiliations vote, go to the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, done by the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life/Pew Research Center. http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons# There is a wealth of invaluable information on this site. Those who choose to ignore the findings of the PFPRL because they believe the Pew Foundation to be a “liberal organization”, should be aware that Joseph Pew, founder of the Sun Oil Company (Sunoco) and his heirs were politically conservative. The original stated goal of the J. Howard Pew Freedom Trust was to “acquaint the American people with the evils of bureaucracy and the values of a free market and to inform our people of the struggle, persecution, hardship, sacrifice and death by which freedom of the individual was won.”

Contributors to Piggs who continue to insist that liberals are godless and hate religion (I’m NOT saying that this describes you, j.) and let this hate cloud their judgement over what is best for America need to review and analyze the data on the Pew site. Across-the-board statements are not only juvenile in nature and suitable only for third-grade playground disputes, but are flat-out wrong. Liberals are not all nonbelievers, and, frankly, I’m fed up to here hearing that.

However, many liberals and moderates are afraid of where abandonment of the separation of church and state policy could lead us. For instance, how many varieties of the Christian faith are there exactly? Well into the thousands. Does anyone honestly believe, on the broad chance that a Constitutional amendment is adopted making Christianity the official religion of America, that this will be the end of the conflict? Of course not. Religion, by its nature, is based on unquestioning faith, not on rational thought and consideration. This is why it is engendering such conflict and vitriol now, and why it will continue to do so until Man’s final days on Earth. The founding fathers knew this, having been witness to the ravages of religious persecution in the countries of their birth or ancestry, and they wanted to avoid it at all costs here.

Religious education is not forbidden in this nation. I see nothing wrong with teaching the cultural aspects and impacts of particular religions as they relate to a country’s development and economy in our public schools, but teaching the tenets of the faith of these religions is something else altogether. As mentioned before, religion is a faith-based and as such, its teaching must be tailored for individuals or very small groups of like-minded people. There is also the variety of faiths within Christianity alone; how is that to be taught in a public school setting. Then there is the issue of demands on the time of today’s student. The schools have a difficult enough time educating our children in the basics of reading, mathematics, sciences, history, English, and languages. How are we supposed to squeeze religious education in there?

Frankly, I see this as another case of parental abdication. Today’s parents are expecting the schools to take over the job of raising the children they’ve spawned. If Jason or Britney doesn’t learn, it has to be the teacher’s fault or the school’s problem. More and more parents are participating less and less. Some children need more attention, some are struggling with ADHD or another disability, some have behavioral or medical issues. Sorry about that, parents, but that’s YOUR problem, not the school’s or the teacher’s. Most will be happy to assist you in dealing with the problem, but it’s YOURS to resolve.

js, I like the suggestions you make in your second paragraph IN THEORY, and I applaud you for your concern about content and diversity. However, it is simply not possible or practical in the public schools. There are too many children at a variety of basic knowledge capacity and learning capabilities whom the schools are expected to educate at a minimum level so that they can leave school at 18 and gain employment. It used to be that the only way you could get the kind of diversity in content you suggest was to send your child to private school. However, the last 25 years have brought about the magnet school concept where kids that are gifted or advanced in certain subject areas are moved to institutions with similarly talented students, and offered more academic and extracurricular diversity. There are also Advanced Placement classes in most schools. But most kids will need a significant amount of parental support at home to be able to develop their skills to a point that they can both gain admittance to, and achieve scholastic success in these settings. Students can seldom do it completely on their own, but many parents don’t get involved and their children flunk out. If the programs do not achieve overall success, they will be discontinued.

Overall, people need to realize that their kids are TOTALLY their responsibility, and that the schools are there to assist them in raising their children to responsible and productive adulthood, but not to take their place as chief teachers nurturers. This means that parents have to teach religion, and pay for the music lessons and make their child practice, and read to their child and quiz him on what will be in next day’s test and make sure she’s turning in her homework and play with their child at times. A very wide range of activities that may not be a parent’s first choice of how to relax after a full and trying day at work, but is, in reality, the only choice that can be made.

You are absolutely correct: No one size education fits all students. That’s why the parent has to step up to the plate and fulfill his/her responsibility to that child. And this includes providing instruction and guidance in religion.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=jstoesz]I don’t understand how you got on your high horse about people hedged in fear…If anything I find the response from the self described liberals as ANTI-religion and anti-God in general…There seems to be an innate fear or distrust of religion. I do not fear the a-religious. I just want a fair choice.

My suggestion, one that was not well received, was that public schools need to be much more diverse in what they teach and how they teach it. This goes from science and liberal arts to religion and philosophy. We need more ability to choose where our children go, and what they learn. To select a curriculum that is applied to everyone, makes no sense to me and I find it banal and harmful to the ingenuity and diversity of our country.

If we are talking implementation, I think a fairly simple solution would be vouchers…But I am not wed to it, and I am sure there are other models that would work well.

I think our current a-religions education borders on secular humanism, although many of you disagree who have more experience in the matter. But if we have choice in where our child go and what they learn, I will not be concerned about what some other school is teaching children…it is not my business, nor yours. There is a place for God in SOME schools, but there is no place for God in ALL schools

Our current system is anti-creative, anti-energy, anti-diversity. Why are so many little boys medicated? Why are so few kids graduating? No one size education will fit all.

Freedom (choice) ends this debate before it starts…[/quote]

I don’t believe that there is a fear or distrust of religion in, and of, itself. I think the fear is based on what many people on the right are doing in the NAME of religion, and supposedly in the name of God. Go back to your history books and look at the number of times this has happened before, cases where huge numbers were slaughtered and nations were destroyed. Look carefully and almost invariably you will find that the instigators of these events, the leaders of these uprisings, all claimed to be doing this “in the name of the Lord, our God” (insert appropriate name as per personal religion). Yet, no matter how many times I read the New Testament, I never hear Jesus exhorting His disciples and followers to go out and kill massive numbers of people because they worship other gods.

There are many, many people who describe themselves as politically liberal and who actively practice some form of Christian religion. In addition, there are a large number who, although they do not follow or belong to a formal religious group, describe themselves as believers in God and observant of Judeo-Christian laws and principles. I don’t know if your statement, “If anything I find the response from the self described liberals as ANTI-religion and anti-God in general” refers to only people on this board, or to liberals in general. But for an in-depth analysis of how people of particular religious affiliations vote, go to the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, done by the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life/Pew Research Center. http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons# There is a wealth of invaluable information on this site. Those who choose to ignore the findings of the PFPRL because they believe the Pew Foundation to be a “liberal organization”, should be aware that Joseph Pew, founder of the Sun Oil Company (Sunoco) and his heirs were politically conservative. The original stated goal of the J. Howard Pew Freedom Trust was to “acquaint the American people with the evils of bureaucracy and the values of a free market and to inform our people of the struggle, persecution, hardship, sacrifice and death by which freedom of the individual was won.”

Contributors to Piggs who continue to insist that liberals are godless and hate religion (I’m NOT saying that this describes you, j.) and let this hate cloud their judgement over what is best for America need to review and analyze the data on the Pew site. Across-the-board statements are not only juvenile in nature and suitable only for third-grade playground disputes, but are flat-out wrong. Liberals are not all nonbelievers, and, frankly, I’m fed up to here hearing that.

However, many liberals and moderates are afraid of where abandonment of the separation of church and state policy could lead us. For instance, how many varieties of the Christian faith are there exactly? Well into the thousands. Does anyone honestly believe, on the broad chance that a Constitutional amendment is adopted making Christianity the official religion of America, that this will be the end of the conflict? Of course not. Religion, by its nature, is based on unquestioning faith, not on rational thought and consideration. This is why it is engendering such conflict and vitriol now, and why it will continue to do so until Man’s final days on Earth. The founding fathers knew this, having been witness to the ravages of religious persecution in the countries of their birth or ancestry, and they wanted to avoid it at all costs here.

Religious education is not forbidden in this nation. I see nothing wrong with teaching the cultural aspects and impacts of particular religions as they relate to a country’s development and economy in our public schools, but teaching the tenets of the faith of these religions is something else altogether. As mentioned before, religion is a faith-based and as such, its teaching must be tailored for individuals or very small groups of like-minded people. There is also the variety of faiths within Christianity alone; how is that to be taught in a public school setting. Then there is the issue of demands on the time of today’s student. The schools have a difficult enough time educating our children in the basics of reading, mathematics, sciences, history, English, and languages. How are we supposed to squeeze religious education in there?

Frankly, I see this as another case of parental abdication. Today’s parents are expecting the schools to take over the job of raising the children they’ve spawned. If Jason or Britney doesn’t learn, it has to be the teacher’s fault or the school’s problem. More and more parents are participating less and less. Some children need more attention, some are struggling with ADHD or another disability, some have behavioral or medical issues. Sorry about that, parents, but that’s YOUR problem, not the school’s or the teacher’s. Most will be happy to assist you in dealing with the problem, but it’s YOURS to resolve.

js, I like the suggestions you make in your second paragraph IN THEORY, and I applaud you for your concern about content and diversity. However, it is simply not possible or practical in the public schools. There are too many children at a variety of basic knowledge capacity and learning capabilities whom the schools are expected to educate at a minimum level so that they can leave school at 18 and gain employment. It used to be that the only way you could get the kind of diversity in content you suggest was to send your child to private school. However, the last 25 years have brought about the magnet school concept where kids that are gifted or advanced in certain subject areas are moved to institutions with similarly talented students, and offered more academic and extracurricular diversity. There are also Advanced Placement classes in most schools. But most kids will need a significant amount of parental support at home to be able to develop their skills to a point that they can both gain admittance to, and achieve scholastic success in these settings. Students can seldom do it completely on their own, but many parents don’t get involved and their children flunk out. If the programs do not achieve overall success, they will be discontinued.

Overall, people need to realize that their kids are TOTALLY their responsibility, and that the schools are there to assist them in raising their children to responsible and productive adulthood, but not to take their place as chief teachers nurturers. This means that parents have to teach religion, and pay for the music lessons and make their child practice, and read to their child and quiz him on what will be in next day’s test and make sure she’s turning in her homework and play with their child at times. A very wide range of activities that may not be a parent’s first choice of how to relax after a full and trying day at work, but is, in reality, the only choice that can be made.

You are absolutely correct: No one size education fits all students. That’s why the parent has to step up to the plate and fulfill his/her responsibility to that child. And this includes providing instruction and guidance in religion.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=jstoesz]I don’t understand how you got on your high horse about people hedged in fear…If anything I find the response from the self described liberals as ANTI-religion and anti-God in general…There seems to be an innate fear or distrust of religion. I do not fear the a-religious. I just want a fair choice.

My suggestion, one that was not well received, was that public schools need to be much more diverse in what they teach and how they teach it. This goes from science and liberal arts to religion and philosophy. We need more ability to choose where our children go, and what they learn. To select a curriculum that is applied to everyone, makes no sense to me and I find it banal and harmful to the ingenuity and diversity of our country.

If we are talking implementation, I think a fairly simple solution would be vouchers…But I am not wed to it, and I am sure there are other models that would work well.

I think our current a-religions education borders on secular humanism, although many of you disagree who have more experience in the matter. But if we have choice in where our child go and what they learn, I will not be concerned about what some other school is teaching children…it is not my business, nor yours. There is a place for God in SOME schools, but there is no place for God in ALL schools

Our current system is anti-creative, anti-energy, anti-diversity. Why are so many little boys medicated? Why are so few kids graduating? No one size education will fit all.

Freedom (choice) ends this debate before it starts…[/quote]

I don’t believe that there is a fear or distrust of religion in, and of, itself. I think the fear is based on what many people on the right are doing in the NAME of religion, and supposedly in the name of God. Go back to your history books and look at the number of times this has happened before, cases where huge numbers were slaughtered and nations were destroyed. Look carefully and almost invariably you will find that the instigators of these events, the leaders of these uprisings, all claimed to be doing this “in the name of the Lord, our God” (insert appropriate name as per personal religion). Yet, no matter how many times I read the New Testament, I never hear Jesus exhorting His disciples and followers to go out and kill massive numbers of people because they worship other gods.

There are many, many people who describe themselves as politically liberal and who actively practice some form of Christian religion. In addition, there are a large number who, although they do not follow or belong to a formal religious group, describe themselves as believers in God and observant of Judeo-Christian laws and principles. I don’t know if your statement, “If anything I find the response from the self described liberals as ANTI-religion and anti-God in general” refers to only people on this board, or to liberals in general. But for an in-depth analysis of how people of particular religious affiliations vote, go to the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, done by the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life/Pew Research Center. http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons# There is a wealth of invaluable information on this site. Those who choose to ignore the findings of the PFPRL because they believe the Pew Foundation to be a “liberal organization”, should be aware that Joseph Pew, founder of the Sun Oil Company (Sunoco) and his heirs were politically conservative. The original stated goal of the J. Howard Pew Freedom Trust was to “acquaint the American people with the evils of bureaucracy and the values of a free market and to inform our people of the struggle, persecution, hardship, sacrifice and death by which freedom of the individual was won.”

Contributors to Piggs who continue to insist that liberals are godless and hate religion (I’m NOT saying that this describes you, j.) and let this hate cloud their judgement over what is best for America need to review and analyze the data on the Pew site. Across-the-board statements are not only juvenile in nature and suitable only for third-grade playground disputes, but are flat-out wrong. Liberals are not all nonbelievers, and, frankly, I’m fed up to here hearing that.

However, many liberals and moderates are afraid of where abandonment of the separation of church and state policy could lead us. For instance, how many varieties of the Christian faith are there exactly? Well into the thousands. Does anyone honestly believe, on the broad chance that a Constitutional amendment is adopted making Christianity the official religion of America, that this will be the end of the conflict? Of course not. Religion, by its nature, is based on unquestioning faith, not on rational thought and consideration. This is why it is engendering such conflict and vitriol now, and why it will continue to do so until Man’s final days on Earth. The founding fathers knew this, having been witness to the ravages of religious persecution in the countries of their birth or ancestry, and they wanted to avoid it at all costs here.

Religious education is not forbidden in this nation. I see nothing wrong with teaching the cultural aspects and impacts of particular religions as they relate to a country’s development and economy in our public schools, but teaching the tenets of the faith of these religions is something else altogether. As mentioned before, religion is a faith-based and as such, its teaching must be tailored for individuals or very small groups of like-minded people. There is also the variety of faiths within Christianity alone; how is that to be taught in a public school setting. Then there is the issue of demands on the time of today’s student. The schools have a difficult enough time educating our children in the basics of reading, mathematics, sciences, history, English, and languages. How are we supposed to squeeze religious education in there?

Frankly, I see this as another case of parental abdication. Today’s parents are expecting the schools to take over the job of raising the children they’ve spawned. If Jason or Britney doesn’t learn, it has to be the teacher’s fault or the school’s problem. More and more parents are participating less and less. Some children need more attention, some are struggling with ADHD or another disability, some have behavioral or medical issues. Sorry about that, parents, but that’s YOUR problem, not the school’s or the teacher’s. Most will be happy to assist you in dealing with the problem, but it’s YOURS to resolve.

js, I like the suggestions you make in your second paragraph IN THEORY, and I applaud you for your concern about content and diversity. However, it is simply not possible or practical in the public schools. There are too many children at a variety of basic knowledge capacity and learning capabilities whom the schools are expected to educate at a minimum level so that they can leave school at 18 and gain employment. It used to be that the only way you could get the kind of diversity in content you suggest was to send your child to private school. However, the last 25 years have brought about the magnet school concept where kids that are gifted or advanced in certain subject areas are moved to institutions with similarly talented students, and offered more academic and extracurricular diversity. There are also Advanced Placement classes in most schools. But most kids will need a significant amount of parental support at home to be able to develop their skills to a point that they can both gain admittance to, and achieve scholastic success in these settings. Students can seldom do it completely on their own, but many parents don’t get involved and their children flunk out. If the programs do not achieve overall success, they will be discontinued.

Overall, people need to realize that their kids are TOTALLY their responsibility, and that the schools are there to assist them in raising their children to responsible and productive adulthood, but not to take their place as chief teachers nurturers. This means that parents have to teach religion, and pay for the music lessons and make their child practice, and read to their child and quiz him on what will be in next day’s test and make sure she’s turning in her homework and play with their child at times. A very wide range of activities that may not be a parent’s first choice of how to relax after a full and trying day at work, but is, in reality, the only choice that can be made.

You are absolutely correct: No one size education fits all students. That’s why the parent has to step up to the plate and fulfill his/her responsibility to that child. And this includes providing instruction and guidance in religion.

[Author]

Posts