NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

The US health care system is indeed very bad especially in terms of
cost. Its ironic that a major reason for this is the absence of a free
market in the medical sector.

Actually, I think the source is from elsewhere. Medical insurance in
its various guises removes the connection between the buyer and the
seller. It was first offered as a perq, in lieu of salary, by big
corporations who could get a bargain on it (that is, they could offer it
more cheaply than individuals could get it themselves, thus it was an
attractive perq). This spread too far, and took over the medical system.

I hear this is happening to law now too.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I am thankful that our nation is not littered with impoverished
seniors who failed to provide for their years of unemployability.

Yes, but I do resent being the one to support them.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Maxwell wrote:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Marco Leon writes:


Yes, and yes. While I don't think that the reasons you mentioned are the
primary reasons, I do think they play a part. Salaries are indeed higher
but
so are the housing prices. A "starter" house in Long Island, NY for
example
is around $450K. Paying for that mortgage while bringing up a family
leaves
little room to blow $7K on a year's worth of flight training.

Forty years ago, a "starter" house might cost 1.5 times the annual salary
of a
person in the middle class. Now it may cost ten times the annual salary
of
such a person (although the middle class is disappearing).



Then someone is buying way too much house!



I like to watch these "Flip this House". I would call them entry level
homes (1100 sq ft) and they can go for $400,000 in LA, SFO area. I am
not sure saleries are up there for the young starting out. My kids
bought 40+ year old homes in the Fayetteville, AR area and I was amazed
how much they had to spend - getting close to $100K and these were in
the 1300 sq ft range. They are not lawyers or engineers.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

B A R R Y wrote:

ktbr wrote:

If it is such a great retirement program why is everyone
forced to participate?


Not everyone is.

My wife is a member of a teacher's retirement plan and is exempt from SS
contributions.

Teacher's unions are a large lobby and can get special treatment
from politicians.

Larry Dighera wrote:

Regardless of what the people believe, they are the beneficiaries, not
large corporations.


You talk as if these Corportations are an "evil". What is a
Corportation Larry? It is a publicly owned company or business
that employes people, pays them a salary and benefirs. It is
owned by people... stockholders who are by and large participating
by virtue of pention and 401K plans. They count on Corportations
doing and making profits so that their stock will go up and thus,
they can enjoy a decent return on their investment.

For some reason you disdain the idea of a company making mony...
or even worse that any profits they make should be somewho
turned over to tge government for dispersal to people you think
"need" it. That's a very sad vision of a free country you have.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

I am thankful that our nation is not littered with impoverished
seniors who failed to provide for their years of unemployability.


That's swell, but do you choose to contribute to Social Security, or are you
forced?

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
If it is required by the government it is a tax. If anyone gets more out of
it than they put into it is a income redistribution welfare program.

When taken together about 15% of every dime I have earned in my 30 years in
the labor pool has been paid into SS & Medicare. If I had been allowed to
keep that money and invest it in even a conservative investment I could
retire right now, finish my airplane and never be in anyway a cost to
society. The Social Security Administration is a terrible investment manager
and Medicare is a mediocre health insurance policy at best.



Amen brother. I too look longingly at that so called "statement" they
send me every year... I can see the money that has been squandered on
my behalf. Like you, had I been able to put that money into an account
of my own I could retire today.

The SS system has been running a "surplus" for many years (of course the
uneeded money is simply spent) but if, in fact, that "extra" money
colleceted were truly invested in securitities it would be a huge amount
by now... and no "crisis" would be looming ahead.

The Social Security Scam gets away doing things with peoples money
that would result in people going to jail if done by private sector
investment company. After all of this... Larry still thinks its a great
idea.

Larry Dighera wrote:


We are getting pretty far a field here, but I believe it's fair to
say, that Democrats' spending tends to benefit the people, and
Republican spending tends to benefit large corporations.


Corporations are owned by stockholders... individuals who invest
through their retirement plans. They benefit when companies are
successful and make profits.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:38:03 GMT, ktbr wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:


I am not taxed for Social Security. I contribute into it.

I don't recal [sic] ever being offered an option NIT [sic] to participate
Larry. If it could I would drop it in a minute and manage it
myself. If it is such a great retirement program why is everyone
forced to participate?

Of course, no one is _forced_ to participate, even in the US. It's
only a condition of earning a wage in the US. ...

What would happen if only those who were bad drivers could purchase
automobile insurance? Do you think the premiums would be affordable
in such a case? If you're opposed to SSI, are you also opposed to
automobile, aircraft, life, and health insurance?

If you are that concerned about all the poor idiots out there
who are too lazy or stupid to manage their life (let alone their
retirement) there are _thousands_ of charities that you can
contribute to.

That attitude is rather shortsighted, and totally out of place in
today's global society. If you fail to bring the less fortunate up,
you will not be happy with the consequences. Trust me.

You don't live in isolation regardless of whether your home is
situated behind the walls of a gated community or not. As the world
population is predicted to double within the next fifty years, we're
all going to have to adjust our tribal biases in order to coexist in
the future.

And where is your compassion for your fellow man? Are you so
contemptuous of humanity, that you would condemn millions of innocent
people to poverty just to save a few dollars? I hope not.

Larry They are run generally much more efficiently
than the government "charities" and have much less fraud.

Social Security is not a charity; it is insurance. There is an
inescapable loss of human dignity that occurs to those who receive
charity. Social Security recipients can be proud of having worked
hard during their lives, and owe no debt of gratitude to anyone other
than the FDR administration.

Educate yourself:


http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...cial_security/
FDR believed that Social Security should be simple, guaranteed,
fair, earned, and available to all Americans. President Roosevelt
was adamant that Social Security was an insurance program to
provide basic needs in retirement.

Today, thanks in large part to Social Security, the number of
older Americans below the poverty line has dropped from almost 50
percent to only 8 percent.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:18:39 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote in
:

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

We are getting pretty far a field here, but I believe it's fair to
say, that Democrats' spending tends to benefit the people, and
Republican spending tends to benefit large corporations.

when using a strange definition of "benefit" for the people.

Please try to communicate in complete sentences if you expect me to
infer your meaning. Thanks.