Local Posts #9

2009-4-20 06:06:00

[Compiler's Note:  The "Local Posts" series of articles found here in "The Archives" are a collection of exchanges between JJ Dewey and others participating on a local online newspaper blog, and were subsequently re-posted by JJ Dewey on The Keys Of Knowledge discussion group.]

  

March 28, 2009 -- Post Number One

JJ:

I liked Bradley's thinking that we should be able to supply health insurance at a reasonable rate.

Consider this. I am 64, self-employed, and my health insurance through Blue Cross runs about $2000 a year.

There are approximately 46 million people in this country without health insurance. Obama has set aside $650 billion as a down payment to get universal health care to cover these people.

But let's do the math. If we gave everyone of these uninsured the same money that I spend on health insurance to cover them the cost would only be $92 billion. I figure at my age I should be above average risk, but let's just double the amount to make sure we could pay the insurance companies enough to cover higher risk people than myself. That would bring the total to $184 billion which is still a whole lot less than Obama's down payment of $650 billion.

I think that if we just picked random names out of the phone book we could get more common sense than from politicians.

  

March 28, 2009 -- Post Number Two

"ConservoDem" expresses astonishment at the low rate I pay for private insurance and then in the next breath he says:

"The only way to get affordable health care in this nation is to eliminate inefficient insurance companies."

I'd say that around $168 a month is pretty efficient and Blue Cross has a good reputation as an insurance provider. I have no complaints.

If "ConservoDem" is correct then the government should be able to provide even cheaper insurance and we could provide all the uninsured with the same insurance that satisfies me for less than $92 billion. Why is Obama spending $650 billion?

Mine has a $2500 deductible. I don't like the idea of paying for more coverage for others than I have for myself. The policy I have works fine. It protects one from catastrophic, or life threatening problems but the smaller ones you take care of yourself and this causes you to not go to the doctor for trivial matters the as they do in Europe under universal care.

  

March 28, 2009 -- Post Number Three

"Gimmeshelter" wrote:

"An earlier writer commented they were perfectly happy with their Blue Cross policy. Good luck with that. I was paying them $500 per month for single coverage with a $5,000 deductable and no health issues or claims for 5 years."

JJ:

That sounds odd when my cost is $168 a month with a $2500 deducible and I have never worked for the government.

"Loner" forgets that Medicare is financed by tax dollars so you are paying more than you think. And administrative costs of Medicare are much more than 3% because there is at least 25% lost due to fraud that is not so easy to put over on the private companies. There is also a lot of overcharging.

  

March 28, 2009 -- Post Number Four

Gifford writes:

"Capital punishment should be outlawed. It violates the Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment."

JJ:

But keeping a person in jail for 20 years or more is worse than death and much more cruel. Are you also against putting people in jail?

Gifford:

"Not only does it violate that amendment it also violates laws against killing other humans."

JJ:

This is silly. It does not violate any law where it is supported by law.

Duh...

Gifford:

"It is hypocritical to say that the criminal should not kill someone, but it's OK for us to kill them."

JJ:

So by your logic it would be hypocritical to enslave a person by putting him in jail because we do not want to be placed in jail.

Silly logic.

Gifford:

"The authority killing the criminal should not have more of a right to kill anyone than any other person does."

JJ:

So the authority that enslaves the criminal also has no right to put him in jail any more than the man on the street by this logic. Warped thinking here.

  

March 29, 2009 -- Post Number One

JJ:

Concerning Bible contradictions believers can come up with an answer for just about all of them. Because our language is not perfect numerous meanings can be applied to most any scripture.

Concerning there three days and nights Jesus was supposed to be in the tomb when it appears to be only a day and a half. Here is the common explanation:

Jesus was killed on Friday and the resurrection was discovered on Sunday. How can that be three days and nights in the tomb? It was a Jewish figure of speech in Jesus' time to count any part of a day or night as a full day and night. So Friday, Saturday, and Sunday would be called three days and three nights in Jesus' culture. We speak in similar ways today -- if a person were to say, "I spent all day shopping," we understand that the person didn't mean 24 hours.

Instead of finding fault with the Bible I read it to find inspiration and truth. There is much there to be found, even though I do not accept it as infallible.

  

March 29, 2009 -- Post Number Two

JJ:

Michael Smith seems to have the idea that all believers in God see him as a busy-body who has nothing better to do than watch every move we make and is responsible for all that happened to us.

Not all believe that way. Those who follow the path of metaphysics see God as a composite life composed of all the living things in the universe just as we as individuals are composed of billions of living cells.

We are thus the arms and legs of God and if someone does not receive help then we who are in the image of God have failed to manifest the goodness of God.

Capt. Sullenberger indeed manifested the intelligence of God in landing safely and the passengers were correct in giving glory to God. Why belittle people who are merely expressing gratitude?

  

March 30, 2009 -- Post Number One

Responding to an insult from "Washington," JJ Dewey responds with the following:

Mr. Kennedy (from Washington State) has a lot of nerve lecturing Idahoans for being backward because of budget cuts. Here is what they are considering in his beloved Washington State, which is expected to have a $9 billion deficit by 2011:

Laying off 10,000 state workers.

Cutting college enrollment by 10,000 students.

Eliminating Kindergarten ("K") through 12 (grade 12) programs, including those that guarantee teacher raises and limit classroom size.

Source:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29783803/wid/7279844/

Sounds like he needs to go back to Washington and lecture his own.

The bottom line is that all states are having difficulty and when a shortfall occurs cuts will have to be made and those affected will complain.

Mr. Donahue has the right idea. Let the bureaucrats take some of the hit so the teachers doing the important work can stay.

  

March 30, 2009 -- Post Number Two

A reader wrote:

"Mr. Joseph is perfectly correct about Kennedy's opinion. But, the letter was about the past and how Washington State has built a large and very effective educational system. They can afford to make the cuts now and still have a great school system. Idaho still hasn't even started."

JJ:

I don't think so. The end result of public education is the important thing and Idaho students outscore Washington in every category of the SAT tests, which students are given after the public education is finished.

Math Average Score:

Reading comprehension:

Writing Ability:

Ranking states on 21 educational factors Idaho was ranked #20 and Washington #33.

Sources:

http://www.top50states.com/average-iq-score.html

You may be impressed with more spending and more government programs in Washington, but I am more impressed with results.

And judging by results Washington is more vulnerable to cuts than we are.

  

March 30, 2009 -- Post Number Three

JJ:

Wow, "Twall." Unless data agrees with your preconceived notions you just dismiss them.

Of course, there is always a margin of error in every study, but that doesn't mean that you should just throw them out. If all is useless then why would we spend millions compiling the data if we are just going to disregard them as flawed?

Obviously the data is helpful. Many thousands of students from both states took both SAT (SAT Reasoning Test -- formerly known as the Scholastic Aptitude Test and Scholastic Assessment Test) and ACT (The ACT test is a standardized achievement examination for college admissions in the United States produced by ACT, Inc., originally American College Testing Program), and the data from both of them is a good indicator. I wouldn't call 19% of all students "cherry picking."

One interesting reason for the difference in results between ACT and SAT is that ACT does not penalize the student for a wrong score and SAT does.

It is also interesting to note that Idaho outscored Washington in all the SAT results and also in the Science category of the ACT.

Looking at all the data tells us that Idaho is holding its own compared to Washington and people from that state are not justified in lecturing us.

  

"Silent gratitude isn't very much use to anyone."
  -- Gertrude Stein (1874 - 1946)