AAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [OT]

"CatNipped" wrote in message
Gosh, that's about what it costs per *MONTH* for family insurance coverage
here - and that's only the employee's part of the payment, the employer
pays a lot more than that!


A lot of our tax money goes to health care. In Ontario, whenever I buy any
non food item, I pay 15% tax. 8% is the Ont. sales tax, and 7% is the
federal
GST (goods and service?) tax. That is a lot of tax right there.
The feds are going to lower the GST by 1%. But I will believe it when I see
it.

Also don't forget our health insurance don't cover prescription drugs,
glasses, or
dental expenses. People get group supplementary health insurance from work.
Since I don't have a job, I paid out of pockets for these expenses. I am
considering
buying my own supplementary health insurance.
These premiums go up with age and at my age it ain't cheap.
I am also looking into critical care insurance.

A friend who just moved from Ont. to British Columbia told me the health
insurance
there don't cover things like checkup and pep smear. These are covered in
the
Ontario Health Insurance Plan. But OHIP doesn't cover eye checkup and
physiothearpy.

Winnie
--

Hugs,

CatNipped

See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/



--
Britta
Purring is an automatic safety valve device for dealing with happiness
overflow.
Check out pictures of Vino at:
http://photos.yahoo.com/badwilson click on the Vino album

Which administration was it that declared (in regards to school lunches)
that ketchup could be counted as a vegetable?
Hugs,
CatNipped

I think it was when Dan Quayle was VP (Reagan?)

dnr wrote:

Which administration was it that declared (in regards to school lunches)
that ketchup could be counted as a vegetable?
Hugs,
CatNipped


I think it was when Dan Quayle was VP (Reagan?)


Wrongo, it was when St. Ronnie was in office. Some white house staffer
decided to make that statement and set off a furor that caused a stink
of great proportions in the government.

Pam S.

W. Leong wrote:
"CatNipped" wrote in message
Gosh, that's about what it costs per *MONTH* for family insurance
coverage here - and that's only the employee's part of the payment,
the employer pays a lot more than that!


A lot of our tax money goes to health care. In Ontario, whenever I
buy any non food item, I pay 15% tax. 8% is the Ont. sales tax, and
7% is the federal
GST (goods and service?) tax. That is a lot of tax right there.
The feds are going to lower the GST by 1%. But I will believe it when
I see it.

Also don't forget our health insurance don't cover prescription drugs,
glasses, or
dental expenses. People get group supplementary health insurance from
work. Since I don't have a job, I paid out of pockets for these
expenses. I am considering
buying my own supplementary health insurance.
These premiums go up with age and at my age it ain't cheap.
I am also looking into critical care insurance.

A friend who just moved from Ont. to British Columbia told me the
health insurance
there don't cover things like checkup and pep smear. These are
covered in the
Ontario Health Insurance Plan. But OHIP doesn't cover eye checkup and
physiothearpy.

Unless something has changed in the last 5 years, that doesn't sound
true. I always had my checkups and pap smears covered in BC.
--
Britta
Purring is an automatic safety valve device for dealing with happiness
overflow.
Check out pictures of Vino at:
http://photos.yahoo.com/badwilson click on the Vino album

Well, yes, I should have put "free" in quotation marks. Come to think of
it, the doctors did go on strike some time ago, and they got their
raise, but income taxes have been systematically lowered lately. Go
figure. I'm sure there's some other part of the system that gets hit by
the decrease in tax revenue.

I'd certainly be willing to pay out more in taxes if I felt
I were GETTING something for my money! The U.S. is the only
"civilized" country in the entire world that doesn't have
some form of universal health care.


If you're talking about US taxes, then come to Washington DC and SEE what
your taxes are paying for. It's all over the place. The new Wilson
Bridge, the endless road construction to accomodate the billions of
cars, the metro system, and....well, my salary! All of the salaries of
my co-workers. Your tax dollars at work.
And I still think that the ones making the rules get too much of the
money. They should be required to live at a the median salary level
of their constituents, and give the rest of the money to charity.

Jane
- owned and operated by Princess Rita

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

Jane penned:
And I still think that the ones making the rules get too much of the
money. They should be required to live at a the median salary level
of their constituents, and give the rest of the money to charity.

You expect a congresscritter to live on the median salary of, say,
a district in Alabama when they're living in DC?
That would be pretty cruel.

It's pretty cruel for the constituents, too!

Might be good for people to find out what it's like - they might be more
moved to do something about it.

What bugs me is that the people in Congress get this fabulous health
care package, so they never have to worry about their own health needs.
So they're far less motivated to do anything about the millions of
uninsured people in this country than they might be otherwise.

Did anyone read "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich?

Joyce

On 2006-05-16, penned:
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

You expect a congresscritter to live on the median salary of, say,
a district in Alabama when they're living in DC? That would be
pretty cruel.

It's pretty cruel for the constituents, too!

That is true, but there's also the issue of cost of living. You'd be
amazed at how far a dollar doesn't go in the DC metro area.

Might be good for people to find out what it's like - they might be
more moved to do something about it.

What bugs me is that the people in Congress get this fabulous health
care package, so they never have to worry about their own health
needs. So they're far less motivated to do anything about the
millions of uninsured people in this country than they might be
otherwise.

That's probably true.

Did anyone read "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich?

No, but I've heard a lot about it from friends.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

On 2006-05-16, Jane penned:

And I still think that the ones making the rules get too much of the
money. They should be required to live at a the median salary level
of their constituents, and give the rest of the money to charity.


You expect a congresscritter to live on the median salary of, say,
a district in Alabama when they're living in DC?

That would be pretty cruel.



Humm, lost the original post, so piggybacking on poor Monique. ooph,
sorry about that, hope you have a really good chiropractor.

I've thought about that, and come to the conclusion that it just isn't
practical. I would like to see them live within their congressional
salaries though, and not be able to use any outside moneys for their
various activities. I'd also like to see the end of tax payers paying
for their junkets, stamps, more than x number of staff members, travel
expenses, dinners, and all the other "little" perks and extras that take
millions out of our taxes.

In fact there is/was an Idaho Senator (IIRC) who refused the pay raises
that congress voted themselves. He also refused to live on more than he
was making before he got elected. So he had his office set up so that
he could live in it (hot plate and day bed) refused to go to any
lobbyist functions, refused to go on junkets, paid for his own stamps
instead of using the franking privileges, and covered his own tickets to
and from Idaho. He traveled tourist class. I've been trying to google
his name, as I would vote for him in a heartbeat were he to run for
President. That kind of integrity is pretty rare nowadays.

Pam S.

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

It's pretty cruel for the constituents, too!

That is true, but there's also the issue of cost of living. You'd be
amazed at how far a dollar doesn't go in the DC metro area.

OK, I'd accept a salary adjusted to the cost of living in DC. The
congresscritter's dollar should go as far in DC as his/her constituent's
dollar goes in their area - but the amount would still be proportional
to what the constituent earns. In other words, the public servant's
standard of living could be the same as those he/she serves. Even if
only for a "trial period". So many people in office really have no idea
how poor people survive (or don't).

Did anyone read "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich?

No, but I've heard a lot about it from friends.

That is basically what she did - forced herself to live on minimum wage
for 3 months or so. Of course, being a professional with a comfortable
standard of living, she was unable to literally duplicate the experience
of people who live their entire lives on minimum wage. She not only had
an "out" at the end of 3 months, she also allowed herself to terminate
the experiment if at any time, her life, safety, or health were seriously
endangered. Obviously, minimum-wage "lifers" don't have that option, so
I'm sure she didn't experience the level of hopelessness that many people
feel, year in and year out. However, she fully acknowledges these
limitations, and her observations, not just of her surroundings, but of
the emotional impact on her, were very astute and fascinating reading.

Her conclusion: it is not possible to survive long-term on minimum wage.
And she lived in some of the poorest areas of the country, where the
cost of living was relatively low. I definitely recommend the book!

Joyce