Beavah

Hee hee... OK, clemlaw, that was pretty funny. Beavah (who is sittin' lookin' at the snow on his Oak Tree )

Yah, it's an interestin' thought, OGE. A friend in the insurance industry tells me that it costs substantially more than is currently being charged for a smoker. In other words, all of us non-smokers are subsidizing the health care costs of the smoker through the insurance system. I'm not sure that should be the case for matters of personal choice. If yeh choose to smoke (or use other drugs), insurance should pay for one round of quitting therapy, and then your cost should go up to pay the full freight for your risk. Same if yeh choose to be overweight. Why should someone else subsidize your lifestyle risk? Yeh just have to make a hard-and-fast law against other kinds of demographic skimming based on things that aren't personal choices, like genetics, age, etc. The fact that right now we allow age-skimming works against da value of insurance to society. Beavah

Yep, there are abuses. That's da problem with government aid, eh? It gets allocated by people and by rules. There is always a way to "game" a set of rules. Yeh can't possibly write or keep track of enough rules to prevent people from gaming them. That's why generally speakin' I prefer private charity. Because private charities and private citizens can make considered choices about who is truly in need and who is gaming the system. Yeh can't do that in a government system, because sure as shootin' someone would complain of bias if yeh allowed any discretion. There are really needy folks out there this season. Some of 'em have a lot of money, but are lonely, depressed, or just angry at da world. Some are folks who look like you and I, but hit a patch of bad luck and have just been caught in it. Only break-even on their mortgage after property values declined 30%, they can't sell to move to a smaller place. They're tryin' to keep the kids from being affected by not sellin' off the TV and playstation, and keepin' those seems worthwhile since there's been no vacation for the past two years. There will always be a few abusers, eh? But this season, remember to keep an eye out for the many folks who are truly in need. Don't let the few abusers harden our hearts against all da rest. B

But because somebody somewhere was a bit too overwound in the emotions dept...rule after rule after rule was written and posted that specifically defined what was considered a joke, what was considered "joking around"and what constitruted humor. Yah, there's my point exactly. Periodically over da years Scouter.Com has slipped toward this sort of "creeping moderator rules" stuff, often when a moderator gets emotionally wound up by some particular post or poster (as the comments directed my way on this thread by one moderator have shown, despite my PMs to the fellow ). The nice level of moderation we now enjoy has in part been because of "push back" when it started headin' that way. I consider this thread that kind of "push back", eh? There's no need for a "rule" that closes innocent threads along with da guilty. If a thread goes off the rails, close it. If it's a thread titled "BadenP" that talks about da celebration of the Founder's birthday, let it be. If it's a thread titled "Hey Beavah (and everyone!) look at this" to get my attention for comment on some point, let it be. If it's a thread that doesn't mention anyone by name but is obnoxious, close it. Easy, eh? Beavah

Second, schools require the shots. Yah, but isn't that da point of all these lawsuits? That it should be unconstitutional for the State to require purchase of a product? But we require schooling, and da schools require vaccination. All things in balance, eh? I agree with yeh on the insurance bit, though. It should be a major risk pool. When it comes to payin' for routine stuff, all you're doin' is trading dollars with the insurer. You pay them $100, they pay the doc $60, you pay the doc $20, the doc pays $10 for his billing overhead, and only 70% of each dollar actually gets used for medical care. Economically, it's inefficient. Public-health wise, hard to say. Beavah

Yah, well, all of us here would recognize that Brent is of course a premium product. Especially compared with anything from West Texas My church actually has an Allen organ, by the way. Great little organ company, Allen.

"Holiday-time camping in Beavah-land" which was certainly someone pushing the envelope A commonly used, self-referential statement is "Pushing the envelope?", eh? Well, I guess that makes my point quite well, thanks. Best watch out for them plastic spork/knife thingies in school lunches. Pushin' da envelope. Knives, after all, are weapons, and those plastic kiddie-camping things have "knife" in the title. Edited to add: Yah, FScouter, check your glasses, eh? I said "moderators aren't brain-dead nitwits". Yeh really shouldn't be callin' yourself names. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Actually, JoeBob, yeh need to take another look at your math there, eh? As others have mentioned, estate taxes don't kick in on da first dollar. Me, I would want my kids to put in sweat equity to the business, not inherit $5M to sit on their behinds and have a good time. If they do that, then there are all kinds of ways for 'em to save their money and buy into the business. What you're proposing, that they should get a free ride on your labor, just doesn't sit well with my personal values. When yeh extend that to dynasties it gets even creepier, eh? It's one thing to say yeh want to provide for your kids, or even your grandkids. But one of da recent trends is "Dynasty Trusts"... setting up all of your descendants for a life of leisure. That's da risk, eh? Concentration of capital means an end of meritocracy. There was a reason for feudalism, eh? Once capital gets concentrated, da average workin' guy can only work for the fellow with the capital, who gets to sit on his bumb. That's why biblically there was a Jubilee Year, eh? When all debts were erased. Without that, da concentration of capital makes society unstable. Now, to my mind, the better way than the estate tax is what Buffet is tryin' to do, eh? Those who are successful in their life should be taught to return most of it as charity to society, and should expect their kids to work for a living, with only a small boost from pops. Da problem is just what to do with the unethical fellows who want to keep it all in the family, and set up their kids with money for blow. For them, I have no problem with an estate tax, particularly on unearned income. Yep, raise the lower limit on the estate tax to $5-10M. That's plenty for some kids to live on, eh? And it covers the small business or farm. With 5 kids and safe investments, each kid will have unearned income of 50K+ for life without touchin' the principal. Da rest, they can work for the way we did, or at least pay tax on. Beavah

Yah, I had forgotten about my show me da rule post until OGE bumped all these old threads, eh? Alzheimers I guess. Da three threads that OGE bumped show exactly the point I was tryin' to make, though, so I'll thank him for that. Often at Scouter.Com we tell troop committees and Scoutmasters that there is little need for unit bylaws, policies, etc. beyond da BSA materials and the Oath and Law. If I remember correctly, Eamonn, OGE, and FScouter are some of the most vocal on that particular point. And yet here we are, generating a new bylaw/policy out of whole cloth just because one thread went off da rails. Our hypocrisy is so loud that any "point" we're trying to make can't be heard, eh? Of da three threads OGE bumped, only one of 'em was offensive. Da one about Ed was gently chiding in a friendly way, the one about me was just humorous. So we've followed da typical path of the "zero tolerance policy" folks that we all decry and banned threads with forum member pseudonyms in da title. Is that really the example we want to set in our little community? Surely da moderators aren't brain-dead nitwits, eh? I trust that they can distinguish between a thread that has become offensive, one that is humorous, and one that is just da quick move of a topic that a particular member is interested in so it doesn't hijack da original thread. What better way to alert the member to the new thread then use his or her pseudonym, especially if yeh know he doesn't follow all da threads? So I appeal to our group of moderators to stick by their own and our collective values, eh? Resist the temptation to impose extra, unwritten, no-tolerance policies and just use your knowledge of da Scout Oath and Law like we expect every adult volunteer in da organization to do. And, as has been discussed before, then sign your name and your reasoning to it without resortin' to some made-up policy excuse, whether it's da "insurance won't cover..." or da "no eponymous threads" tripe. What says da group? Beavah (hee hee... apologies to Skeptic for borrowin' his moniker for the point, eh? But it illustrates how absurd this can get if we start closin' all the threads like this, since many of us use common words as monikers).

Have to agree with Woapallane, eh? Da purpose of insurance is to spread risk. The risk in health is that you'll pull da unlucky draw of the card and get a child with Cerebral Palsy, find your wife has MS, or have da car slide on ice over a bridge and everyone needs multiple reconstructive surgeries. Not that yeh need to pay $50 for an antibiotic for strep throat. There is a trade-off, though, eh? Insurance isn't coverin' any maintenance to your car. If yeh don't change the oil, you'll be staring at an engine overhaul that's on you. Health coverage isn't like that. If yeh avoid physicals and therefore don't catch da high blood pressure, insurance will pay for your stroke. So the economics are such that payin' for the routine stuff does pay, because it helps prevent da big stuff. There's another trade-off, too. Your neighbor's car can't infect your car, eh? Problem is, your neighbor's child can infect your child. If your neighbor doesn't pay for routine treatment, it can affect you. If we leave lots of poor folks in the cities with untreated illness, that's how viruses and bacteria mutate, eh? Lots of interactions, lots of transmission vectors. That "poor people's problem" very quickly can become our family's problem when the disease gets transmitted. So it's tough, eh? Da principle of insurance is to spread risk, and in that way, insurance that covers daily routine stuff is a poor choice. Da principle of public health, by contrast, is prevention and early response. Best thing to do might be to provide the basic care to everybody (meet da public health need the way we meet the public education need), then leave folks on their own, with private insurers, or with charities to cover the effects of aging or medical catastrophes. Problem with that is yeh still have da case like the scout mentioned above who loses his shot at college or bankrupts his family because he has a medical catastrophe without insurance. We all don't like that. No easy answers, nuthin' but hard choices. But no matter what, it comes down to that as a nation, we cannot afford unlimited high-end medical care for da non-productive elderly. Unless we solve that very emotional issue, we can't even come close to anything that will make da rest of the system work. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, BA, of course there are going to be cuts in Medicare. Obamacare or not, MEDICARE IS A PONZI SCHEME THAT WILL GO BANKRUPT. That's status quo ante. In a population with a lower birthrate, an aging demographic, and an expectation of high-end, lifelong care by seniors who are no longer contributing to the system there MUST be cuts and increases in cost, for everyone. Da way that works is Medicare cuts payments, and hospitals charge more to private insurers, and then the private insurers raise the rates on everyone, eh? Then uninsured folks come in for ER visits, and the hospitals raise the cost to private insurers to try to pay for da uninsured as well. That's why our current private-payer system has had runaway costs for th last 20 years that are breaking businesses from small to large. What da ACA tries to do is force more younger, healthy woking people to buy into the system, which would improve private insurer profits. Presumably if there is competition, then prices will come down. Either that, or da private insurers will get richer finding creative ways to skim da demographic. All very conservative. Where it fails is that it doesn't change da underlying economics. In an aging population, with fewer productive young people paying and people living longer and demanding expensive treatment as seniors, THERE IS NO WAY ANY SYSTEM CAN AVOID BOTH CUTS AND INCREASED COSTS. None, zip, nada. With no ACA, we will see increasing cuts and increasing costs, just as we have been. With the ACA, we will see increasing costs and cuts, but perhaps less in da short term and more in the long term. Trying to blame increased costs on any one program is just ridiculous. It's a systemic issue. Beavah

Interestin'. There are already a couple of fairly functional ones out there for both iPhone and iPad, eh? I cant tell if they're talkin' about those (screenshot looks like it), or somethin' new. I certainly hope it's an independent provider that's putting this together, not National IT B

Yah, Dennis, welcome! I think by and large most of the adult meetings I attend are "very inefficient and cliquish to some extent". Why should the lads be any different? I find Robert's Rules to be overkill for most small groups, youth and adult. But sometimes a SM in workin' with an SPL helps them to learn how to run an agenda (and insists on one, or helps him learn how to plan one). And sometimes, if runnin' meetings is an issue, a SM might incorporate some discussion and examples of that during an active troop leader training session. The point is not to let the boys just flail eh? We are there as adults to coach, give ideas, do a bit of instruction here and there. But not to force 'em into our view. If they're happy with a meeting that's 20 minutes of work followed by 10 minutes of horseplay followed by 20 minutes of work, then who are we to complain as long as they get the work done eh? That's a lot better than sittin' through interminable adult power points that I see at some adult meetings. Matching adults with PORs can work well as a tool, but only if yeh do your job in terms of selecting those adults and training/coaching them. Not every person who volunteers is ready to work with kids in a scouting environment, and a poor selection, or no training/coaching of the adults, can really hurt yeh. Beavah

Hi AdvT77c, and welcome to da forums! The BSA puts no limit, but some councils put limits on da number of MBs any given counselor can sign up to counsel. Mostly, I think this sort of thing is better handled by counseling than by policy, eh? If yeh help troops to understand the goals of the MB program and get the kids usin' it well, it's usually not an issue. Da SM just sends 'em to different folks. Where yeh sometimes see an issue is with parents, especially parent SMs, who are driven by advancement. Occasionally then yeh need a temporary rule or policy just to get things in line for a bit.

Under Obamacare, the erosion will lead to a severance as physicians will work for the government controlled (though not employed - sort of a fascist system for the doctor) by the threat of criminal prosecution. Yah, sorry vol_scouter. Statements like that just don't track with reality. Da bill is a bit of a mess, but not even the most cynical, strained interpretation could come to that conclusion. Much as I never agree with Gern, I think she's right that there's a difference between mythical "Obamacare" and the ACA, which was at its core a conservative Heritage Foundation Bob Dole/Chuck Grassley proposal. Even fits with da neo-con agenda pretty well, eh? A sort of corporate welfare for private insurers law. I was unimpressed by the town hall meeting shenanigans. That was so clearly an organized lobbying effort that exploited the naive as not to be worth an ounce of thought. Like da seniors with the T-shirts sayin' "keep government hands off my Medicare!" One would hope that somebody out there would do what they accuse Congress of not doing, and that's read the [bleep]ing bill. For those who actually care about such things, here's at least one relatively balanced summary: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0322/Health-care-reform-bill-101-what-the-bill-means-to-you and one commentary that highlights da political untenability of the delayed taxes (which we've seen in this month's tax cut extension debate, eh? When it comes time to pay, Congress falls over itself to avoid taxing when it can instead extend da deficit). http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2010/0323/Health-care-reform-bill-summary-powerful-tax-bombs-delayed-fuses That commentary misses some other accounting shenanigans which amount to delayed increases in plan expenses for long term care, etc. So it's not an economically responsible bill, eh? No near-universal coverage plan can be (nor can status-quo be, for that matter) in an environment of an aging population and high-end medical care for the elderly. But it's also not a jail-the-doctors bill either, eh? I think it's important to note that right now, because of compensation incentives, most docs are boutique docs, eh? They cater to a high-end, employed clientele and insurers that pay for lots of high-cost procedures that they can crank through, needed or not. Quite naturally, there is some angst at that gravy train bein' curtailed in any way, especially if it means more docs goin' back to (lower-paid, sniffly-noses, more economically efficient) general practice. They're a bit like da modern banker in that way, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yep, tobacco should be banned. Even in small quantities it has proven harmful to da individual and those nearby. Nope, alcohol should be left alone. In moderate quantities, it has a mix of mildly beneficial effects (cardiac) and mildly negative effects (slight impairment for high mental-load tasks like flyin' airplanes). MJ is like tobacco, with da added negative of high level of mental impairment. Those health risks, plus da high social cost of increased accessibility to minors makes medical-use legalization a bad public policy. Da limited medical effect to a small population is offset by the fact that they can be treated as effectively by other means. As vol_scouter has pointed out, if they can't keep down marinol, they should be on IV or injected anti-emetics which work better, so the "can't keep it down" argument doesn't wash no matter how many times it gets repeated. So... cigarette-like health risks to self and neighbors, high impairment risk to self and some to neighbors, high social cost of accessibility to teens and early-20s young people, and near-zero offsetting health benefits to a very small population. Bad public policy. Beavah

it's ridiculous to say that smoking marijuana isn't taking medicine for people who have prescriptions to smoke marijuana. They manifestly ARE taking medicine. Yeh forget, Merlyn, that these are federal officials or heads of nation-wide groups, eh? For the federal government, smoking marijuana is not taking medicine. It is not FDA approved, it is not backed by reasonable research or practice guidelines. It's drug abuse. For all da reasons vol_scouter explains in detail, it's not sound medical practice. Ecstasy can make yeh euphoric too, eh, and some young folks use it to self-medicate for depression and anxiety, in da same way they use MJ and booze and other things. But that doesn't make ecstasy use "taking medicine". States allow voter referendums, so the "mob" can decide what "medicine" it wants through direct democracy, eh? They don't have to listen to da science. If they want laetrile or cactus buttons or X or da health insurers in the state to pay for witch doctors, they can so vote, and as long as it doesn't affect interstate commerce or just isn't worth da enforcement effort, they can get away with it. But that doesn't make it sound medical practice. It's not da authorities not publishin', eh? It's the news media just pullin' sound bites. As an informed reader, yeh have to go pull da studies and read 'em. But if yeh just take shots without doin' that, then you're no different than the climate change deniers. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, well, at some point yeh have to decide whether to believe people with expertise, or whether yeh want to be one of those climate change deniers. I suppose it's too much effort to dig a bit yourself. Of course I wouldn't trust that ultra-conservative Obama administration on an issue like this, eh? Da UM researchers who conducted the study said the increase in use was no surprise, because they'd been tracking an upswing in da belief among young people that MJ is "not dangerous" for several years, and upswings in use always follow that figure. And that, as da experts note, corresponds to da legalization efforts. I now return you to "la la la I won't listen to data I disagree with". B

Well, others seem to see it if you don't. "The increases in daily marijuana use are quite large, more than 10 percent," said NIDA director Dr. Nora Volkow at a Tuesday news conference. "Young people are particularly vulnerable to the diverse effects of drugs [and] the younger the age of initiation, the greater the likelihood of dependence, not just on marijuana but on a wide variety of drugs." The increases we are seeing in marijuana use in teenagers need to be taken very seriously, Volkow says. Volkow and R. Gil Kerlikowske, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, noted that the increase in marijuana use has coincided with a decline in the number of kids who view marijuana as harmful. The two experts attributed that trend, at least in part, to the recent developments over medical marijuana. "Mixed messages about drug legalization, particularly marijuana, may be to blame. Such messages certainly don't help parents who are trying to prevent kids from using drugs," said Gil Kerlikowske, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, in a statement. "The Obama administration is aggressively addressing the threat of drug use and its consequences through a balanced and comprehensive drug control strategy, but we need parents and other adults who influence children as full partners in teaching young people about the risks and harms associated with drug use, including marijuana." "Calling smoked marijuana medicine is absolutely incorrect and it sends a terrible message," Kerlikowske said. "Right now, we're not being particularly responsible adults by telling people that that smoked marijuana is medicine when, in fact, it is not." Volkow also blames teens loosening attitudes and increased use on the widespread debate over medical marijuana. She says the debate may have led to a perception among teens that marijuana is beneficial not detrimental. Beavah

Yah, corporate income tax is just an indirect consumption/sales tax. Hits da small businesses worst, because they don't have the higher-end tax help nor the ability to try to select the most advantageous venue for production (which state, which zone, onshore or offshore, etc.). B

Mitch McConnell choked up today during his remarks about Judd Gregg leaving. You may also remember his breakdown and outright sobbing last February as he said goodbye to his Chief of Staff. Hmmm... that's McConnell bawlin' over the loss of two close men in his life. Ah, well. Don't ask, don't tell B

Yah, I think yeh have to read da fine print, BrentAllen. I haven't looked at the HSR policy in a couple o' years, but last I remember the high end payout was only for death, loss of limb, or blindness. So it was $20K for death, $10K for loss of limb or blindness in one or both eyes, and $5K for all other medical costs. Da numbers might have shifted around a bit, with a lower death benefit and slightly higher injury/illness limit, but not by much. Yeh really can't expect much for $1 per year, eh? I don't have a contract copy here with me, but I expect someone else on da forums does. None of that changes da underlying issue, eh? No low-cost supplemental policy is goin' to protect a family against the medical costs that come out of a serious accident. $5K or $15K is nuthin'. There's just no way for an insurer to do that economically, eh? That's why real insurance is expensive. So lots of families end up like this one. Good kids, good families, pushed into losing the college funds or the house when just one of their kids suffers an accident. That's what insurance is designed for, eh? To spread this kind of risk. But da U.S. markets do a really poor job of it at present, because of how da private insurers are structured by employer coverage. That's one of da things in the current system that I think we really do need to fix. The second is the issue of industrial competitiveness, eh? Our industry, especially industry with older workers, can't compete effectively with da current setup. Beavah Edited to add: Had a friend fax me da HSR contract. BA has the correct current figures: $15K for trauma accident, $7.5K for medical illness, $5K for dental, $6K for emergency transport, $10K death benefit, $5K loss of limb, $10K paraplegia, $20K quadriplegia. $200 weekly total disability.(This message has been edited by Beavah)

in 1981, the rate of death in bicycle accidents was .8 per 100,000 children age 0-14. In 2007, the rate of death in bicycle accidents was .15 per 100,000 children age 0-14. Yah, I think there's merit to bicycle helmets, eh? Leastways for frequent road cyclists and mountain bikers and such. But this statistic doesn't prove it, eh? Because what's really happened is that kids do a lot less biking these days than they did 30 years ago. As we're discussin' here, they're being driven everywhere when we used to walk or ride bikes. Or they're usin' skateboards or skates. We're even findin' 11-year-old scouts in some areas who don't know how to ride a bike. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, some interestin' thoughts from E92 about "universal" health care. If you've ever traveled with kids internationally, you've probably run into da European-style universal model at some point. For kids on scout trips, it's a great deal, eh? So much more efficient than in da U.S. Less wait, less paperwork, fine care. Same is true for da average medical care for kids and for the working folks. But that comes at a cost, eh? The cost is that high-end care just isn't available at the level older, more ill folks expect in da U.S. If yeh have terminal cancer, they're not goin' to pull out all the stops. If yeh need a heart transplant after 60 years of smokin' and drinkin' and enjoyin' the finer things, it ain't goin' to happen. You're goin' to wait to see a specialist, and surgery for your tennis elbow so that yeh can keep up with your country club partners ain't goin' to be an option on the public plan. In the U.S., we have very few general practitioners left, eh? All of the financial incentives pull docs toward advanced specialties and cranking through lots of procedures. So that's what we have, eh? Very high-end, aggressive medical care for those who can afford it. Relatively poor general care. So no question, eh? If you're a multi-millionaire or an oil sheik and yeh want fantastic high-end care, yeh can buy it here. If you're a scouter takin' a kid to an ER because of an accident, yeh would prefer not to be in the U.S. It's always a trade-off. It's a limited resource. We've taken the high-end-care and subsidies for bureaucrats option over sound, efficient general care. Now, I reckon there is a middle road somewhere, eh? I think that's what France is playin' with. One where yeh provide reasonable baseline coverage for youth and productive-age workers, and then optional higher-end coverage. Right now we sorta do that through ERs, and that's a terribly ineffective and inefficient way to go about it. Da thing that kills any system, though, is health care for the non-productive elderly, especially if da expectation is high-end, expensive care on the public dole. There's just no way to pay for that without a Ponzi-scheme style growing young demographic. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

I thought the BSA (or at least the Councils) provided insurance that was secondary. Is this a real case or hypothetical? It's a real case, BrentAllen. One case was posted here by someone, but I know of at least a half dozen similar cases, some from scouting, some from other things like skateboarding accidents. The BSA offers optional, low limits health coverage, eh? Some councils buy it for units, some units buy it, some don't. The payment cap on the policy is $5K per incident. $5K will handle a basic ambulance ride and ER visit, but it won't cover even one surgery. If a lad needs a couple, or has complications from one, the family can quickly run up a $100K bill or more. Da BSA has high-limits liability coverage, but in most accidents there is no liability, eh? It's just an accident. So that doesn't apply. Only health care coverage does. So when we're talkin' about "just bankrupt the freeloaders", we're talkin' about scouts and their hardworking families. Beavah Edited to add: Found da post. RememberSchiff was the person who posted this to an earlier insurance thread. It's a good example, eh? No negligence, BSA accident insurance won't begin to meet the costs, dad is self-employed makin' it hard (and very expensive) to buy personal coverage. So da family is turning to community charity in the hopes of gettin' by. http://www.cleveland.com/chagrinsolonsun/index.ssf/2010/08/medical_bill_mounts_for_bainbr.html(This message has been edited by Beavah)