Recently, I made a trip to Orlando from Pittsburgh, and there are a few things that I underwent, observed, or otherwise made note of. These things all brought me to wonder about security, comfort, and the overall flying experience. All of my observations are based on multiple trips that I've made. In my time, I've traveled to Phoenix, Orlando, Detroit, and obviously Pittsburgh.
My first thought is this. A few weeks ago, there was a joke about the Derrie-Air airline, which would charge people for being over a specific weight. While I was sitting quietly in my seat, I happened to observe a woman who was... larger than most seats. After receiving early boarding privileges normally reserved for the handicapped, she was then placed in a seat a row or two in front of me, and on the opposite side of the aisle. After a short time, I observed her. I also observed that part of her side was... enveloping the arm rest. When a thin person leans into something, normally we say something like "oh" and we stop leaning into it. When someone is obese, do they notice that their side fat is literally pushing on the top and bottom of an object? Do they think to themselves "Wow, this is really uncomfortable" or do they simply accept that they are fat, and decide to deal with it? I have absolutely no clue about this, and hope to never find out firsthand.
When I originally left Pittsburgh for this trip, I left from work, and as such was wearing a belt. When I approached the TSA rep who looks at your boarding pass and photo i.d., I asked her if my belt would present a problem, as it's a relatively small buckle. She informed me that it should not pose a problem. She only told me this after giving my i.d. at best a cursory glance. A half-ass picture would've done just as well. I went through the metal detector, and it was without incident. On the way home from FL, I happened to have the same belt on. Believing that since it didn't present a problem in Pittsburgh, it shouldn't do so here, I figured the metal detectors would be equally sensitive. I was wrong. Apparently, Orlando has a greater fear of the evil belt buckle, and the thing went off. The lady guarding the metal detector then has my take everything out of my pockets and put the items in a bowl. This was a superior idea, because clearly, I couldn't retain anything in my pockets since she didn't check.
After removing my belt, my shoes, and all other forms of metal, I felt rather nude, and sped through the checkpoint. Had this happened in Pittsburgh, I'd have been rather irritated. I learned that having an iPod wrapped in a headphone cord is almost as dangerous as having a block of explosives. They had to run my bag two or three times to make sure the items I had in there weren't dangerous. God only knows how many people have brought down an airplane with a cell phone, a stick of deodorant, and an iPod with headphones. How's that stick up go? "You turn this plane into a building, or I'll make you stop sweating, listen to horrid country music, and beat you with my phone!" Such violence is clearly a threat to National Security.
When flying, it is generally nice to feel safe in the hands of the pilot and confident in their equipment. This is why when the landing gear started making noises, clunking into place, and generally just misbehaving, I was a little unnerved. Let's ignore the fact that I can't go to my layover in New York, because the weather is bad. Let's also ignore the fact that the Middle Eastern lady couldn't control her crying infant (thank God for my iPod and Metallica). These instances were harrowing enough. But when you take off, and you can feel the landing gear clunk into place, while the plane feels like it's going for a ride on a bumpy road without shocks; this is not a good place to be in. This is the one time I had to calm myself down on an airplane. I shouldn't say "one time" because they managed to do it a good three times to me before my entire trip was done. Taking off, landing, taking off, and landing all made it much more interesting. Another thing, I understand keeping the seat belt sign lit when we're in the air. I understand it when we're taxiing. I have to ask though, why the hell did we have to have it buckled when we're at a dead stop, at the gate, doing absolutely nothing but waiting for the stairs to be attached? Are we in serious danger from a strong gust of wind, or are we afraid the pilot will bump the throttle, and send us crashing through the airport? Where is the real danger? When I'm in a parking lot, at a dead stop, I generally unbuckle my seat belt. I always thought this was common practice, but apparently, I'm in the minority.
Everything I've written about today originates from this one experience, compared to the rest of my experiences which were full of logical and methodical trips. From this trip, I left out my opinion of the stewardesses. Though I must ask what happened to the stereotypical hot stewardess? I've never seen one. These wonderings and ponderings are all just methods of trying to understand how things work; what the reasoning is for somethings, and how certain people feel about them.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Staffing companies
I understand that many companies have specific desires in order to find the people whom they believe can fulfill their vacant position. First, a bit of me. I speak two languages, almost a third, I'm still learning. I have a B.A. degree, and have worked in education and security. I realize I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree; however, I am relatively intelligent. I am patient, customer friendly, and have a simple requirement for a job. I won't sell things. That's it. I'd like to get into a different field of work altogether, an office job wouldn't be bad, with normal hours even. It'd be a novel idea.
Having said that, there are a few guidelines I believe should be recognized.
1. First and foremost, you have a position, and a desire to fulfill it, however, sometimes, we have to compromise. Asking for 5-10 years of experience in a position is a bit extreme in my opinion. If someone has been with a company for that long, chances are, they're quite happy there.
2. Putting a link that reads "Apply here" that leads to another employment site, such as career builder, is acceptable. When you do that though, you must make sure it's actually going to YOUR job posting, and not some site where you can search for it, and that search leads nowhere. If you want to fill a position, you should makes sure the person is capable of applying for it.
3. Don't bullshit the compensation section. I can understand leaving a range of salaries, that makes sense. Don't tell me, however, that it's going to be "commensurate with experience." This statement tells me nothing. When I worked for the companies I did, they at least said what they were paying with and without experience. "DOE" is another one of the unacceptable things to place in an ad; this tells me absolutely nothing.
4. Asking for a "salary history" is a cheap way of trying to low-ball someone's idea of what they're worth. What if my salary was based on commission? It would be entirely subjective to what I made per sale, as opposed to per day/hour/year. This is a clear method of trying to get someone for as cheap as humanly possible, and is a cheap way of getting a negotiation started. I don't tell my friends or family what I make per hour or per year. What makes you think I'm going to tell a complete stranger who has no business even asking? I'm not going to send a salary history, and you can forget asking me.
5. All of these websites that just want someone to do busy work need to stop. Don't tell me what I can make by filling out your retarded ads. This isn't aimed at any website directly; just in general. These ads at the very least belong on that very last link that says something about "Part time/etc." and not in the education section, or the administrative section, and not the transportation section.
6. What do companies have against responding to e-mails? That's the method you asked me to contact you via, so I think the least you can do is hit the 'reply' button and at least acknowledge my existence. I think it's just a common courtesy. If you're not going to respond, at least give me a phone number to contact you to ensure it's been received. Failure to do this in a timely manner is unprofessional and will result in me not knowing what you're doing, but it will certainly make me look with disapproval on your company. Not to mention, how do you expect me to remember every person I've sent an application to? I'm looking for a new job, chances are good, that each day I sent a variety of applications/resumes to a variety of companies over various positions.
These are the only things I require to understand what you're looking for. If you can't coherently formulate an ad, then it really makes it difficult to decide if I want to even apply for a job with your company. Please keep these simple things in mind, and we will have an exhilarating experience working together.
Having said that, there are a few guidelines I believe should be recognized.
1. First and foremost, you have a position, and a desire to fulfill it, however, sometimes, we have to compromise. Asking for 5-10 years of experience in a position is a bit extreme in my opinion. If someone has been with a company for that long, chances are, they're quite happy there.
2. Putting a link that reads "Apply here" that leads to another employment site, such as career builder, is acceptable. When you do that though, you must make sure it's actually going to YOUR job posting, and not some site where you can search for it, and that search leads nowhere. If you want to fill a position, you should makes sure the person is capable of applying for it.
3. Don't bullshit the compensation section. I can understand leaving a range of salaries, that makes sense. Don't tell me, however, that it's going to be "commensurate with experience." This statement tells me nothing. When I worked for the companies I did, they at least said what they were paying with and without experience. "DOE" is another one of the unacceptable things to place in an ad; this tells me absolutely nothing.
4. Asking for a "salary history" is a cheap way of trying to low-ball someone's idea of what they're worth. What if my salary was based on commission? It would be entirely subjective to what I made per sale, as opposed to per day/hour/year. This is a clear method of trying to get someone for as cheap as humanly possible, and is a cheap way of getting a negotiation started. I don't tell my friends or family what I make per hour or per year. What makes you think I'm going to tell a complete stranger who has no business even asking? I'm not going to send a salary history, and you can forget asking me.
5. All of these websites that just want someone to do busy work need to stop. Don't tell me what I can make by filling out your retarded ads. This isn't aimed at any website directly; just in general. These ads at the very least belong on that very last link that says something about "Part time/etc." and not in the education section, or the administrative section, and not the transportation section.
6. What do companies have against responding to e-mails? That's the method you asked me to contact you via, so I think the least you can do is hit the 'reply' button and at least acknowledge my existence. I think it's just a common courtesy. If you're not going to respond, at least give me a phone number to contact you to ensure it's been received. Failure to do this in a timely manner is unprofessional and will result in me not knowing what you're doing, but it will certainly make me look with disapproval on your company. Not to mention, how do you expect me to remember every person I've sent an application to? I'm looking for a new job, chances are good, that each day I sent a variety of applications/resumes to a variety of companies over various positions.
These are the only things I require to understand what you're looking for. If you can't coherently formulate an ad, then it really makes it difficult to decide if I want to even apply for a job with your company. Please keep these simple things in mind, and we will have an exhilarating experience working together.
Economics
I wanted to try out a rant on one of these things too; so here goes.
Our economy is made up of a variety of influences and forces, just like any other great system in the world. The problem is that we have allowed too many different people to influence our economy. We've sold ourselves out in the quest of higher profits. We outsource jobs to countries like China, India, Pakistan, and a variety of others. We have done this and left ourselves at a severe disadvantage. I highly doubt the Chinese would produce what we need if we were to enforce our political will on them. No one else would either, and so we've gone from a might production nation of the 1920's,30's, and 40's to a nation producing nothing but middle management and engineers. Our basic jobs in production no longer exist.
Somebody without a college education is truly screwed, but we encourage everyone to get a college education, making a Bachelor's degree a meaningless piece of paper, only a hair above an Associate's, which is really a minor. Now, to get a decent job you have to have a Master's or Doctorate degree. While this is happening people are complaining about the increase of cost that is forced by universities. This could be an entirely seperate rant.
We need to cut out this idea of outsourcing jobs by entire companies and fields of work. Nobody wanted to do call center work, it sucks, but at the same time, it was money to fuel our economy and now it fuels the Indian economy. I'm not trying to be racist, but if I'm calling across an ocean because the PC that was made in China that I ordered through an American company isn't working, I don't want to speak to an Indian guy, and I'd have preferred to have my PC made in America. Made in America. Decades ago, that phrase meant something, now it's a dream, it's a phrase we throw at various things that have nothing to do with American made goods. We would rather save a few bucks on a blender and fuel the Chinese economy than fuel our own. We're not even fueling an allies economy, but someone who's economic principals are directly contradictory to us. What happened to that sense of American pride? When did we decide that we should help the people who are against us? Isn't that why we stopped using Cuban goods? What about the Iraqi oil we turned away? These were countries who opposed us directly (until we took over Iraq), but now we're going to help them, and throw the Mighty American Dollar at them, which is hardly mighty anymore. It's one thing if we're fueling the British or Irish economies, or even the Israeli economies, these are nations that haven't hurt us. I shudder to think what would happen if Iran suddenly decided to drop their labor wages to a few cents an hour. When did it become okay to support countries who were behind us on Civil Rights issues? Not that we're the best, I think we were rated 7th in Civil Rights. I don't blame any particular manufacturing company for our problems. I will say that Wal-Mart certainly played a role in it though with there demand of cutting production costs, or they'd cut shelf space.
My solution for the economic problems are as follows: 1. Slowly increase the importation tax on goods coming in from China, India, Pakistan or any other nation, especially those that are against us when it comes to systems of government and/or Civil Rights. 2. Offer tax incentives to companies who want to open manufacturing plants in the United States; let's put the American worker back to work and pull our economy out of the gutter while we're at it. 3. Every time a company that has outsourced production must recall an item for a manufacturing fault (lead paint issues maybe), we should increase the importation tax on that company's goods across the board, not by much... let's say 0.5% each time it happens. These three steps will help to make sure that the American economy doesn't go any further down the porcelain white bowl. If these aren't substantial enough to pull out back up to floating position, we can look at foreign spending for a little bit too.
Our economy is made up of a variety of influences and forces, just like any other great system in the world. The problem is that we have allowed too many different people to influence our economy. We've sold ourselves out in the quest of higher profits. We outsource jobs to countries like China, India, Pakistan, and a variety of others. We have done this and left ourselves at a severe disadvantage. I highly doubt the Chinese would produce what we need if we were to enforce our political will on them. No one else would either, and so we've gone from a might production nation of the 1920's,30's, and 40's to a nation producing nothing but middle management and engineers. Our basic jobs in production no longer exist.
Somebody without a college education is truly screwed, but we encourage everyone to get a college education, making a Bachelor's degree a meaningless piece of paper, only a hair above an Associate's, which is really a minor. Now, to get a decent job you have to have a Master's or Doctorate degree. While this is happening people are complaining about the increase of cost that is forced by universities. This could be an entirely seperate rant.
We need to cut out this idea of outsourcing jobs by entire companies and fields of work. Nobody wanted to do call center work, it sucks, but at the same time, it was money to fuel our economy and now it fuels the Indian economy. I'm not trying to be racist, but if I'm calling across an ocean because the PC that was made in China that I ordered through an American company isn't working, I don't want to speak to an Indian guy, and I'd have preferred to have my PC made in America. Made in America. Decades ago, that phrase meant something, now it's a dream, it's a phrase we throw at various things that have nothing to do with American made goods. We would rather save a few bucks on a blender and fuel the Chinese economy than fuel our own. We're not even fueling an allies economy, but someone who's economic principals are directly contradictory to us. What happened to that sense of American pride? When did we decide that we should help the people who are against us? Isn't that why we stopped using Cuban goods? What about the Iraqi oil we turned away? These were countries who opposed us directly (until we took over Iraq), but now we're going to help them, and throw the Mighty American Dollar at them, which is hardly mighty anymore. It's one thing if we're fueling the British or Irish economies, or even the Israeli economies, these are nations that haven't hurt us. I shudder to think what would happen if Iran suddenly decided to drop their labor wages to a few cents an hour. When did it become okay to support countries who were behind us on Civil Rights issues? Not that we're the best, I think we were rated 7th in Civil Rights. I don't blame any particular manufacturing company for our problems. I will say that Wal-Mart certainly played a role in it though with there demand of cutting production costs, or they'd cut shelf space.
My solution for the economic problems are as follows: 1. Slowly increase the importation tax on goods coming in from China, India, Pakistan or any other nation, especially those that are against us when it comes to systems of government and/or Civil Rights. 2. Offer tax incentives to companies who want to open manufacturing plants in the United States; let's put the American worker back to work and pull our economy out of the gutter while we're at it. 3. Every time a company that has outsourced production must recall an item for a manufacturing fault (lead paint issues maybe), we should increase the importation tax on that company's goods across the board, not by much... let's say 0.5% each time it happens. These three steps will help to make sure that the American economy doesn't go any further down the porcelain white bowl. If these aren't substantial enough to pull out back up to floating position, we can look at foreign spending for a little bit too.
Politics
I generally try to stay away from politics, because I'm fully aware of what evil they bring to this world. Having said that, I heard something today that irritated me greatly, and it let me to greater anger.
The issue was about retirement, and how the age of retirement is increasing from 60-65. I know that my parents were originally thinking of retiring after these years, and their plans have changed since. This prompted me to wonder about Social Security, how it works, and it's point. I asked my mom, since she usually knows, and I derived the opinions following.
Social Security is a system set up so that those of us paying into it now, are paying for the elderly before us. This is a flawed system, someone at the very start of S.S. got screwed. The entire generation beforehand did, because no one had paid these taxes for them. As our system continues to devolve, and our economic situation continues to circle the bowl of the world's toilet, we have started borrowing against the Social Security account. Using this money is one of the most retarded, and I want to know who agreed to this idea, since we all know that the U.S. Government doesn't do anything without permission from the people; especially when it comes to financial ideas. When we borrow against an account, and pull money from it for other things (War In Iraq, Bombing Kosovo...) but don't return it, we leave ourselves short. The end result of this is that as we use this money, we are not replacing it, therefore, when I'm ready to retire, there will be no money for me in this account. You can see the problem this presents for me: I'm paying into a system that will do quite literally jack shit for me. Granted, I'm sure my parents appreciate it, but this is money I'll never get back. I might as well be just throwing it away. I say, the only method of getting any type of safe retirement is to start saving more than just 401(k)'s and pension plans. I think mutual funds and other financial options need to be explored.
My problem with pension plans, 401(k)'s, and other methods is that I don't seem to be at any one job long enough. I understand this is my fault, if I'd just choose one and settle, it'd be great. I tried, but that just didn't work, literally, it was just a mess at the end. I now have between 2 and 4 401(k)'s and a stock interest from OCPS, or something along those lines. The problem is that the issues with Social Security are a by-product of other problems we're facing. I've already had an economics rant, and I think it was relatively intelligent. This is different.
Our real problem is the very nature of politics in and of itself. Our political system is set so that the person kissing the most Media ass, or party leader ass, is going to win the election. We have a two party system that is nothing like what was intended, and yet, it continues to pervade our government. Where are the true candidates who have a chance at actually improving our nation, who aren't greedy bastards hoping to succeed solely on Daddy's Name, or on their backdoor deals (Chinese deals, anyone?)? We instead, have allowed special interest groups to buy their preferred candidates for President or for the U.S. Congress, so that they can get their laws passed.
Sometimes, I believe the best candidate for President, is the one who would do unpopular things in the interest of our nation, instead of self-interests. Someone needs to take a stand. Abortion... state issue, not federal. Death Penalty, state issue, not federal. Gay marriage... would be easier if it were federal, but it seems to go state by state. The only person I've seen who actually had any of these ideas was Ron Paul. Did anyone know he's still running? Has anyone heard anything from him since Huckabee left the race? Of course not, because he's not popular enough. He didn't kiss enough ass. He had the finances, regardless of what anyone else will tell you. I can personally say he even had the support of Pittsburgh, at the least.
Every four years, we settle on the "lesser of two evils" because we haven't made it clear what we want. We are a nation divided, and that is exactly what we are supposed to be on issues, but we need a uniting force as well. The Congress should be divided, to make sure the best laws get passed, and the President needs to be able to specifiy what really should pass. While we're on Congress. Has anyone seen a bigger group of children outside of a day care? These people have their "aisle politics" and have the inability to come together on something that actually matters. Have they redone campaign finance reform? Of course not, because then their little buddies wouldn't be able to finance their bid for re-election and continue to buy what they want. As Comicus said in History of the World: "The Roman Senate is the best government money can buy" and it is the absolute truth. The difference, of course, is that it's our Congress, and not the Roman Senate. If I thought I had the support, I'd run for political office myself, and everytime some little pussy assed lobbyists came up, I'd tell him to fuck off and die. I am sick and tired of supporting a government that is ass backwards. Not to mention, my take on the War on Drugs would make Reagan's start look like a small offensive.
Wake up, our nation is for sale to the highest bidder, and the oil companies have us by the cajones. This is why alternative fuels are being held up (another federal issue, as distribution would be nationwide). We could have alternative fuels up, running, and more than viable inside ten years. Norway has done it, read about their Hydogen friendly highway. A nation as big as Norway can manage it, and, while we're bigger, we should be able to do it. Instead, we have a bunch of hanky twisting and whining about what's best. Meanwhile, the oil companies apply the pressure. In the U.S. gas has reached (today anyway) $3.99 a gallon, is nearly $10 in England, and yet the Arabs are still paying less than a dollar. I don't see the fairness there. All this whining and bitching about reduced capacities. It's not reduced capacities it's them being little bitches. I'm glad I'm not driving now. I'd rather bike everywhere and reduce my dependency on oil anyway. The only people I can see not eliminating oil for more than the ten years would be the military. Having said that, we supply 60% of our own oil, which would mean that we could not rely on the arabs we're fighting anyway.
Let me know what you think. I realize I got way off topic of the Social Security thing. The reality is that all of this plays into it. All this pandering to people has done nothing but driven us into debt, and made other countries think they can push us around. We need a statement that says we are not going to be pushed around. "We will not go quietly into the night. We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight! We're going to live on! We're going to survive!" - President Thomas J. Whitmore (Independence Day)
The issue was about retirement, and how the age of retirement is increasing from 60-65. I know that my parents were originally thinking of retiring after these years, and their plans have changed since. This prompted me to wonder about Social Security, how it works, and it's point. I asked my mom, since she usually knows, and I derived the opinions following.
Social Security is a system set up so that those of us paying into it now, are paying for the elderly before us. This is a flawed system, someone at the very start of S.S. got screwed. The entire generation beforehand did, because no one had paid these taxes for them. As our system continues to devolve, and our economic situation continues to circle the bowl of the world's toilet, we have started borrowing against the Social Security account. Using this money is one of the most retarded, and I want to know who agreed to this idea, since we all know that the U.S. Government doesn't do anything without permission from the people; especially when it comes to financial ideas. When we borrow against an account, and pull money from it for other things (War In Iraq, Bombing Kosovo...) but don't return it, we leave ourselves short. The end result of this is that as we use this money, we are not replacing it, therefore, when I'm ready to retire, there will be no money for me in this account. You can see the problem this presents for me: I'm paying into a system that will do quite literally jack shit for me. Granted, I'm sure my parents appreciate it, but this is money I'll never get back. I might as well be just throwing it away. I say, the only method of getting any type of safe retirement is to start saving more than just 401(k)'s and pension plans. I think mutual funds and other financial options need to be explored.
My problem with pension plans, 401(k)'s, and other methods is that I don't seem to be at any one job long enough. I understand this is my fault, if I'd just choose one and settle, it'd be great. I tried, but that just didn't work, literally, it was just a mess at the end. I now have between 2 and 4 401(k)'s and a stock interest from OCPS, or something along those lines. The problem is that the issues with Social Security are a by-product of other problems we're facing. I've already had an economics rant, and I think it was relatively intelligent. This is different.
Our real problem is the very nature of politics in and of itself. Our political system is set so that the person kissing the most Media ass, or party leader ass, is going to win the election. We have a two party system that is nothing like what was intended, and yet, it continues to pervade our government. Where are the true candidates who have a chance at actually improving our nation, who aren't greedy bastards hoping to succeed solely on Daddy's Name, or on their backdoor deals (Chinese deals, anyone?)? We instead, have allowed special interest groups to buy their preferred candidates for President or for the U.S. Congress, so that they can get their laws passed.
Sometimes, I believe the best candidate for President, is the one who would do unpopular things in the interest of our nation, instead of self-interests. Someone needs to take a stand. Abortion... state issue, not federal. Death Penalty, state issue, not federal. Gay marriage... would be easier if it were federal, but it seems to go state by state. The only person I've seen who actually had any of these ideas was Ron Paul. Did anyone know he's still running? Has anyone heard anything from him since Huckabee left the race? Of course not, because he's not popular enough. He didn't kiss enough ass. He had the finances, regardless of what anyone else will tell you. I can personally say he even had the support of Pittsburgh, at the least.
Every four years, we settle on the "lesser of two evils" because we haven't made it clear what we want. We are a nation divided, and that is exactly what we are supposed to be on issues, but we need a uniting force as well. The Congress should be divided, to make sure the best laws get passed, and the President needs to be able to specifiy what really should pass. While we're on Congress. Has anyone seen a bigger group of children outside of a day care? These people have their "aisle politics" and have the inability to come together on something that actually matters. Have they redone campaign finance reform? Of course not, because then their little buddies wouldn't be able to finance their bid for re-election and continue to buy what they want. As Comicus said in History of the World: "The Roman Senate is the best government money can buy" and it is the absolute truth. The difference, of course, is that it's our Congress, and not the Roman Senate. If I thought I had the support, I'd run for political office myself, and everytime some little pussy assed lobbyists came up, I'd tell him to fuck off and die. I am sick and tired of supporting a government that is ass backwards. Not to mention, my take on the War on Drugs would make Reagan's start look like a small offensive.
Wake up, our nation is for sale to the highest bidder, and the oil companies have us by the cajones. This is why alternative fuels are being held up (another federal issue, as distribution would be nationwide). We could have alternative fuels up, running, and more than viable inside ten years. Norway has done it, read about their Hydogen friendly highway. A nation as big as Norway can manage it, and, while we're bigger, we should be able to do it. Instead, we have a bunch of hanky twisting and whining about what's best. Meanwhile, the oil companies apply the pressure. In the U.S. gas has reached (today anyway) $3.99 a gallon, is nearly $10 in England, and yet the Arabs are still paying less than a dollar. I don't see the fairness there. All this whining and bitching about reduced capacities. It's not reduced capacities it's them being little bitches. I'm glad I'm not driving now. I'd rather bike everywhere and reduce my dependency on oil anyway. The only people I can see not eliminating oil for more than the ten years would be the military. Having said that, we supply 60% of our own oil, which would mean that we could not rely on the arabs we're fighting anyway.
Let me know what you think. I realize I got way off topic of the Social Security thing. The reality is that all of this plays into it. All this pandering to people has done nothing but driven us into debt, and made other countries think they can push us around. We need a statement that says we are not going to be pushed around. "We will not go quietly into the night. We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight! We're going to live on! We're going to survive!" - President Thomas J. Whitmore (Independence Day)
American Health Care
Typically speaking, Health insurance is provided by an employer via a third party. When I worked for Universal, it was via Cigna. When you leave your employer, you begin to interact with an entity entitled "Cobra". Cobra health insurance is expensive, and a bitch to get into. Cobra is a system set up for the continuation of coverage. First, You have to elect to get into it, and pay a massive amount of money each month, and if you miss a payment, they drop you without a chance for recourse. Don't ask me how you're supposed to pay a larger amount of money than you did at your job, when you are between jobs at the time, but they expect you to. I had to wait, first to get the money for this payment. Once sent in, it takes 7-10 business days for it to become enacted. Mine took longer. COBRA also tells you that their is no lapse in coverage. This is not true. They reimburse you for what you spent trying to maintain your coverage. After all of this is through, you are then required to request the forms for your medications, doctor visits, and/or lab visits. Each form can take 7-10 business days to receive. The real stupidity of the system is that this all takes place through the same carrier. All of this work is done, but you end up with the same coverage, in the same plan, and the only thing they did was modify where payment was coming from. This took about a month for me to wade through. Once I thought I had finished all of this, I went to get a medication I need, only to be told that the people handling this coverage change had absolutely no record of me via my name, my social security number, or my birth date. Before I learned this though, they managed to send me a correction of my bill, which now led to a deficit in my payment by over $100. I don't know how they had no record of me, yet managed to adjust my bill.
While we as a nation utilize this system, we only put ourselves into a difficult situation. Many of the benefits we are told don't exist in Socialized medicine, don't exist in our system either. We are told that doctor visits are slower when the government takes over medicine. The reality is that we aren't seeing our doctors all that quickly as it is. I tried to make an appointment with a doctor, and the first available chance was a month away. This is hardly quick. We are also led to believe that it is difficult to get the medical care we need, but that is simply not true. Medical care in the EU operates easier and more seamlessly than the health care in the States. Having also studied Socialized medicine, they also don't, by in large, have a cover charge. For me to go to the E.R. I have to pay $125 on my current plan, and $20 or $40 per medication I need. I require two separate prescriptions each month. Without coverage, my prescriptions would cost me about $319/month all told. I have to spend $385/month for coverage. Without doctor visits and/or E.R. visits, it would be cheaper for me to not worry about insurance at all. The only reason I maintain any type of coverage at all is because I have a team of doctors that requires I be covered in some way. Now, you would think this would make it relatively easy for me to see my doctor, even any doctor of my choice. It doesn't though, instead, I'm stuck dealing with doctors who are covered by my insurance, and these doctors may or may not be covered by any two I switch between. After seeing my own doctor, in some way, if he decides I need to see a specialist, now I need a referral, just to see someone my doctor tells me I need to see. This process can take a week or more for the referral to go through, meanwhile, I'm suffering whatever my ailment is. Through socialized medicine, these problems don't exist. In our system, I get stuck wading through red tape while suffering my ailment, which may or may not be dangerous to other people, at the very least, it's inconvenient. Provided I get past the idea of referrals, once my doctor requests tests be done, now I'm stuck with the job of finding an approved lab for some simple blood work, x-rays, or whatever tests need to be done. This system of approval does nothing but leave me suffering for no real reason.
While I'm not sure if I would prefer government funded health care; I do believe that our current system is broken. I think the word 'broken' is a little bit... gentle to describe it. Our system leaves many people uncovered, and those who are covered, are stuck wading through a sea of red tape. I hope that one day, we will realize that our system is deficient and find a manner to fix it. One day, Americans will learn that business and government both have the same interest in mind: their own self-interests. When we have people doing things right, self-interest will take a back seat to the needs of the people. When the right people have come into power, only then will we have a "government of the people, by the people, for the people."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)