johnponz

Scoutingagain,

In your average employer plan it is true if you look only at the employee contributions. One cost for Employee only coverage and another for family (Employee plus any number of dependents). Some plans have Employee plus one dependent as well.

The employer does have to pay by participant though. It is easy to see how a consumer might believe it cost the same. It is just a matter for education.

Oh No, I find myself agreeing with BSA 24 LOL

EBay is a great option.

I think in general the cost issue is a red herring argument. However, there are some kids and units who truly cannot afford the uniform.

I do not want to start this discussion back up because it has been rehashed many times, but I think everyone should be working toward a complete field uniform even if they cannot afford one right away.

There's that word again "ObamaCare I really do not know why people insist on calling the Affordable Healthcare Act,"ObamaCare."

As to that survey, I am aware of those numbers, but that survey was taken almost immediately after the Act passed. As we get closer to 2014, those numbers have dropped, and when you go to benefit conferences, people are not talking about dropping their coverage. People are more worried about being able to attract talent to difficult to fill positions, and guess what, the employers that keep their health insurance benefit will be better able to attract that talent (isn't that the free market)?

We just reviewed our health plan with our broker to consider making changes in the upcoming year. I asked our broker how many employers he worked with were talking about dropping their coverage. He said hardly any. Most are talking about enhancing their coverage to better compete. Although the employee portion of the cost will tend to increase.

We will see as full implementation gets closer, but my professional opinion is that employers will not be dropping their insurance.

Comparing broccoli to health insurance is silly, and is a clear case of the old apples and oranges fallacy. If someone does not get health insurance and gets sick, they get treatment and those of us with health insurance end up paying probably through our taxes. Now I am not a supreme court Justice, nor am I a lawyer, but that would have been my opinion if I got to write one. Since these people without insurance cost those of us with through our taxes, it makes sense to tax those who do not purchase insurance so they can pay for their own health care before they need it. Either pay up front for insurance or pay through your taxes.

The broccoli comparison is silly because it does not matter to me one way or the other if you eat broccoli or spinach. Either way I do not pay for it.

You are talking about the employee cost. The employer is charged per participant, but most do not charge the employees the same way because the administrative cost is too high to do it that way, among other reasons.(This message has been edited by johnponz)

Much much better than we had before.

Employers are not dropping their health plans in droves...I know this because I work in HR. The benefit package is a major recruitment tool, and if employers are going to remain competitive then they are going to offer health coverage. As far as the age 26 requirement, this actually lowered the insurance cost because most 26 year olds are healthy. By allowing them to stay on the plan the high risk members are mitigated by lower risk members (that is how insurance works).(This message has been edited by johnponz)

Eagle 92 where are the facts to support your ascertation? A survey by Blue Cross Blue Shield on the 5th year anniversary of the Mass. law showed ...Two out of three adults in the state support the law, while 88 percent of doctors say it improved, or did not affect, the quality of care, (per the BCBS survey).

It is ironic that Romney who was for the law is now against it. There was a Meet the Press show where Romney clearly say that the Mass. law should be a model for the rest of the country. I guess he was for it before he was against it.

The last argument is the best one that I have heard against the Act. However, it does not focus on the Act but rather the ruling itself. Although our President is one, I am not a constitutional attorney. However, I do not read the ruling to say that it is ok to tax behaviors but rather purchasing products or in this case not purchasing products.

We have been taxing like this in the affirmative for some time, e.g. the cigarette tax. There is clearly a tax penalty if you choose to purchase cigarettes. In this case there is a tax if you choose not to buy insurance. In my mind, this is way different then taxing someone for being overweight.

Additionally, we tax people to provide Medicare insurance. This is not that much different than that.

The Act actually helps the 80% that have insurance too. Dependents covered until 26 and no lifetime max. There is story after story of people who thought they had great insurance coverage who lost everything because their lifetime max was hit. All it takes is one premature baby with Cancer and that max is hit quickly. These are heart wrenching stories of people with coverage that will now be able to take care of their sick infant and not face financial ruin.

By the way would it have been better if the banking industry and the auto industry went under I don't think so, and most of that bail out money has been paid back.

Romney says if elected he will repeal "Obamacare." Can one person do that? Doesn't he need to get the 60 votes in the senate to avoid filibuster of the repeal?

Obama Care? why don't we call the first bail out Busch's Bailout (it even has alliteration)

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

I do not know why people call the Affordable Health Care Act Obama Care. This is a misrepresentation as this bill is no where close to what the President really wants, but rather is a creation of politics. The bill was watered down to get the 60 votes that are required in the senate to avoid a filibuster. It is still much better than what we had before. People seem to forget the clear "good" benefits that are in the bill, i.e. dependant coverage until 26, eletronic conversion of patient files, elimination of the lifetime max, etc.

The mandate to get health insurance is also a good thing. The people who do not have coverage, get care. No one is turned away at the Emergecy room door, and all of us end up paying for that. Shouldn't those people be in the total insurance pool so the rates of the others will be more fair.

I really believe many get brain washed by the likes of Glenn Beck and O'Reilly. It is really a shame how easily the American people are fooled.(This message has been edited by johnponz)

How about the politician from the OA sash on the belt thread that wears his sash with the arrow pointed down and his MB sash as a bandolier? I think he would make a great Chief Scout. LOL

I am actually pretty much in agreement with BSA 24's last post.

I think the internet is a difficult communications tool because we all tend to talk in absolutes when the world does not work that way. The world works in combinations. There is the whole nature vs. nurture argument, and the truth lies in the middle. Genes are important, but the way the environment acts on those genes is also important.

In this case some poverty is caused by choices and some by misfortune. When misfortune hits, we have to figure out a way to minimize it and move on. Sometimes this requires temporary help, and I am ok with that.

There is another thread going regarding "giving out knots arbitrarily," which is where I had my real issues with BSA 24 because he seemed to say that anyone could wear any insignia they wanted as long as they were having fun. I believe that he miscommunicated his thoughts there and really the more precise explanation is in his last post.

I too, would not approach a person who was wearing their uniform incorrectly unless if they asked me. I tend to agree that it causes more harm than good. My focus is a little different than BSA 24's but the result is the same. I do wear my own uniform correctly down to square knots pointing in the correct direction as an example of what I believe all should do. If others do not I do not really care as there are more important battles to fight, and losing capital pointing out uniform violations does not generally get you anywhere.

This is my last post on this thread because I believe it has played itself out. I apologize to BSA24 if I acted unscoutlike in any of my above posts.

Scouting is a wide brotherhood and there is room for many viewpoints, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, heck even the Socialist party.

That is one of the things I have always liked about Scouting. Different viewpoints and personal opinions can come together to teach the youth important values and help build character.

I wear shorts in the summer, pants in the winter. I usually wear the knee socks with the shorts, in any case I never wear unofficial socks while in uniform. I think the canvas BSA shorts are great.

Callooh, you and I are in agreement. We have argued into the same position.

My basic issue with BSA 24 was that he was stating that all poor people are poor due to bad decisions only, and that is not true nor fair. People are not all poor because of bad decisions alone. That was my entire premise with which you agree.

I still say BSA 24s logic with regard to socks and insignia placement is incongruous and defies logic.(This message has been edited by johnponz)

By the way here are the numbers courtesy of the US Census.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104525.html

For the record when raw numbers are looked at and no rates, Calloh! is correct. When you look at national raw numbers there are many more Whites below the poverty level than any other race.

However raw numbers have very little meaning. The truth is any given African American or other minority is much more likely to be "poor" than any given White (this is the rate). The rate is much more important number.

I will also concede that the "slippery slope" is included as a logical fallacy. However in the realm of human behavior many have argued that the slope is a valid occurance exactly as I described above, and I adhere to this viewpoint.

As far as racism. I believe it is true that BSA 24s comments are not overtly racist. However, it is exactly the type of stereotyping thought processes that leads to racism. When you can stereotype a group such as the poor it becomes easier to stereotype other groups as well. This is known as a slippery slope, and is well established in Sociology.

(This message has been edited by Johnponz)

The issue that I have is over generalizations. Sure some people make what we consider to be poor decisions which create endless problems for themselves. They then call themselves victims. That is in some cases.

Then there are other cases where people get caught up in a whirlwind of situations they can't control and it is a down ward spiral. This situation is usually temporary but in the current economy is becoming

more structural.

It is plain wrong to paint everyone with the same brush.

Finally, BSAs approach to uniform issues baffles me as much as it does Scoufish. Why would you require official socks but allow Scouts to wear whatever insignia is fun. It is really incongruous logic.

I would not phrase it the same way as BP. However, I have to agree with the sentiment. A personal story:

Last year in the midst of the recession I lost a very good job. To make a long story short, the top operational person at the division that I worked for was replaced, and within a month, I was told I was being replaced because the staff saw me as being too close to the top leader. I always thought that it was a good thing for the top HR person in an organization to be close to the operational leadership at least in front of the employees. In any case, I was caught up in reorganization totally outside of my control (I had great performance reviews and received 110% of my bonus target a couple of weeks prior to my termination).

The company doid give me a year's severance that I was very grateful for which kept me above water and paying my mortgage for the time I was unemployed. I worked hard, and found a new position (with a slightly lower salary) after 9 months. Oh by the way at the very end of this period my wife and I found out we were having our 2nd child (very surprised we are both 45 y.o.).

I think about the situation we would have been in if I did not have the severance package. The termination WAS out of my control, and things would have turned very bad in 6 months if I did not have income coming in.

Now I did find a job that I worked hard to find using my recruitment network, but it took 9 months (3 months beyond my cushion). We could have been in dire straits except for good luck, and I will say God's help.

Now you can argue some of this was due to my choices. However much of it is not. I wonder in this economy how many people find themselves in this position, and start digging a hole they cannot get themselves out of.

Worked out for me. For some it does not. I believe comments such as BSA 24 is making just shows how insensitive some can be to others' problems and hardships.

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

I don't know BSA24. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates seem like 2 CEOs that would be very comfortable at a Star Trek convention. I believe that you are being stereotypical in assuming that youths who participate in the native American aspects of the OA are nerdy. As Eagle 92 pointed out many times these youths go on to get PhDs in very respectable academic areas.

I am a little taken aback that someone who claims to be so enlightened uses terms such as Indian and red skinned to refer to Native Americans. The few Native Americans I know find these terms offensive.

I think this falls into the category of those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.(This message has been edited by Johnponz)

No one has to participate on the ceremonial or dance team if they do not want to.

Also, I have never really heard any rumblings from the Lodge's executive committee that they would like to do away with this aspect of OA. Are you guys really sure the youth want to do away with this or is it just some of the youth?

Also OA is a National organization so you do not know how the youth believe in the entire organization based on your little piece of the world.

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

It's funny, I read Beavah's post different. I read it to say that being hard arse was not the way to go, and we here in the US tend to require too much in a uniform. I thought his first couple phrases were Beav being a little sarcastic.

That being said, you guessed it, I prefer a full field uniform with all of the insignia in the right place. National gets to set the rules and that is what they want.

I find it somewhat strange though that BSA 24 would require official socks, and then say but requiring correct insignia is over the top. It seems like a distinction without a difference to me. Frankly, from a cost stand point, it is easier to justify the lack of official socks and pants than of out of place insignia. Your position seems a little incongruent that you demand a complete field uniform, but dislike those who demand correct insignia on the complete field uniform.

Attention to detail is important in the "real world" so in our "game with a purpose" doesn't it make sense to teach this simple life lesson?

WWW,

The post was not really meant for you but for the Texas Scouter.

When the chain was started many moons ago, the main topic was wearing the sash on the belt. He has contended that this is allowed, and has refused the multitude of references saying it is not. Whether or not you can wear it at special events is a side point of this thread, and I kind of agree with you that it is up to interpretation. That being said, the highest authority at National who can say what the rule is happens to be the National Chairman so what he says is probably the "official" interpretation.

I would not do so, but really see little wrong with a Scout who wants to wear the sash to an event such as a "court of honor," but my interpretation or opinion really does not matter. I guess if you want to be technical this interpretation should come from the Supreme Chief of the Fire of each individual lodge, but the Order of the Arrow Committee through the National Chairman has clearly given their guidance.

Before BP comments, I would prefer that the Youth of each lodge make this decision through the executive committee (incorrectly called the executive board in some lodges-it is a technicality but each non-profit organization is allowed only 1 executive board and in this case that is the Council Executive Board). However under current OA rules, the executive committee cannot modify the insignia rules as delineated by the National Order of the Arrow Committee.

The Supreme Chief of the Fire does have that authority.

As an aside, the original poster on 5/7 said his question was answered and he would not wear the sash on the belt. However the discussion continues. . .

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

This has been explained to death. The rules are clear. However if you choose to interpret them differently then the guidance given by the National Chairman of the Order of the Arrow, so be it.

You have rationalized the wearing of the sash on the belt.