2005 Transit Strike

Best wishes to the firefighter who was injured......

But he could have been injured/struck by anyone, at anytime, at any place ......its an occupational risk, as bad as it sounds. There was a cop struck by an out of control car on icy roads in Northwest Jersey this morning as well......whos "fault" is that? NJT's and their employees for not opening up the Cut-off sooner (if ever)?

How about transit workers who WEREN'T attacked or mugged or assulted or possibly killed or maimed in the line of their work while the strike was going on?

Or do they not count?

hsr_fan wrote:I heard on the news that a NYC firefighter was critically injured when he was hit by a shuttle bus hired by some company to transport workers during the strike. This is why I cannot support the strike, even if I feel the employees deserve better treatment. By using the public as pawns to get what they want, they show a blatant disregard for the people they serve. And when people get hurt, every union member who supported the strike has blood on his/her hands.

I don't see how this is the Union's fault. Could have happened anywhere.

To everyone who supported, and still supports for some reason, the strike:

Can you please tell me what they got out of it? Can you please tell me what the point of the whole thing was? They have succeeded in making themselved ("they" meaning the union as a whole) look very foolish and they have almost completely lost the support and sympathy of the riding public.

hsr_fan wrote:This is why I cannot support the strike, even if I feel the employees deserve better treatment. By using the public as pawns to get what they want, they show a blatant disregard for the people they serve.

Why don't you tell me how we've shown any regard for the people who serve us?

arrow wrote: Can you please tell me what they got out of it? Can you please tell me what the point of the whole thing was? They have succeeded in making themselved ("they" meaning the union as a whole) look very foolish and they have almost completely lost the support and sympathy of the riding public.

As far as what they got -- don't know. We'll see when the contract is over. As far as the sympathy of the riding public, I'm not sure they ever had it. All anyone is able to say is "hey, I don't have those benefits, too bad, shut up and get back to work."

Jtgshu wrote:THATS why healthcare costs are skyrocking, between crooked docs and hopsitials and malpractice lawsuits wihch are completely out of control. But what has been the solution? to cut companies contributions to health care benefits, increase the employees part, and continue to let the fraud go on, completely unchecked.......screw that - if the slippery slope of giving away health care benefits was never started, the government would have HAD to step in years ago, becuase the companies wouldn't stand for it....., but they were able to take the easy way out, and can probably be traced back to ONE individual contract which started the downwards spiral.

The whole concept of health insurance in all its forms, including Medicare and Medicaid, is really what has been responsible for skyrocketing health care costs. Once the end user of health care no longer paid out of pocket, there was far less accountability on the part of the health care industry. Let's face it, if you have insurance and go to the doctor do you even look at the bill? Do you even know what the insurance company was billed for? The answer is usually no, and the prevailing attitude of most people is who cares what it costs, I'm not paying. Sure, insurance is supposed to have some oversight but in the end the people doing the oversight are just employees not personally affected if a lot of excessive charges go through. They certainly won't be as thorough catching anything which shouldn't have been billed.

Besides the oversight problem, the fact that health insurance put more money into the medical system meant that it was suddenly fair game for tort lawyers. Back in the age of pay out of pocket, there simply wasn't enough extra money in the system to allow the kind of extravagant lawsuits which exist today. As a direct result of this, malpractice insurance, the cost of which is passed on to the customer, went up. Also, doctors now do many medically unnecessary tests just to cover their behinds from lawsuits. This obviously drives up costs further.

A third reason for the ever increasing medical costs is the pharmaceutical industry. The repeal of the ban on advertising drugs to the consumer has resulted in a plethora of expensive drugs coming to market. Many of these drugs really do nothing more than mask the symptoms of conditions which could be mitigated by other means. For example, just look at the hundreds of drugs to deal with the effects of obesity. Instead of doctors putting overweight patients on a proper diet, which costs virtually nothing, they just prescribe a gazillion drugs to lessen the complications of obesity. In fact, doctors seem more apt to prescribing pills instead of other treatments involving low-cost changes in lifestyle thanks to consumers being aware of these drugs from commercials. This of course increases health care costs yet again. The ban on directly advertising prescription drugs to consumers should be reinstated. No good comes from consumers pressuring doctors to prescribe a drug they saw on TV.

What is the solution? Ultimately it is to go back to a system of user pays in order to bring accountability back into the system. The idea of medical IRA type accounts is a step in the right direction. Instead of paying for health insurance, an employer simply adds a certain amount to a worker's medical account tax free. This money is invested and can grow over time quite substantially. It can also be taken from job to job since it is in the worker's name. Chances are that a young person will draw very little on the account. By the time they get older and may have substantial medical problems the money will be there. These accounts will bring down health care costs in two ways. First of all, since the end user pays directly, they will demand a much higher standard of accountability on the part of doctors, and will refuse to pay for medically unnecessary tests, or for excessive charges ($7 aspirins will be a thing of the past). Second, since any money remaining in the account can be passed on to next of kin, or perhaps even a percentage used for non-medical reasons if the account is large enough, the person wil have an incentive to keep themselves healthy.

If anyone can think of a better solution, I'm all ears. All the current system does is fund a bloated medical and pharmaceutical industry with little incentive for efficiency. It also makes medical care prohibitively expensive for those without insurance who must pay out of pocket.

ryanov wrote:I personally think that if the MTA can't cover its losses, it should raise the fares. Yeah, I know they just did that... twice... but hey, if they can't pay for the workers' health care, raise the fares to $4. THAT will light a fire under our collective posteriors... maybe then "where is all of the money that we're giving the MTA going?" or "why is all of our tax money going overseas?" will start being our questions, rather than "why can't these whiny thugs take their kick in the groin like they deserve?"

You need to learn a little economics here. When you raise the price of a good or service, the number of people who purchase it goes down. The opposite happens when you lower the price. The goal of an entity, whether the MTA or a private company, is to set the price of their good or service so as to maximize revenue. Let's say that with a $2 fare you have 8 million riders each day. That's $16 million in revenue per day. Total revenue sets a hard limit on how much money you have to pay workers or cover other expenses, or on your profit if you're a private company (the MTA should break even all the time-any "profit" should be returned to the riders in the form of a fare cut). Anyway, suppose you raise the fare to $4. Suddenly other alternatives become more attractive. Maybe a few people will split a cab fare to work, or maybe use a private bus line, or perhaps those who only go a few miles may opt to walk or bike. A $4 fare will likely reduce daily ridership from 8 million to perhaps 3 million. That's a decrease in revenue from $16 million before to $12 million now. You now have $4 million less per day to pay those 33,700 transit workers with. Furthermore, since there are fewer riders the MTA will want to cut some trains and buses, and will therefore need fewer workers. End result-you hurt your cause with a $4 fare, not helped it.

Now consider if you lower the average fare to $1.50, perhaps by lowering the base fare to $1.75 and instituting a $1 off-peak fare to attract riders at a time when there is excess capacity. Suddenly maybe you have 12 million daily riders, and the daily revenue assuming an average $1.50 fare is now $18 million, a $2 million increase. Since you added most of the riders at a time where you had excess capacity you don't need new workers but you suddenly have more money to pay your existing work force. Since they are now more productive you can justify a raise. Your workers benefit of course, and the customer benefits by paying less at the farebox. This is what the MTA should do-lower fares to use as much off-peak capacity as possible.

Furthermore, worker productivity can also be increased by raising train speeds where possible, allowing the same crew to make more runs in a given day. It seems the MTA has gone crazy with grade timers thanks to a relatively few irresponsible train operators having accidents. Net result is that speeds are pathethic on many lines. I often ride the Queens Boulevard express. They rarely get over 40 mph on the express portion. The line is laid out for 65 or 70 but has been grade-timed to death. Ditto for portions of other lines. This wouldn't have happened if the unions weren't so quick to defend the relatively few bad apples. Thanks to this, the MTA no longer trusts its train operators to run at realistic speeds but instead has dumbed down the whole system. Had the union effectively policed its own, the MTA would be more apt to treat and pay its workers like the professionals most of them are instead of like an overpaid blue collar work force.

jtr1962 wrote: You need to learn a little economics here. When you raise the price of a good or service, the number of people who purchase it goes down. The opposite happens when you lower the price. The goal of an entity, whether the MTA or a private company, is to set the price of their good or service so as to maximize revenue.

And you need to learn that the MTA is not a private company. I don't have the numbers, but I'm willing to bet that the cost of the subway has had a relatively small impact on the number of riders. There really aren't that many acceptable options in the city. A cab? During the high-traffic hours, if you're on a street, you aren't going anywhere.

jtr1962 wrote:Let's say that with a $2 fare you have 8 million riders each day. That's $16 million in revenue per day. Total revenue sets a hard limit on how much money you have to pay workers or cover other expenses, or on your profit if you're a private company (the MTA should break even all the time-any "profit" should be returned to the riders in the form of a fare cut).

Except that's clearly not how it works. Public transit loses money, as does Amtrak, and almost all of the airlines these days. Except, apparently, when this time there was a billion dollar surplus... though simultanously the MTA is crying poverty. So, really, with all the info going in both directions, it's not clear what is going on. What is clear to me, however, is that it is not the responsibility of the workers to make the numbers come out even.

jrt1962 wrote:Anyway, suppose you raise the fare to $4. Suddenly other alternatives become more attractive. Maybe a few people will split a cab fare to work, or maybe use a private bus line, or perhaps those who only go a few miles may opt to walk or bike. A $4 fare will likely reduce daily ridership from 8 million to perhaps 3 million.

That is absolutely not going to happen. The effect would be MUCH more subtle. It would be interesting to see what happened to ridership when the price went from $1.00 to $2.00 in only a couple of years. Call me crazy, but I'm willing to bet it didn't halve the ridership.

jrt1962 wrote:That's a decrease in revenue from $16 million before to $12 million now. You now have $4 million less per day to pay those 33,700 transit workers with. Furthermore, since there are fewer riders the MTA will want to cut some trains and buses, and will therefore need fewer workers. End result-you hurt your cause with a $4 fare, not helped it.

Problem is, with the NYC subway isn't exactly something that people can choose to use. There is no other way many times of the day to get around that does the job anywhere near as well. This definitely skews the numbers quite a bit. Also, if what you say is the case, why would MTA up the fares in the first place? Clearly they have done so two or three times already in the relatively recent past.

jrt1962 wrote:Now consider if you lower the average fare to $1.50, perhaps by lowering the base fare to $1.75 and instituting a $1 off-peak fare to attract riders at a time when there is excess capacity. Suddenly maybe you have 12 million daily riders, and the daily revenue assuming an average $1.50 fare is now $18 million, a $2 million increase. Since you added most of the riders at a time where you had excess capacity you don't need new workers but you suddenly have more money to pay your existing work force. Since they are now more productive you can justify a raise.

Not a bad idea, except I take exception to the requirement that workers be more productive to justify a raise. There is only so productive a worker can be -- does that mean when they get to a certain level, they should no longer get any raises because they cannot be squeezed any harder? I'm not sure you understand how pay relates to productivity. Seems to me you say "work harder, make more money." First of all, that never seems to happen. Second, after years of not being paid enough, productivity tends to drop off. Low morale hurts productivity quite a bit.

jrt1962 wrote:Had the union effectively policed its own, the MTA would be more apt to treat and pay its workers like the professionals most of them are instead of like an overpaid blue collar work force.

This one is just laughable. Which is it? MTA isn't paying the workers enough because they're unprofessional, or because they can't afford it, or because "why should we, no one else does?"... or does it have more to do with the phase of the moon?

ryanov wrote:And you need to learn that the MTA is not a private company. I don't have the numbers, but I'm willing to bet that the cost of the subway has had a relatively small impact on the number of riders. There really aren't that many acceptable options in the city. A cab? During the high-traffic hours, if you're on a street, you aren't going anywhere.

I read somewhere that the average subway trip is something like 5 miles. The average bus trip is shorter. These distances are very bikeable, even for someone in so-so shape. Regular inflationary fare increases, which is all we've seen so far, are not apt to affect ridership much but doubling the fare suddenly as you say most certainly would. Granted, some riders who make decent money would continue to use mass transit, but on the low end of the wage scale millions each day would walk or bike instead. When I used to work for someone else (at $7/hour and no benefits save a few paid holidays), I walked almost three miles to/from the closest subway station to save the two extra fares each day (this was before free bus-to-subway transfers were instituted). A person making minimum wage might well opt to walk five miles each way with a $4 fare. There are lots of little people who would be hurt by greater than inflationary fare increases. Even those who can afford it might stop riding on principal. I might not mind a small, non-inflationary fare increase (say another $0.50), but it would have to be justified in terms of increased service (more trains, faster schedules, new subways), not to pay workers whose wages and benefits are already pretty good by any reasonable standard.

Except that's clearly not how it works. Public transit loses money, as does Amtrak, and almost all of the airlines these days. Except, apparently, when this time there was a billion dollar surplus... though simultanously the MTA is crying poverty. So, really, with all the info going in both directions, it's not clear what is going on. What is clear to me, however, is that it is not the responsibility of the workers to make the numbers come out even.

All transportation loses money, and it all needs to be subsidized in one way or another, including private autos. I'm all for increased mass transit subsidies in order to provide better service and/or lower, perhaps even eliminate, the fare. This is quite apart from any wage issues. Wages are simply one part of operating costs. No, it's not the worker's responsibility to even things up. That's the province of management. In fact, it's their obligation to do so. It's also their obligation to cut all costs as much as possible while not compromising safety or efficiency. That includes labor costs. I don't object at all to the salaries currently paid to TWU members. What I find criminal on the part of the MTA is agreeing in the past to overly generous pensions which will come back to haunt them. The point of a pension is to pay a worker who can no longer physically do the job as a reward for their years of service. With people living longer and looking younger than ever, 55 by any standards is still a very productive, young age. Even 70 still is. If need be move workers from physically demanding jobs to less physical ones at age 55, but I don't see why age 70 to 80 can't be a reasonable age for retirement. Retirement age was traditionally set at 65 at a time when quite a few people didn't live long enough to collect anything. It should be much higher now, maybe around 75 or 80. We've changed the meaning of retirement from living 5 or 10 years on a pension once you're no longer physically able to work to what amounts to a 30 or more year extended vacation. Most of those people retiring at 55 will live 30 or more years, most of them healthy and productive. They should be working most of them unless they sock away enough money to retire on earlier on their own. I talked to an actuary about my current IRAs and he said I should be able to retire comfortably at about age 87. I actually felt very good and happy about this. It was far earlier than I had expected. Given the longevity in my family that means a good ten, maybe 20 years I'll have to do my own thing. Sure, 55 might have been better, but it's just not realistic now.

That is absolutely not going to happen. The effect would be MUCH more subtle. It would be interesting to see what happened to ridership when the price went from $1.00 to $2.00 in only a couple of years. Call me crazy, but I'm willing to bet it didn't halve the ridership.

The fare did not go from $1 to $2 in a few years. I was paying a $1.25 fare in 1990. If you count inflation the $2 fare is the same as a $1 fare was back in the mid or late 1980s. Likewise, if we have a $4 fare in 20 years it won't affect ridership much, but if we have one tomorrow it certainly will.

Problem is, with the NYC subway isn't exactly something that people can choose to use. There is no other way many times of the day to get around that does the job anywhere near as well. This definitely skews the numbers quite a bit. Also, if what you say is the case, why would MTA up the fares in the first place? Clearly they have done so two or three times already in the relatively recent past.

The MTA has raised fares for the same reasons local politicians raise taxes when they're short money-they don't understand economics. Most of these tax or fare increases have failed to bring about any extra revenue, and as I said the MTA's fare increases have more or less kept pace with inflation, nothing more. That's why ridership isn't affected much. I'll be the first to say the MTA is incompetently managed. They should have instituted off-peak fares a decade ago once Metrocards were in common use. They shouldn't have spent $400 million renovating their offices. They shouldn't have agreed to 25/55 pensions. Lots of ways they waste money as well. I *don't* like fare increases either because the MTA wastes money or the TWU makes unreasonable demands. Sure, I'd like to put the MTA under an even bigger microscope than the union, and see some heads roll. That doesn't mean the TWU is guiltless though.

Not a bad idea, except I take exception to the requirement that workers be more productive to justify a raise. There is only so productive a worker can be -- does that mean when they get to a certain level, they should no longer get any raises because they cannot be squeezed any harder? I'm not sure you understand how pay relates to productivity.

Let's separate inflationary pay increases from other pay increases. I agree that transit workers should get an automatic COLA based on inflation each year. That covers any increase in housing or food costs. This shouldn't have to be fought for each contract. What needs to be justified are wage increases beyond these. There can be several reasons for such increases. Maybe the private sector pays more for a comparable job (used to be true, now the reverse is). Maybe the workers are getting more work done than before. Those are good reasons. And yes, for any job there is a productivity plateau and a maximum salary before inflation adjustments. This is dictated by the skill level of the job, the required education, working conditions, even how much that job is worth to society.

A transit worker is never going to be worth $100,000 a year in today's dollars. Neither is most of the MTA management but that's another story. If you want more than inflatioonary increases because you're not happy with what you make, or need more to support your lifestyle, then look for a career change. Don't expect your union to negotiate unrealistic wages. I have a EE degree from an Ivy League college. Assuming a suitable job existed for me I doubt I could have total compensation greater than these transit workers. Fact is that EE jobs are in short supply in NYC so I can either work a service sector job at $12 to $15 an hour, or do what I'm doing, which is start a consulting business which will earn me way less until it's established. Do you know that despite my degree I usually earn $5K or less a year? Still, I'd rather be doing what I'm doing with the potential to make far more than working a service sector job. Moral of the story-if the transit workers are unhappy with their job either become more productive to justify a raise, or look for other work if they can't. And don't use the "I have a family to support" line. Nobody forces you to get married or have kids. If what you make isn't enough to support a family then it's irresponsible to even have one. I don't have kids or a wife. I can't afford them. Nobody put a gun to these people to have kids they couldn't afford.

So low morale hurts productivity? And who's to blame for helping spread discontent other than that big-mouthed Touissant? Without his and the union's mouthing off most of the MTA workers would be thrilled with their overall employment package. Their only legitimate gripes are the excessive disciplinary actions taken by the MTA and the MTA skimping on safety which has resulting in several deaths and injuiries. Oh, and those disgusting employee bathrooms as well. Other than that, they have absolutely nothing to be unhappy about regarding their compensation.

This one is just laughable. Which is it? MTA isn't paying the workers enough because they're unprofessional, or because they can't afford it, or because "why should we, no one else does?"... or does it have more to do with the phase of the moon?

The MTA is paying their workers enough. Like I said, if they want more work with management on ways to increase productivity rather than running to the union demanding wage increases. And don't use scare tactics like running misleading commercials saying how dangerous productivity enhancements like phasing out through attrition, not firing, conductors or token clerks is. It seems that the sole justification for keepin token clerks now is to "call for help". I'd rather the MTA just put a cop or two on every station who can actually help instead. Ditto for conductors. We already have lots of cops in trains and on stations anyway. The union should remember that the MTA is not an employment agency for the workers and their children. They should be able to move people around and cut positions as they see fit. Also, funny how without a union there are workers who get more than these transit workers. How do they do it? Easy-they justify their pay in terms of what they know and/or their productivity. That's what I meant about acting like a professional. That's the reason I would never work for a labor union. I don't want my pay increases limited to what the union can negotiate. I want them limited by how much I can prove to my employer that I'm worth. If I make someone else look bad in the process tough. It's not my place to hold back so someone else can not look bad. If my current employer fails to pay me what I'm really worth I can always leave. And if nobody pays me what I think I'm worth then maybe I have an unrealistic picture of how much I should be paid.

jtr1962 wrote: The whole concept of health insurance in all its forms, including Medicare and Medicaid, is really what has been responsible for skyrocketing health care costs. Once the end user of health care no longer paid out of pocket, there was far less accountability on the part of the health care industry. Let's face it, if you have insurance and go to the doctor do you even look at the bill? Do you even know what the insurance company was billed for? The answer is usually no, and the prevailing attitude of most people is who cares what it costs, I'm not paying. Sure, insurance is supposed to have some oversight but in the end the people doing the oversight are just employees not personally affected if a lot of excessive charges go through. They certainly won't be as thorough catching anything which shouldn't have been billed.

No, I don't look at the bill, and you do have a point there. However, consider the following example. My mom was diagnosed with cancer in 2000, and succumbed to it in late 2002. This is one case in which, yes, I did look at the bill. I didn't see all of them, but from what I can guess, after chemo and medicine and hospital stays, it would have ruined my family financially. Tell me how that is at ALL fair -- it's bad enough that I lost my mother, should we have lost the house and my college education as well? I can't imagine how much cheaper that stuff coulda gotten as much of it was experimental anyway.

jrt1962 wrote:Besides the oversight problem, the fact that health insurance put more money into the medical system meant that it was suddenly fair game for tort lawyers. Back in the age of pay out of pocket, there simply wasn't enough extra money in the system to allow the kind of extravagant lawsuits which exist today.

Trouble is, what of all the money that currently goes into the system from healthy people like me who never use their insurance? Currently, the fact that I have insurance puts money into the system without me taking any out. If I had to pay $50 out of pocket, or more, for every doctor's visit, I'd never go.

jrt1962 wrote:What is the solution? Ultimately it is to go back to a system of user pays in order to bring accountability back into the system. The idea of medical IRA type accounts is a step in the right direction. Instead of paying for health insurance, an employer simply adds a certain amount to a worker's medical account tax free. This money is invested and can grow over time quite substantially. It can also be taken from job to job since it is in the worker's name. Chances are that a young person will draw very little on the account. By the time they get older and may have substantial medical problems the money will be there. These accounts will bring down health care costs in two ways. First of all, since the end user pays directly, they will demand a much higher standard of accountability on the part of doctors, and will refuse to pay for medically unnecessary tests, or for excessive charges ($7 aspirins will be a thing of the past).

Yeah, that takes care of most people. What about someone who gets in a car accident at 22 and faces a rough and expensive recovery? Or someone who is diagnosed with cancer or AIDS at a young age? They're basically screwed, under that system. "Chances are" does not take care of all cares, just healthy people, or those who have money. As far as unnecessary testing goes, some tests detect conditions in early stages that can help save a person's life. If they cost money, a lot of people wouldn't get them done. Why should ANYONE, low income or otherwise, have to choose between their health or anything else?

jrt1962 wrote:Second, since any money remaining in the account can be passed on to next of kin, or perhaps even a percentage used for non-medical reasons if the account is large enough, the person wil have an incentive to keep themselves healthy.

Really? Who doesn't already have an incentive to keep themselves healthy? I personally would rather never use my medical insurance, but if I get sick, I get sick.

jrt1962 wrote:If anyone can think of a better solution, I'm all ears. All the current system does is fund a bloated medical and pharmaceutical industry with little incentive for efficiency. It also makes medical care prohibitively expensive for those without insurance who must pay out of pocket.

And it also takes care of those who are sick. A better solution would be government healthcare or better regulation of the current system to make sure that costs do not get out of hand. Most civilized countries take care of their citizens' health care. There are so many reasons to do so that go beyond money -- keeping diseases from spreading is only one of them.

ryanov wrote: Tell me how that is at ALL fair -- it's bad enough that I lost my mother, should we have lost the house and my college education as well? I can't imagine how much cheaper that stuff coulda gotten as much of it was experimental anyway.

Don't forget that you can buy catastrophic health care insurance using the money from the medical savings accounts. Since such insurance would only cover the rare but expensive events like your mother's cancer it would be affordable.

Trouble is, what of all the money that currently goes into the system from healthy people like me who never use their insurance? Currently, the fact that I have insurance puts money into the system without me taking any out. If I had to pay $50 out of pocket, or more, for every doctor's visit, I'd never go.

That same money would go into a personal medical savings account and might never be used if you stay healthy. Think about this. In a few generations all these inherited mostly unused savings accounts would amount to a pretty penny. The problem I have with traditional health insurance is exactly that the healthy pay for the sick. To me it seems inherently unfair.

Yeah, that takes care of most people. What about someone who gets in a car accident at 22 and faces a rough and expensive recovery? Or someone who is diagnosed with cancer or AIDS at a young age? They're basically screwed, under that system.

Doesn't auto insurance take care of the first case? And the cheap, catastrophic-only coverage would take care of things like cancer at a young age (which is a pretty rare event), and maybe periodic screenings. As for something like AIDS, let's not go there. That is an almost totally preventable disease. A safety net for diseases people can get through no fault of their own makes sense, but I don't believe anyone should bankroll some else's unhealthy lifestyle.

Really? Who doesn't already have an incentive to keep themselves healthy? I personally would rather never use my medical insurance, but if I get sick, I get sick.

I see lots of people who fail to keep themselves healthy because they're not paying for their care. I'm willing to bet if my father had to pay the hundreds each month his pills cost instead of a $5 copay he would lose weight in a hurry so as to get off them. Part of the problem now is that we have expensive pills which can mask an unhealthy lifestyle. You may take care of your health, lots of others won't and will just pop a pill, especially if they don't have to pay for it.

And it also takes care of those who are sick. A better solution would be government healthcare or better regulation of the current system to make sure that costs do not get out of hand. Most civilized countries take care of their citizens' health care. There are so many reasons to do so that go beyond money -- keeping diseases from spreading is only one of them.

Better regulation-yes. Government healthcare-no way. For healthy people like you or me all that would mean is yet another paycheck deduction for a benefit we'll seldom, if ever, use. Governments are notoriously poor at managing costs when they're put in charge of something. Just look at the ballooning Medicaid costs faced by NYS. Picture that on a national level. The problem with government run anything is the lack of accountability. Face it-the workers really have no real incentive to keep costs down since it's not their personal money. I think medical savings accounts combined with some form of catastrophic only health coverage would be the best bet to solve the problem. Yes, the government has a role keeping diseases from spreading via the CDC and insuring sanitary water/air, but everyday health care is something it would run very poorly.

One 3-day strike in 25 years is nothing. It's time to put things in perspective here...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051223/ap_ ... pe_strikes

Enlightening.

if life was only that easy and idealistic....jtr.

I was a trainman/conductor for over four years at nj transit....now im in training for loco enginerrs class. one of the reasons i left, but not the primary one, was because i was getting sore while working, sometimes very sore....my back, my feet, my knees, and that concerned me very much, as I just turned 27.....im not in the best shape, but im not overweight, active and healthy. SOme jobs wear much more than others......MANY, MANY oltimers on the railroad have pretty severe health problems, including a cancer rate that is pretty high. work until im 75 or 80....jeez i hope im still alive, nevertheless working!!!!!

_THe MTA employees arent much different, working in the subways for entire shifts, bouncing around on the trains, driving busses, diesel fumes, bus accidents, stress levels are all things that need to be taken into consideration.....but people keep that these jobs are "Normal" jobs......in fact, the give their lives to their jobs, not only with the uncertanties of work schedules, but in how the jobs affect each person, physically and mentally.

the idea of a stash of money for health insurance is a good one,but has a few major problems.....most familys are healthy, or very unhealthy....my familly has a history of bad backs and knees and hearts, and cancer seems to be rearing its ugly head as well. My aunt has heart problems, replacement knees and hips, and a breast cancer survivor....her pot would have ran dry long ago. MY mom had a bad back, but lost her battle with breast cancer in 03, but she was never able to get a well paying job...she worked as a cafeteria worker and school bus driver for years. her pot would be empty to begin with, and if it came down to food or paying for catastropic insurance, food would win out each time.

If it makes you feel any better, despite working a desk job, I'm suffering from osteoarthritis at only 30 years of age. I'm probably looking at knee replacement surgery in another 10 years or so!

jtr1962 wrote: Don't forget that you can buy catastrophic health care insurance using the money from the medical savings accounts. Since such insurance would only cover the rare but expensive events like your mother's cancer it would be affordable.

Increasingly not rare events, unfortunately. And to anyone much below our income at the time (there was a period of time where neither my mom or dad were working regular well-paying jobs, and my mom stayed home when we were kids -- you know, like you used to be able to do before all this set in), there would be very few options.

jrt1962 wrote: That same money would go into a personal medical savings account and might never be used if you stay healthy. Think about this. In a few generations all these inherited mostly unused savings accounts would amount to a pretty penny. The problem I have with traditional health insurance is exactly that the healthy pay for the sick. To me it seems inherently unfair.

I'm sure the sick feel that it is inherently unfair that they got sick and the healthy do not, wouldn't you say? A society should take care of its members. If that amounts to taking my money to pay for that, then I'm in agreement with it. This system is inherently flawed in that it would not take care of those who did not make much money in the first place. What happens to those people?

ryanov wrote: Yeah, that takes care of most people. What about someone who gets in a car accident at 22 and faces a rough and expensive recovery? Or someone who is diagnosed with cancer or AIDS at a young age? They're basically screwed, under that system.

jrt1962 wrote:Doesn't auto insurance take care of the first case? And the cheap, catastrophic-only coverage would take care of things like cancer at a young age (which is a pretty rare event), and maybe periodic screenings. As for something like AIDS, let's not go there. That is an almost totally preventable disease. A safety net for diseases people can get through no fault of their own makes sense, but I don't believe anyone should bankroll some else's unhealthy lifestyle.

I really don't know. Not if you go with one of the lower cost options, I bet... which I am willing to wager a lot of people do since auto insurance is so extremely expensive in NJ. As far as AIDS: Now it is ALMOST entirely preventable. 15 years ago, no one knew what it was. Do you know how many thousands of people HOSPITALS gave it to during blood transfusions? People make mistakes. I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying that they should die for them.

1962 wrote: I see lots of people who fail to keep themselves healthy because they're not paying for their care. I'm willing to bet if my father had to pay the hundreds each month his pills cost instead of a $5 copay he would lose weight in a hurry so as to get off them. Part of the problem now is that we have expensive pills which can mask an unhealthy lifestyle. You may take care of your health, lots of others won't and will just pop a pill, especially if they don't have to pay for it.

That is some, and there are plenty who just wish they could get well and can't, and are damn thankful their insurance is there to cover them.

jrt1962 wrote: Better regulation-yes. Government healthcare-no way. For healthy people like you or me all that would mean is yet another paycheck deduction for a benefit we'll seldom, if ever, use. Governments are notoriously poor at managing costs when they're put in charge of something. Just look at the ballooning Medicaid costs faced by NYS. Picture that on a national level. The problem with government run anything is the lack of accountability. Face it-the workers really have no real incentive to keep costs down since it's not their personal money. I think medical savings accounts combined with some form of catastrophic only health coverage would be the best bet to solve the problem. Yes, the government has a role keeping diseases from spreading via the CDC and insuring sanitary water/air, but everyday health care is something it would run very poorly.

Probably because it would be underfunded. I don't mind the paycheck deduction -- however, as a matter of fact, as you'll recall, I currently have no paycheck reduction... Neither does the MTA. Even if there were (which there wouldn't be if employers stopped mucking around) I'd much prefer "we all pay in because you never know when you're going to use it." I'm really not so against the whole, y'know, "society" thing.