Saw Stop makes local paper

algale · Post by **algale** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 8:13 pm

dusty wrote: I live in an area where I believe there is a disproportionate number of people who do not have healthcare provisions provided by an employer. These people place an extreme burden on the system and something needs to be done to resolve that but I don't believe the Affordable Healthcare Act is going to do that. Extreme low income people are not going to pay for medical coverage no matter what the Government mandates. To do so, they would have to chose to not provide their own primary needs (food and shelter).

Dusty these are great observations and I believe you are 100% right.

smredleg · Post by **smredleg** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:07 pm

No, no no! Mandatory innoculations can be required to attend a brick and mortar school, for that I cannot dissagree, but what about home schooling?
I regret to say our present administration thinks we're to dumb to think for ourselves. I'm simply saying that there is nothing wrong with a device that'd insure my safety. Darn, let me decide about what safety decices I want, not the government. FYI 49% of Americans pay no income tax now.
I can just see another board of non-elected bureaurcrates dictating our shop safety and policing.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:14 pm

algale wrote:He never for a second has said that altruism is his goal. He admits he hopes to make a lot of money off his invention while also doing something good.

Incidentally, there are examples of the Government putting regulations in place that financially benefit a patent owner to the exclusion of all others. Mandatory vaccine programs involving patented vaccines are one example.

Of course not! He just likes to indirectly imply so(not an uncommon ploy unfortunately).

So one illogical precedent begets others. Doesn't make any of them right!

I totally agree with the right to the fruits of one's efforts, but keep the playing field open and level. His creation and selling of saw stop is a correct and reasonable endeavor. If that was the extent of the 'play', it would be 'fair'. What we be observing is an entirely different game plan.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:16 pm

smredleg wrote:No, no no! Mandatory innoculations can be required to attend a brick and mortar school, for that I cannot dissagree, but what about home schooling?
I regret to say our present administration thinks we're to dumb to think for ourselves. I'm simply saying that there is nothing wrong with a device that'd insure my safety. Darn, let me decide about what safety decices I want, not the government. FYI 49% of Americans pay no income tax now.
I can just see another board of non-elected bureaurcrates dictating our shop safety and policing.

So you want politicians doing the dictating?:eek:

smredleg · Post by **smredleg** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:19 pm

Er, no . I want me to make my choices.

heathicus · Post by **heathicus** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:18 pm

dusty wrote:I live in an area where I believe there is a disproportionate number of people who do not have healthcare provisions provided by an employer.

I believe that making health insurance and employer's responsibility or duty was one of the worst steps ever taken. It is one more way that healthcare decisions are taken away from people.

All aspects of my healthcare should be my decision. How I pay for it, who I pay for it, what doctors I see, etc. I would much rather that portion that my employer pays for my healthcare be given directly to me instead. Then I be responsible for my own health insurance. And, when I go to the doctor he shouldn't bill my insurance company. He should bill me directly. And if I don't like what he charges, I find a cheaper doctor. And then I can get reimbursement from my insurance company.

*I* should be directly involved in every step of the way. Treatment decisions should be between me and the doctor, not the doctor and he insurance company. Payment negotiations should be between me and the doctor, not the doctor and the insurance company. What insurance I have, how much I pay, and what is and isn't covered should be between me and the insurance company, not my employer and the insurance company. It is my health care, and yet, under the current arrangements, I have very little say in any of it.

But then, I also think taxes should be that way too. Employers shouldn't be tax collectors any more than they should be health insurance agents. Pay me all my money, and let me send a check to the government for my taxes.

But I digress...

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:37 pm

I, too, digress but that is the way of the forum.

The problem with medical costs is that every one has then but some people have NO WAY to pay for them. It is those people that need to be taken care of by the system. For those of us that "have no coverage", I believe the hospital should treat as required and be paid by the Government. The Government can then collect from those who could not/would not pay.

This way, everyone get the medical care that they need, those who are able to pay pay for themselves and those who cannot pay will be covered by the system.

It will then be the Government who either collects or carries. Sorta like college loans. The Government pays for higher education and then collects from the doctors and lawyers after they are gainfully employed.

If the Government collects those in the same aggressive manner they collected from me when I was over paid by the VA for a summer session, the Government will be solvent in no time.

The Government simply garnished my AF pay check until it was paid. No matter that the kids had no shoes.

ryanbp01 · Post by **ryanbp01** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:06 pm

I still would like to know how the technology, if mandated, would affect Shopsmith.

BPR

terrydowning · Post by **terrydowning** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:10 pm

ryanbp01 wrote:I still would like to know how the technology, if mandated, would affect Shopsmith.

BPR

Me too.

Shopsmith execs, please chime in... as only you (in conjunction with your legal team of course) have the answers for this.

Ed in Tampa · Post by **Ed in Tampa** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:38 am

I see my earlier post have been deleted out, okay I will play nice.

Nobody has addressed the issue of what happens when this technology if mandated increases the cost of the saw to point no one will buy it.

Sawstop has claimed that including cost little yet when no one would use their technology they built their own saws. Their saws while very nice are almost double the price of a similar saw. For instance the Ridgid T3650 which I believe to be a very excellent machine costs around $600 the Sawstop contractor saw costs (the last I looked) $1800. Even a Delta contractor saw costs under a $1000.

The saw that caused this accident I believe was cheap Ryobi that costs less than $200. When you install this technology on this saw, based on the Gass' own costs, it would be very close to $400.

That cost difference is enough to make a person decide not to buy the saw in the first place.

So while we MAY prevent injury we most certainly will be costing some people their jobs.