more EE Times nonsense
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 23 Apr 2010 18:36 On Apr 23, 9:02 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Apr 23, 6:40 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > On Apr 23, 1:57 am, John Larkin > > > It's not the same kind. The Pelosi-Obama health plan was designed to > > > fail. > > > What makes you think that - apart from your habit of proclaiming > > propositions that what you'd like to be true? I've not seen any such > > claim from a trustworthy commentator. > > > > As it will. > > > Unlikely. The mechanics of health insurance is well understood. > > Indeed. This, heretofore, would've been impossible in the United > States:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1266983/Cancer-survivor-bar... It's called "queue-jumping" in the U.K. and widely frowned upon. Since the medical insurance model that Obama seems to favour is more closely based on Bismark's system - as used in Germany, France and the Netherlands, the U.K. National Health system has no relevance to the US situation. > > >Then they will blame the insurance companies and > > > doctors for "greed" and ratchet up the taxes, control, and failure. > > > We know that you'd like to think that this will happen, and the "Tea > > Party" nutcases are happy to predict this outcome, because that's what > > they want to happen, but have you seen any such prediction from > > somebody who hasn't got an axe to grind? > > > > As "The Great Society" laid waste to American cities, Obamacare will > > > lay waste to health care. > > > > It's not as if they did anything that will make health care more > > > available or more affordable. > > > Extending health insurance to an extra thirty million people isn't > > going to make health care more available and affordable for them? > > Obama doesn't 'extend' health insurance to anyone. He simply requires > they buy over-priced insurance that covers more things than they could > possibly need. If they won't, they go to jail. You would think that. If you could find a less biased source to valdidate that particular point of view, it might be worth thinking about. > Obamacare includes a bunch of limitations on competing outfits that > his followers wanted punished, like physician-owned hospitals. > Various carve-outs based on race / 'diversity'. And, he offers > handouts to half of America, to buy their votes with their own money. > > You know--robbing Peter to pay Peter. I know what you want to believe. I do not think that you would let mere facts change your opinion. You could try and cite some ostensibly un-biased source - a slightly less right-wing newspaper than the UK Daily Mail would have rather more credibility - but you are unlikely to bother. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: krw on 23 Apr 2010 19:09 On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 22:23:49 +0100, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >John Larkin wrote: > >> This *will* cause insurance rates to zoom up, which is why the >> insurance companies didn't mind it much. After they zoom, the Dems >> will blame the insurance companies for "greed" and knife them in the >> back. It's a designed-to-fail strategy. > >At least you can say that they have learned something from Wall Street. >If it is good enough for Goldman Sachs then it has to be OK? That's certainly Obama's position. >http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/sec.goldman.fortune/index.htm > >The ultimate in designed to fail strategies that always pay the banker. Yep, then whine about the results so you can put more "rules" in place to fleece the taxpayer. That's the Obama way.
From: krw on 23 Apr 2010 19:11 On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:08:35 -0400, Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 08:02:25 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 21:19:31 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>>http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=DFFJECICZMUC5QE1GHPSKH4ATMY32JVN?articleID=224202619 >>> >>> >>>MIT does one of these silly press-release scientific breakthroughs >>>about once a week, and EE Times prints them all. They are turning >>>themselves into Popular Mechanics. >>> >>>John >> >> >>The latest issue of EE Times is 42 pages. >> >>John > >But National Semiconductor can afford ads on the boards in Stanley Cup >playoff games. How many VIP boxes does that buy?
From: dagmargoodboat on 23 Apr 2010 19:44 On Apr 23, 3:49 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:02:03 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > wrote: > > > > >On Apr 23, 6:40 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> On Apr 23, 1:57 am, John Larkin > > >> > It's not the same kind. The Pelosi-Obama health plan was designed to > >> > fail. > > >> What makes you think that - apart from your habit of proclaiming > >> propositions that what you'd like to be true? I've not seen any such > >> claim from a trustworthy commentator. > > >> > As it will. > > >> Unlikely. The mechanics of health insurance is well understood. > > >Indeed. This, heretofore, would've been impossible in the United > >States: > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1266983/Cancer-survivor-bar... > > >> >Then they will blame the insurance companies and > >> > doctors for "greed" and ratchet up the taxes, control, and failure. > > >> We know that you'd like to think that this will happen, and the "Tea > >> Party" nutcases are happy to predict this outcome, because that's what > >> they want to happen, but have you seen any such prediction from > >> somebody who hasn't got an axe to grind? > > >> > As "The Great Society" laid waste to American cities, Obamacare will > >> > lay waste to health care. > > >> > It's not as if they did anything that will make health care more > >> > available or more affordable. > > >> Extending health insurance to an extra thirty million people isn't > >> going to make health care more available and affordable for them? > > >Obama doesn't 'extend' health insurance to anyone. He simply requires > >they buy over-priced insurance that covers more things than they could > >possibly need. If they won't, they go to jail. > > >Obamacare includes a bunch of limitations on competing outfits that > >his followers wanted punished, like physician-owned hospitals. > >Various carve-outs based on race / 'diversity'. And, he offers > >handouts to half of America, to buy their votes with their own money. > > >You know--robbing Peter to pay Peter. > > >James Arthur > > It's outrageous that they did nothing about medical liability costs, > generic drugs, or the two huge insurance company goodies: antitrust > exemption and state-by-state licensing. I heard a tight-lipped Warren Buffett and Bill Gates on some PBS show comment that it was too bad Obama didn't do anything about cost. They called it "a lost opportunity." I was surprised to see Kaiser Permanente's website seemed in favor of the thing. The bill has some pretty stiff prohibitions on physician- owned hospitals, which I thought they were. OTOH, existing POH are grandfathered, and there's a curiously complicated formula about who's exempt. You know, like when you get a customer to write you into their spec? > This *will* cause insurance rates to zoom up, which is why the > insurance companies didn't mind it much. After they zoom, the Dems > will blame the insurance companies for "greed" and knife them in the > back. It's a designed-to-fail strategy. IIRC it was the CBO that estimated insurance rates will go up 15-17%, and total national spending on health care to increase 3% from 17% to 20% of GDP. I think they're dreaming, but then, by law, they have to go by the assumptions they're given. James
From: dagmargoodboat on 23 Apr 2010 19:59
On Apr 23, 5:23 pm, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > John Larkin wrote: > > This *will* cause insurance rates to zoom up, which is why the > > insurance companies didn't mind it much. After they zoom, the Dems > > will blame the insurance companies for "greed" and knife them in the > > back. It's a designed-to-fail strategy. > > At least you can say that they have learned something from Wall Street. > If it is good enough for Goldman Sachs then it has to be OK? > > http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/sec.goldman.fortune/in... I'm mixed on whether Goldman was dirty on this one. They, after all, invested in the thing themselves, and lost $90M on it. That doesn't sound like they thought it was doomed. If anything, it sounds like they didn't get their money's worth from Paulson, whom they paid $15M to choose the holdings. > The ultimate in designed to fail strategies that always pay the banker. Wrong. The banker, Goldman Sachs, lost. Interestingly, Goldman's CEO has been having lots of chats with Obama-- multiple visits to the White House. It all looks like a play to pass Obama's latest takeover, with its brain-dead built-in bailout fund. That's guaranteed stupid--it saves companies it shouldn't, gives the Executive dictatorial powers over private companies, and invites corruption, as private companies will exist only at the whim of the Executive. It's embarrassing. James Arthur |