more EE Times nonsense
in [Design]
|
From: dagmargoodboat on 25 Apr 2010 19:57 On Apr 25, 10:46 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Apr 25, 5:25 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > P.S. Oh, and the bit I posted on Obamacare already officially > > estimated as costing 1/3rd more than advertised was widely reported in > > the AP, Bill's anemic Google-fu notwithstanding. > > So post the web-site. If you can't, you are a liar. You claimed the > estimates came from the HSS, but they weren't to be found on the HSS > web-site. My googling skills may be anaemic, but they were enough to > demonstrate that you weren't telling the whole truth. Must you always be so tedious and lazy both? That's H-ealth and H- uman S-ervices, Bill, not H-igh S-peed S-teel. Here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_law_costs http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-0423-hhs-healthcare-20100423,0,1226724.story http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/93947-govt-report-new-health-law-could-lead-to-higher-prices-employers-dropping-coverage- --- To everyone else, look below the LA Times' headline to their subtitle, and discard the AP's apologies and false comparisons--the meat is that Obamacare hasn't even started, but already tallies $311B more than advertised. That's an increase of 1/3rd, exactly as I posted. That's pure deficit baby. There's plenty more where that came from. This "revelation" only corrects part of Pelsoi-Reid-Obama's own accounting blunders, but still uses their own absurd assumptions--e.g. infinite revenue, super GDP growth, that no one will actually use the service, or be thrown into by employers--and with Obamacare only fully operational for the last two of those first ten years. Realistic assumptions make the thing double the disaster, and more. If the President were a CEO, and Pelosi and Reid his executives, they'd all be in jail (rules relating to forward-looking disclosures, material omissions & misrepresentations, fraud, etc.). The nation needs financial reform--we need to fire Congress. > > Mr. Obama and his co-conspirators swore on a stack of Bibles that > > Obamacare cost less than $940B for the first ten years. Real cost for > > the 1st decade of full implementation is estimated by several sources-- > > not me--at $2.5T. > > Several sources - none of which you can point to. Probably because > they are even more obviously right-wing fruit-cakes than you are. I > imagine that telling us who they actually were would shred what little > remains of your crediblity. I've thrown you all the bones I'm going to--our job is to amuse the group. Since you're an expert, why don't you lecture us all more about the Tea Party movement instead, its dark roots and designs? _That's_ entertainment. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Michael A. Terrell on 25 Apr 2010 21:38 dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > 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. I received an email the other day stating that my VA health care may not be considered as insurance, even though I'm now 100% disabled. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: dagmargoodboat on 25 Apr 2010 23:53 On Apr 25, 8:38 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > 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. > > I received an email the other day stating that my VA health care may > not be considered as insurance, even though I'm now 100% disabled. I'm not familiar with the different veteran's benefit programs, but AFAICT your VA coverage should count as 'minimum acceptable coverage' under Sec. 5000(f)(1)(A) of HR3590, the 1st Intolerable Act of 2010. So, at least you don't (and shouldn't) have to worry about the mandate, brother Michael. (I've quoted the text below) Regular people who ever change jobs, of course, will be forced to buy the new, bigger, dumber, more expensive insurance. HTH, James Arthur --------------- HR3590 Sec. 5000(f) (1) IN GENERAL.The term minimum essential coverage means any of the following: (A) GOVERNMENT SPONSORED PROGRAMS.Coverage under (i) the Medicare program under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act, (ii) the Medicaid program under title XIX of the Social Security Act, (iii) the CHIP program under title XXI of the Social Security Act, (iv) the TRICARE for Life program, (v) the veterans health care program under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, or (vi) a health plan under section 2504(e) of title 22, United States Code (relating to Peace Corps volun- teers).
From: Bill Sloman on 26 Apr 2010 03:44 On Apr 26, 1:57 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Apr 25, 10:46 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > On Apr 25, 5:25 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > P.S. Oh, and the bit I posted on Obamacare already officially > > > estimated as costing 1/3rd more than advertised was widely reported in > > > the AP, Bill's anemic Google-fu notwithstanding. > > > So post the web-site. If you can't, you are a liar. You claimed the > > estimates came from the HSS, but they weren't to be found on the HSS > > web-site. My googling skills may be anaemic, but they were enough to > > demonstrate that you weren't telling the whole truth. > > Must you always be so tedious and lazy both? That's H-ealth and H- > uman S-ervices, Bill, not H-igh S-peed S-teel. > > Here: > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_law_costshttp://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-0423-hhs-healthcare-2010...http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/93947-govt-report-new-heal... > --- > > To everyone else, look below the LA Times' headline to their subtitle, > and discard the AP's apologies and false comparisons--the meat is that > Obamacare hasn't even started, but already tallies $311B more than > advertised. That's an increase of 1/3rd, exactly as I posted. In fact, the total helth care bill is 35 trillion dollars, so the predcted increase is around 1%, which is well within the margin of error of this kind of estimate. > That's pure deficit baby. That's pure alarmism, baby, particularly when you note that the new legisation extends coverage to an extra 35 million people, roughly 11% of the US population. > There's plenty more where that came from. This "revelation" only > corrects part of Pelsoi-Reid-Obama's own accounting blunders, but > still uses their own absurd assumptions--e.g. infinite revenue, super > GDP growth, that no one will actually use the service, or be thrown > into by employers--and with Obamacare only fully operational for the > last two of those first ten years. Realistic assumptions make the > thing double the disaster, and more. Since the existing health care system is already a disaster, costing at least half as much again as comparable systmes elsewhere. The current extravagance swamps the relatively small additional cost of Obama's additions, and makes nonsense of your alarmist claims. > If the President were a CEO, and Pelosi and Reid his executives, > they'd all be in jail (rules relating to forward-looking disclosures, > material omissions & misrepresentations, fraud, etc.). If you had any formal responsibility for the rubbish you post, you'd be in jail for fraud. > The nation needs financial reform--we need to fire Congress. For the faults of the exisiting health care system, not for the limited reforms that Obama has managed to squeeze out if the presnet - deeply flawed - system. > > > Mr. Obama and his co-conspirators swore on a stack of Bibles that > > > Obamacare cost less than $940B for the first ten years. Real cost for > > > the 1st decade of full implementation is estimated by several sources-- > > > not me--at $2.5T. Your reports say $311 billion dollars, not 2.5 trillion - where do you get the extra $2,2 trillion dloolars from? > > Several sources - none of which you can point to. Probably because > > they are even more obviously right-wing fruit-cakes than you are. I > > imagine that telling us who they actually were would shred what little > > remains of your crediblity. > > I've thrown you all the bones I'm going to--our job is to amuse the > group. Which does seem to involve posting unsupported and alarmist lies. > Since you're an expert, why don't you lecture us all more > about the Tea Party movement instead, its dark roots and designs? > > _That's_ entertainment. The Tea Party is silly enough to be entertaining, but Europe has had more painful experieinces with irrational right-wing populists than the US, and we consequently worry rather more about the damage they might do if they - God forbid - ever acquired real politcal power. The Germasn remember the Nazi's, the Italians remember the Fascists, and in the Netherlands we have less dramatic - but more recent - memories of the Lijst Pim Fortuyn, when Pim Fortuyn's assassination injected 26 of his lunatic right-wing followers into Parliment and government where they created havoc for a few months before the government fell; in the consequent elections only eight were re- elected, and none of the survived the next election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 26 Apr 2010 05:40
On Apr 23, 9:20 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Apr 22, 7:57 pm, John Larkin wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:45:06 -0700 (PDT),Bill Slomanwrote: > > >On Apr 21, 6:02 pm, John Larkin > > >The Nazi's - like the Tea Party loonies - portrayed themselves as anti- > > >socialist. The particular Tea Party lunacy that I find particularly > > >unattractive is their argument that Obama's cautious move towards > > >Bismark's universal health insurance is some kind of step towards a > > >dictatorial totalitarian socialist state. Britain, France and Germany > > >all have appreciably more comprehensive national medical insurance > > >schemes, and manage to maintain representative democratic governments > > >- why do the Tea Party nitwits imagine that a less comprehensive > > >version of the same kind of health cover is going to turn the USA into > > >some kind of Orwellian nightmare? > > > It's not the same kind. The Pelosi-Obama health plan was designed to > > fail. As it will. Then they will blame the insurance companies and > > doctors for "greed" and ratchet up the taxes, control, and failure. 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. > > HHS released an estimate today. Since the thing was rammed thru > without Democrats even reading it, no one had a chance for responsible > review before. > > Their take? The cost for the first ten years is at least 1/3rd more > than advertised. > > IOW, it increases--not decreases--costs, it adds to the deficit. That > gets rapidly worse as the thing fully phases in--it doesn't really get > rolling for six or seven years, and it's then the losses mount. > > Oh, that's just the federal cost--it doesn't count the cost to > companies[1], or the trillions private citizens will be compelled to > spend. All of which takes money and jobs from the economy, of > course. It also creates artificial demand, driving up prices. > > So, they've made health insurance just as affordable as they made > mortgages. Sweeeet. > > [1] e.g.http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=10459283 As usual, James Arthur doesn't pay any attention to the ways in which the bill will reduce health care costs. As the Canadian studies point out, the biggest single estravagance in the US health care budget is the astronomical cost of administering the system - the US health insurance companies employ a lot more people to run their system than anyybody else finds necessary or useful. The reason is obvious enough - with 20% of the population under- insured, it pays to have a host of clerks inspecting every last claim for payment for treatment. Every claim that they can reject adds to their profits, and when they can find some excuse to cancel the health insurance on some sick person they save even more money. Obama's legislation forbids the health insurance companies from withdrawing insurance on the basis of pre-exisitng conditions, and the new "compulsory" health insurance should vastly reduce the proportion of the under-insured. This is going to dramatically reduce the number of claims that the health insurance companies can reject,and the size of the corps of claim checkers that it is going to pay the health insurers to support. With fewer excuses to for the insurers to short change their customers, there's less money to pay the salaries of the people doing the checking and there are going to be many fewer of them. This isn't going to slim down the health insurance companies to European or Canadian proportions, but it is going to be a big step in the right direction. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |