more EE Times nonsense
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 26 Apr 2010 18:05 On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:53:25 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >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. Change jobs? Our insurance company is already adding absolutely unnecessary "features" to our insurance plan because Obummer thinks it's a good idea. <...>
From: Michael A. Terrell on 26 Apr 2010 19:41 dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > 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) The e-mail came from Cliff Stern's office. He is on the VA steering committee. They still can't give me a firm answer, since some politicians want to exclude some VA benefits from qualifying. > 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 veteran�s 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). -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: JosephKK on 27 Apr 2010 00:49 On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 08:25:36 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Apr 23, 10:30 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:18:59 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >On Apr 23, 6:36 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> 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: >> >> >> > > 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. >> >> >My source is HR 3590, the bill itself. I find the horse itself to be >> >the best source for such manure, don't you? >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >Maybe you can get someone to read it to you and explain it. I'm not >> >so inclined. >> >> >James Arthur >> >> Take away more of his excuses, post a link for him and email him a copy >> of the result from the link. > >It's not my purpose to find Bill a Bill-approved journalist to pre- >chew his cud for him. As for myself, why on earth would I depend on a >journalism major with half my wits and a quarter my experience to do >my thinking for me? Easy there, James, i am on your side. I have noticed that you have been able to pin Bill far better than most of us most of the time. I really, really appreciate the way you have examined the scam. > >For those who really care, the pertinent information can easily be >found in the bill itself, available at the Library of Congress-- >http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h3590: > >Get the "enrolled" bill, the one that passed, not the earlier drafts. Yep, have a copy of the engrossed bill. > >A few highlights: >o The individual mandate--excuse me "individual responsibility"-- is >in Section 1501, the ban on physician-owned hospitals is set forth in >Sec. 6001(a)(i). > >o Sec. 1514 describes how employers must now file health insurance >returns on their employees, i.e., rat them out. > >o Sec. 10106(b) (p791) describes the penalty for not having insurance, >to be enforced by the IRS. > Thank you some more, i am starting to use these parts of the text of the thing to discuss the nature of the bill in the workplace. > >Without bothering to thrash everyone with these and more particulars, >the fact that they have to force you to buy it, and have extensively >specified enforcement, penalties, and surveillance, makes plain on its >face that this is not a gift, and Obama hasn't graciously 'extended' >anything. You have to buy government-specified (Sec. 1302) insurance, >whether you want it or not. > >If you want more particulars, read the damn thing. I did. It's like >the worst idiot's kludged design you ever had to fix, worse. > >The architecture is simply brain-dead. To an engineer it decompiles >into the intention of a switching regulator, but where the blocks have >been connected backwards, the feedback sense is backwards, connected >to a fixed reference, resistors substituted for inductors, etc. It >hasn't the slightest chance of providing clean, efficient, regulated >power, much less making anything cheaper or better. > >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. I am already seeing estimates of 1/2 more than advertised and up. > >P.P.S. That, BTW, isn't rocket science, it's just the establishment >just now catching up on part of something I posted months ago. That's >not my estimate, it's just one, simple, obvious error (or untruth) I >saw in /their/ estimate. Of course, now that the CBO and others that do the arithmetic are not hobbled by totally unrealistic assumptions, better estimates are coming out. The cost will exceed 2 times more than advertised. > >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. And about 15T the next two decades, bankrupting the USA.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 27 Apr 2010 08:16 On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:02:42 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >As long as human personality is what it is, and lacking active damping >mechanisms, we will continue to have destructive bubbles. Fits your stupidity to a tee.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 27 Apr 2010 08:17
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:02:42 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >That's what McDonalds are for. > >John Go ahead, Johnny. Eat McD for the next ten years every day. See if your arteries don't plaque up. Larkin is yet again... retarded. |