more EE Times nonsense
in [Design]
|
From: Jim Thompson on 27 Apr 2010 16:23 On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:18:08 -0400, Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:56:58 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:17:45 -0700, Archimedes' Lever >><OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>I don't think I've eaten at a McDonalds in the USA in years. They can >>be comforting when you're in England and crave some USian food. >> >>Lately we like In-n-Out for classic burger snacks. >> >>John > >Mmm... 'animal style' fries. > Yep, I was once in a McDonalds in Europe... Rothenburg ob der Tauber. Running out of D-Marks, I went in and bought a cup of coffee with a US$20 bill... getting change in D-Marks :-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Apr 2010 17:38 On Apr 27, 3:40 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Apr 26, 11:49 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 08:25:36 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >On Apr 23, 10:30 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> 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. > > Sorry Joseph, I wasn't barking at you, but indirectly at Bill. I'd > given him plenty enough info to go on, and didn't feel obliged to > answer his accusations. He should do his homework before calling > someone else a liar. But you are a liar - inadventently, because your political prejudices blind you to a lot of what is going on, and persuade you to post the kind of arrant nonsense that claims that "Barack Obama is the closest thing to a dictator this country has ever had." amongst a lot of similarly implausibel rubbish. > I actually research this stuff, I don't just make it up. But, granting your ideological blinkers, your attention is rather selective, to the point of being actively misleading. > Sometimes-- > not often--I make mistakes, and I appreciate being corrected, but Bill > was just grousing. What I was mainly grousing about was you posting a claim about an "HSS estimate" without posting a pointer to the estimate. Granting your somewhat biased point of view, your idea of what such an estimate tells us is rather different from what a less biassed observer might extract from the same resport. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Apr 2010 17:59 On Apr 27, 3:30 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Apr 26, 2:44 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > 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: > > > > > 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 dollars from? > > I'm beginning to think that, for whatever reason, you simply aren't > able to process all this, and that I was unkind to call you lazy. I'm > sorry. I know you've been through a lot recently, and I hope you're > feeling okay. > > Here's the overview: > > Rounding to one significant figure, Obamacare was billed as costing > $900B, which was to be paid for by $500B in Medicare cuts and $400B in > new taxes. > > Since Medicare reimbursements are already so low that doctors see > Medicare patients at a loss, Interesting claim. Do you mean that they make less money per Medicare patient than they do from patients with other health insurance, or are Medicare re-imbursements so low that they don't cover the malpractice insurance premimium the doctors have to pay for every patient they treat? > many have criticized those cuts as > unrealistic, especially since, in the same time as passing this > Obamacare, the Democrats were passing a separate bill called the > "Medicare fix" to reinstate those same "cuts." > > So, after some jiggling, a number of people have calculated that most > of the fictional "savings" don't exist, and, contrary to Obama's > assurances, that the plan is net negative by quite a lot--it increases > the deficit. I gave you 3 articles explaining that from various > viewpoints. The one article you liked, from the LA Times, spins a > hope-n-change headline: > > http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/22/nation/la-na-0423-hhs-healthc... > "Health bill may mean lower Medicare premiums," > > but, even *their* byline says: > > "But an independent federal report says it will also drive up overall > U.S. healthcare costs." > > So, as I'd posted, the $311B is *excess* cost, above and beyond the > $900B price tag that was advertised. > > The AP article I cited (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ > us_health_care_law_costs) spins that as a fraction of total national > spending: > "The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 > billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent." > > but you have to understand that the increase is a) excess cost, b) as > a result of this bill, and therefore c) properly attributed to this > bill; IOW, as I'd said, the bill already a) costs 1/3rd more than the > $900B Obama said it did, and b) there is no net savings from > Obamacare--Obamacare costs more. But it is a considerable step towards universal health care, and includes provisions which are likely to persuade all US health insurance companies to spend less money on administration, by preventing the health insurers from ripping off their clients by cancelling their insurance when there are medical costs to be reimbursed - paying lots of people to keep an eye policy holders for such opportunities is one of the resason why US health insurance is as expensive as it is. > The few real reductions in Medicare spending come, roughly, from > actual cuts in service that aren't fixed by the "Medicare fix"... > > "The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent > of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly > jeopardizing access" to care for seniors." --AP Translation - one in six hospitals and other institutional providers are badly run and would go to the wall if margins were cut. Better run institutions would hire the competent staff and take over the business. > What may have confused you is that there are three sets/categories > of estimates of the cost of Obamacare. In the 1st set, all the > figures above relate to a) the on-budget cost, b) to the federal > government only, c) during the next ten years, d) during which > Obamacare is really only fully operative for the last 2 years. I think you have confused yourself, by concentrating on Obamacare to the exclusion of the US health care system as a whole, which is an over-priced disaster, costing half as much again per head as its French and German equivalents, which deliver the same level of heath care to the entire populations as yours delivers to the fully insured elite - 65% of your population - and much better health care than your under-insured 20% get, let alone the un-insured 15%. > For a litany of reasons, the assumptions behind all 3 of these > categories of estimates are absurdly low, and the actual cost in real > life should be expected to be considerably more. > > I hope that helps. It make it perefectly clear where you are coming from - as if that was ever in doubt - and makes it equally clear that you haven't got a clue exactly how how much of an over-priced, under-performing mess the current US health care system actually is. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: WarmUnderbelly on 27 Apr 2010 18:40 On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:38:12 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >"Barack Obama is the closest thing to a dictator this country has ever >had." > >amongst a lot of similarly implausibel rubbish. You really do not understand how they inject pork into impending bills where assumption of passage is assumed. It is CRIME. I will ALWAYS declare it as such, and quite properly too.
From: WarmUnderbelly on 27 Apr 2010 18:43
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:59:14 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> Since Medicare reimbursements are already so low that doctors see >> Medicare patients at a loss, > >Interesting claim. Do you mean that they make less money per Medicare >patient than they do from patients with other health insurance, Yes, dipshit, they do. But the figure they get is also still actually more than the greedy bastards deserve. DOCTORS and the rest of the medical community are to blame for health care failure, and they are in bed with the insurance companies, and the proof is the difference between withholdings and company premium payments back in the seventies with respect to salary and number of family members, and that of today. They are as far off as you are. > or are >Medicare re-imbursements so low that they don't cover the malpractice >insurance premimium the doctors have to pay for every patient they >treat? You're a goddamned idiot. |