more EE Times nonsense
in [Design]
|
From: dagmargoodboat on 29 Apr 2010 16:51 On Apr 29, 11:22 am, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi James, > > <dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:330479dd-9c17-4190-8757-d0a4f6a0ace9(a)i9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > Taxes will have to increase >60% to sustain the budgets Mr. Obama > > currently projects. > > That strikes me as likely to be high, but I guess we'll just see... I based that guesstimate on the fact that last year Mr. Obama spent 60% more than the entire federal revenue, and this year he intends to do the same. Future years too, basically. > > S: 'But you have to, they passed that. It's the law." > > Insurance company: "Well, umm, we're not doing that. We don't think > > that's a valid law." > > I'm surprised an insurance company would take that stance ("we're just not > going to play") rather than beginning to play while simultaneously challenging > the ruling -- it's much riskier in terms of the punishment they might face if > they don't prevail. Obama will likely toss their CEO in jail to serve as an > example... ;-) > > > On balance the new policies have to cost more--the new coverage has to > > cover all the things previously covered, plus more conditions, with > > fewer limits, by law with lower deductibles and co-pays. > > Agreed, although they did make an effort to try to minimize that increase.. I disagree. There is nothing in the bill to reduce the cost or price of medical care or medical insurance, there are only additional requirements that perforce must increase both cost and price of care, and insurance. Further, ordinary policies must now subsidize both lower-income types, and the 10-15% previously uninsured. So, the cost must reflect at least the same number of payers, paying for 10% more people, plus more coverage for more conditions. Hence the estimates of premiums rising 15-17%, initially. The only line-items offering reductions I'm aware of come from actual reductions in services to people on Medicare and Medicaid. > > Inexpensive > > high-deductible policies are now illegal. > > Yeah, I kinda see the reasoning that caused this, but I think they could have > done a better job with it. The diminution of HSAs (and probably their > eventual elimination) doesn't please me either. > > >That simply costs more. There's no way around it, and there's no free > >lunch. > > In some cases a 21-26 year old might be best off (strictly from a financial > expenditure point of view) declaring themselves as independent and then just > taking the "standard" government benefits policy. The most reasonable strategy is not to buy insurance until you need it; the penalties for a student without any income will be minimal, AFAICT (that part is particularly convoluted--I'm still unraveling it). > > Here's how you /really/ improve health, and it has nothing to do with > > government anything-- > >http://www.aolnews.com/health/article/study-mortality-risk-spikes-for... > > Basically: Don't smoke, eat your fruits & veggies, exercise, and don't drink > too much. Do all four and, on average, you'll add ten+ years to your life. That's a zillion times more powerful than all of Obamacare's mumbo jumbo, at the cost of no one's freedom or treasure, and saves a fortune on medical care, all without government. In fact, all of these things are completely beyond government's power to give us, yet we're poised to spend trillions trying. The most powerful, most effective things are those we do ourselves. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 29 Apr 2010 17:43 On Apr 29, 1:16 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Apr 29, 7:43 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > On Apr 27, 4:38 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > On Apr 27, 3:40 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > 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." > > > Absolutely true. > > > Just a few examples: bailouts, the health insurance mandate, GM, > > regulating CO2 (via the EPA), and home renovations (by the same), all > > are illegitimate, and illegal under our law. > > Illegal under your law? I haven't seen anybody bothering to sue. And > Obama was a hot shot lawyer before he became a poltician, Mr. Obama was never a hot shot lawyer. He's only known to have worked on two cases, one for ACORN, to pressure banks into making more subprime loans. The other case was similar--can't recall the details offhand. You really don't know anything about this stuff. > and should > be able to work out how to get things done the way he wants without > breaking any law, which is more than Dubbya could manage. I'd give you examples of Obama's actions and ask you to cite the law permitting, but we both know you couldn't and can't. Or maybe you can--here's a softball: Q1: What law allows the federal government to impose the insurance mandate? A1: Answer: none. They can't legally do it. Q2: On what (faulty) legal theory is the insurance mandate based? A2: <insert your answer here, Bill> Q3: If they can insist Americans buy insurance, what can't they insist Americans buy? A4: Nothing. By this theory, there is nothing that Congress and the President cannot compel Americans to do, or buy, at their sole discretion. Nothing. Q4: How does this reality (A3) comport with the limited government meticulously promulgated by America's Founders, a requirement they thought essential to prevent usurpation of the Peoples' liberty, leading, ultimately, to despotisms and tyrannies? A4: It exactly contradicts that principle. > > We're to be surveilled in our financial transactions, homes, medical > > records, and so forth, categorized and tracked to an extent > > unprecedented in our history. > > Funny that you didn't complain when Dubbya did this for real after > 9/11, and reintroduced torture as a method of interrogation - but I > suppose that since he is a right wing idiot, anything he did was > okay .. I disagree that tapping US calls to known terrorists in other countries--with subsequent judicial review--infringes on my civil liberties. That notwithstanding, Mr. Obama has endorsed and expanded that practice under the Patriot Act. So, again, you're wrong, and your beliefs are founded on wrong information. Mr. Obama's measures will affect, monitor, and intrude on the privacy of each and every American citizen. Period. > > The President has compromised more civil liberties, seized without > > right more private property, gone farther beyond our Constitution than > > any President, ever. > > Any non-right-wing president. > > > He actively uses his office to pursue, slander, oppress, punish, and > > vilify any number of private citizens, opponents, private companies, > > and entire industries. It's unseemly. > > That funny. I thought Karl Rove worked for Dubbya. > > > And under the theories he operates, there is no limit to his power. > > Whereas Dubbya just reserved the right to ignore bills he disagreed > with Such as? Ignoring or not approving a bill he disapproves of is a President's duty; that's not the same as, for example, confiscating a car company and dividing the spoils amongst your supporters. > > Barack Obama is the closest thing to a dictator this country has ever > > had. > > He's as close to middle of road as any president that you've had since > Clinton, and you find this terrifying, you one-eyed partisan nitwit. Again, you speak from prejudice, and not from knowledge. Mr. Obama, in his tenure in Congress, had the most liberal, most partisan voting record of any Senator. (e.g. http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/voteratings/) Mr. Obama was to the left of all 99 other Senators. That's not middle- of-the-road, that's off the shoulder in the grass. Mr. Obama is well left of the Democratic party he's hijacked. So, again, you're as wrong as it's possible to be--he's the left-most, as far left as they come. Not middle-of-the-road. Mr. Obama does not represent even the majority of traditional Democrats, or their values. He's not what Democrats have historically stood for, he's something new entirely, something quite extreme. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Bill Sloman on 30 Apr 2010 09:33 On Apr 29, 11:43 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Apr 29, 1:16 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 29, 7:43 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > On Apr 27, 4:38 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 27, 3:40 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > 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." > > > > Absolutely true. > > > > Just a few examples: bailouts, the health insurance mandate, GM, > > > regulating CO2 (via the EPA), and home renovations (by the same), all > > > are illegitimate, and illegal under our law. > > > Illegal under your law? I haven't seen anybody bothering to sue. And > > Obama was a hot shot lawyer before he became a poltician, > > Mr. Obama was never a hot shot lawyer. He's only known to have worked > on two cases, one for ACORN, to pressure banks into making more > subprime loans. The other case was similar--can't recall the details > offhand. > > You really don't know anything about this stuff. > > > and should > > be able to work out how to get things done the way he wants without > > breaking any law, which is more than Dubbya could manage. > > I'd give you examples of Obama's actions and ask you to cite the law > permitting, but we both know you couldn't and can't. Or maybe you > can--here's a softball: > > Q1: What law allows the federal government to impose the insurance > mandate? > A1: Answer: none. They can't legally do it. This is a trifle bizarre. There is a whole legistative base for social security levies, taxes and impositions, supporting stuff like old age pensons, disaster relief and retraining. Health issues - notably infectious diseases - affect the body politic, and health insurance is just another aspect of this. > Q2: On what (faulty) legal theory is the insurance mandate based? A2: A law passed by congress and the senate. > Q3: If they can insist Americans buy insurance, what can't they insist > Americans buy? > A4: Nothing. By this theory, there is nothing that Congress and the > President cannot compel Americans to do, or buy, at their sole > discretion. Nothing. That is the basic idea behind representative democracy.If the elected representatives pass the relevant legislation, the minority that doesn't like it is still bound by that legislation. > Q4: How does this reality (A3) comport with the limited government > meticulously promulgated by America's Founders, a requirement they > thought essential to prevent usurpation of the Peoples' liberty, > leading, ultimately, to despotisms and tyrannies? Amongst other bizarre ideas, like the right of the people to bear arms outside the context of a well-regulated militia. Your Founding Fathers were sloppy draftsmen, and create the MS/DOS of constitutional documents. Take a look at more recent constitutions sometime - your guys had a lot to do with drafting the current German constitution, and it is rather better. > A4: It exactly contradicts that principle. In the opinion of a right wing conservative who probably thinks the the defence forces should be re-equipped with the Brown Bess musket, because that was what the Founding Father had in mind. > > > We're to be surveilled in our financial transactions, homes, medical > > > records, and so forth, categorized and tracked to an extent > > > unprecedented in our history. > > > Funny that you didn't complain when Dubbya did this for real after > > 9/11, and reintroduced torture as a method of interrogation - but I > > suppose that since he is a right wing idiot, anything he did was > > okay .. > > I disagree that tapping US calls to known terrorists in other > countries--with subsequent judicial review--infringes on my civil > liberties. That notwithstanding, Mr. Obama has endorsed and expanded > that practice under the Patriot Act. So, again, you're wrong, and > your beliefs are founded on wrong information. My belief was that you didn't complain when Dubbya did it, and only object to it being done by Obama ecause he isn't a Republican, so you aren't sincerely worried by the principle but are merely using it as an excuse to heckle Obama. My belief would not appear to be founded on wrong information - your counter-argument is a trasparent attempt to ignore the basis of my objection by setting up an irrelevant staw man. > > Mr. Obama's measures will affect, monitor, and intrude on the privacy > of each and every American citizen. Period. > > > > The President has compromised more civil liberties, seized without > > > right more private property, gone farther beyond our Constitution than > > > any President, ever. > > > Any non-right-wing president. > > > > He actively uses his office to pursue, slander, oppress, punish, and > > > vilify any number of private citizens, opponents, private companies, > > > and entire industries. It's unseemly. > > > That funny. I thought Karl Rove worked for Dubbya. > > > > And under the theories he operates, there is no limit to his power. > > > Whereas Dubbya just reserved the right to ignore bills he disagreed > > with > > Such as? > > Ignoring or not approving a bill he disapproves of is a President's > duty; that's not the same as, for example, confiscating a car company > and dividing the spoils amongst your supporters. The car company went bust. If the government hadn't intervened, its creditors would have confiscated its assets, and rather more people would have ended up out of work, and the US economy would have got closer to the state that your ideas managed to create in the early 1930's with 25% unemployment. You've got some kind of ideological commitment to policies that are calculated to wreck the economy. Complaining that doctors won't do the blood-letting and cupping that your economic theory prescribes may strike you as rational behaviour, but it looks like sheer lunacy to people who don't share your delusions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression > > > Barack Obama is the closest thing to a dictator this country has ever > > > had. > > > He's as close to middle of road as any president that you've had since > > Clinton, and you find this terrifying, you one-eyed partisan nitwit. > > Again, you speak from prejudice, and not from knowledge. Mr. Obama, > in his tenure in Congress, had the most liberal, most partisan voting > record of any Senator. > > (e.g.http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/voteratings/) > > Mr. Obama was to the left of all 99 other Senators. That's not middle- > of-the-road, that's off the shoulder in the grass. Mr. Obama is well > left of the Democratic party he's hijacked. From your far-right-wing point of view. From a European perspective, he's a pragmatic fixer. > So, again, you're as wrong as it's possible to be--he's the left-most, > as far left as they come. Not middle-of-the-road. The US political spectrum runs from pragmatic to lunatic right wing. You really don't know a thing about left-wing politcal theory - most of you can't tell the difference between a socialist and a communist - and your media makes sure that your electorate is scared silly of anything that could be seen as actually left wing. > Mr. Obama does not represent even the majority of traditional > Democrats, or their values. He's not what Democrats have historically > stood for, he's something new entirely, something quite extreme. No more new than Tony Blair, and no more encumbered with traditional left wing principles than Blair was. You don't like him because he used the internet to raise the kind of money - and more - that Republicans get from their rich supporters and used it to buy the kind of electoral success that the Republicans used to be able to buy for themselves by outspending the Democrats. Because Obama's money comes from a wider swathe of the population, his legislation is aimed more at keeping them happy than the legislation that you are used, to which was more aimed at a smaller population with more disposable income per head. He's not showing much interest in narrowing the very wide gap between rich and poor which distinguishes the US from most other advanced industrial countries, and from that point of view he isn't all that left wing at all, and certainly not "extreme". You aren't discussing his policies at all, just venting right-wing Republican political propaganda, very much in the Karl Rove tradition. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 30 Apr 2010 09:55 On Apr 29, 10:51 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Apr 29, 11:22 am, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > Hi James, > > > <dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >news:330479dd-9c17-4190-8757-d0a4f6a0ace9(a)i9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > > Taxes will have to increase >60% to sustain the budgets Mr. Obama > > > currently projects. > > > That strikes me as likely to be high, but I guess we'll just see... > > I based that guesstimate on the fact that last year Mr. Obama spent > 60% more than the entire federal revenue, and this year he intends to > do the same. Future years too, basically. > > > > S: 'But you have to, they passed that. It's the law." > > > Insurance company: "Well, umm, we're not doing that. We don't think > > > that's a valid law." > > > I'm surprised an insurance company would take that stance ("we're just not > > going to play") rather than beginning to play while simultaneously challenging > > the ruling -- it's much riskier in terms of the punishment they might face if > > they don't prevail. Obama will likely toss their CEO in jail to serve as an > > example... ;-) > > > > On balance the new policies have to cost more--the new coverage has to > > > cover all the things previously covered, plus more conditions, with > > > fewer limits, by law with lower deductibles and co-pays. > > > Agreed, although they did make an effort to try to minimize that increase. > > I disagree. There is nothing in the bill to reduce the cost or price > of medical care or medical insurance, there are only additional > requirements that perforce must increase both cost and price of care, > and insurance. Further, ordinary policies must now subsidize both > lower-income types, and the 10-15% previously uninsured. > > So, the cost must reflect at least the same number of payers, paying > for 10% more people, plus more coverage for more conditions. Hence > the estimates of premiums rising 15-17%, initially. This ignore the fact that US medical costs per head are half again higher than the - superior - German and French equivalents largely because US medical insurance administration costs are extravagantly high,\. One of the effects of the new bill is to make it more difficult to for the medical insurance industry to save money by withdrawing cover from sick patients. The hordes of clerks who currently spend their time looking for excuses to cancel policies aren't going to have as many opportunities to save money, and the total number that the insurance companies can profitably deploy is going to go down in proportion, decreasing one massive source of adminstrative cost. This may not show up in the simple-mind analyses that the medical insurance business feeds to sympathetic reporters, but it reflects and aspect of reality that more objective observers have been commenting on for years. > The most reasonable strategy is not to buy insurance until you need > it; the penalties for a student without any income will be minimal, > AFAICT (that part is particularly convoluted--I'm still unraveling > it). > > > > Here's how you /really/ improve health, and it has nothing to do with > > > government anything-- > > >http://www.aolnews.com/health/article/study-mortality-risk-spikes-for.... > > > Basically: Don't smoke, eat your fruits & veggies, exercise, and don't drink > > too much. > > Do all four and, on average, you'll add ten+ years to your life. > > That's a zillion times more powerful than all of Obamacare's mumbo > jumbo, at the cost of no one's freedom or treasure, and saves a > fortune on medical care, all without government. In fact, all of > these things are completely beyond government's power to give us, yet > we're poised to spend trillions trying. > > The most powerful, most effective things are those we do ourselves. So I did all of those things, and still got a calcified aortic valve that eventually needed to be replaced. Do-it-yourself open heart surgery isn't all that practical. I had about seven years when I know that the aortic valve was getting worse and would eventually need to be replaced. This isn't typical of heart problems - as my youngest brother tells me, in 30% of cases, the first sign of heart disease is sudden death. My father and my younger brother were in the lucky 70%, and got pain in the chest before the plaque in their coronary arteries broke loose and actually completely blocked the blood supply to part of the heart. My younger brother went from pain in the chest to a quadruple by=pass in one week. By virtue of my more healthier life-style, I've got a lot less plaque in my coronary arteries - one does seem to be 30% blocked, but surgeon who replaced my aortic valve didn't see any necessity to do anything about it, apart from making sure that I was on a cholesterol-lowering drug. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: dagmargoodboat on 5 May 2010 23:24
On Apr 30, 8:33 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Apr 29, 11:43 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > On Apr 29, 1:16 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > On Apr 29, 7:43 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: <snip> > > > > We're to be surveilled in our financial transactions, homes, medical > > > > records, and so forth, categorized and tracked to an extent > > > > unprecedented in our history. > > > > Funny that you didn't complain when Dubbya did this for real after > > > 9/11, and reintroduced torture as a method of interrogation - but I > > > suppose that since he is a right wing idiot, anything he did was > > > okay .. > > > I disagree that tapping US calls to known terrorists in other > > countries--with subsequent judicial review--infringes on my civil > > liberties. That notwithstanding, Mr. Obama has endorsed and expanded > > that practice under the Patriot Act. So, again, you're wrong, and > > your beliefs are founded on wrong information. > > My belief was that you didn't complain when Dubbya did it, and only > object to it being done by Obama ecause he isn't a Republican, so you > aren't sincerely worried by the principle but are merely using it as > an excuse to heckle Obama. You aren't getting it. I'm not talking about the Patriot Act. I don't give a fig about the Patriot Act--it doesn't affect me. I don't call terrorists in foreign countries. It doesn't do the things I listed, and it doesn't track the private data of every single American citizen. I'm talking about the mandatory medical insurance act, for starters-- that by itself is the greatest single encroachment on civil rights I can remember being enacted in my lifetime. (The new amnesty bill being debated--there's talk of requiring citizens to carry biometric cards. Absurd. Why not just implant RFID? Technology isn't the answer. Countries have known how to secure their borders since time immemorial. The truth is the immigration system isn't broken, as the President intoned today, it's being willfully violated by politicians, not enforced.) <snip> > You aren't discussing his policies at all, just venting right-wing > Republican political propaganda, very much in the Karl Rove tradition. I've discussed nothing but policy, in detail, citing the actual laws. I read the law and report what it says. You call that "right wing propaganda." James Arthur |