Jim Yanik wrote:

Douglas Johnson wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:

The whole death panel thing and it's variants is pure scare tactics.

No,it's a possible consequence of Obama's "change".

Please cite the bill(s) and relevant sections.
Thanks,
Doug


http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnH...bout_obamacare


Thanks for posting that link, but it didn't seem to contain any references to
specific pending bills and relevant sections in them. You don't expect any
article titled "5 Liberal Lies About Obamacare" to contain well referenced
research and this one doesn't disappoint.

It talks about 100 people a week in Britain losing their eye sight due to a
shortage of eye doctors. You dig into the reference they provide and you
discover it is all based on a single unsupported statement from a Liberal
Democrat MP. Would you believe it if Barney Frank said it? Scare tactics.

-- Doug

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:15:57 -0500, "Master Betty"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:32:38 -0500, "Master Betty"
wrote:

Look at the cost savings of streamlining the healthcare system to a one
payer system.

"This is a must see for everyone. Daniel Hannan makes a stunning
speech ridiculing Nationalised Health Care AKA Obamacare."

http://www.theospark.net/2009/08/spe...speaks-at.html

3 part video


Neat but what does it have to do with the 2 payer system? The title says
"Nationalized" HC.

I'll just presume you have not watched all three parts. You did reply
before having time to listen.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:15:57 -0500, "Master Betty"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:32:38 -0500, "Master Betty"
wrote:

Look at the cost savings of streamlining the healthcare system to a one
payer system.

"This is a must see for everyone. Daniel Hannan makes a stunning
speech ridiculing Nationalised Health Care AKA Obamacare."

http://www.theospark.net/2009/08/spe...speaks-at.html

3 part video


Neat but what does it have to do with the 2 payer system? The title says
"Nationalized" HC.

I'll just presume you have not watched all three parts. You did reply
before having time to listen.


Yeah....just a couple min past the Churchill joke....funny guy...

Which part talks about the 2 payer?

Douglas Johnson wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:

Douglas Johnson wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:

The whole death panel thing and it's variants is pure scare tactics.
No,it's a possible consequence of Obama's "change".
Please cite the bill(s) and relevant sections.
Thanks,
Doug

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnH...bout_obamacare


Thanks for posting that link, but it didn't seem to contain any references to
specific pending bills and relevant sections in them. You don't expect any
article titled "5 Liberal Lies About Obamacare" to contain well referenced
research and this one doesn't disappoint.

It talks about 100 people a week in Britain losing their eye sight due to a
shortage of eye doctors. You dig into the reference they provide and you
discover it is all based on a single unsupported statement from a Liberal
Democrat MP. Would you believe it if Barney Frank said it? Scare tactics.

-- Doug
no but u would

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:20:08 -0500, "Master Betty"
wrote:

I'll just presume you have not watched all three parts. You did reply
before having time to listen.


Yeah....just a couple min past the Churchill joke....funny guy...

Which part talks about the 2 payer?

"I'm not going to try to convince you".

You have time in the "beast".

Some people ought to listen, particularly from someone outside the
box.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:20:08 -0500, "Master Betty"
wrote:

I'll just presume you have not watched all three parts. You did reply
before having time to listen.


Yeah....just a couple min past the Churchill joke....funny guy...

Which part talks about the 2 payer?

"I'm not going to try to convince you".

You have time in the "beast".

Some people ought to listen, particularly from someone outside the
box.


Yeah...jus trying to be funny...

If it's me that's not listening then why am I interested in making changes
that don't include nationalizing? Nationanalized hc in the states is
impossible and probably not necessary.

People often misunderstand my political views.

What I was talking abut:

Tort reform

Single payer (copayments are something else too- I'm for those)

Standardized software for billing offices and insurance co.

Not for profit Health insurance(limited)

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


Gee, you 'd better tell that to GM, Chrysler, Ford, etc. They
missed that. Only Ford managed to dump off the healthcare to the
UAW in time.

Many companies -are- profitable while paying part or all of their
employees healthcare.

Many are but most likely would be more so if they could get rid of
the HC. Or how many small businesses might grow, except for the HC
mess. Make it defined payment instead of defined benefit like with
pensions. You get X amount of money and you buy insurance with it.


But the "Big Three" have been MISMANAGED.Unions are complicit in
that.
But a big part of what they mismanaged was the HC side. I have
always thought it was sorta hypocritical for the unions to suggest the
management was at fault, especially when a part of their mismanagement
was how badly they managed the unions.



It's also considered part of the employee's compensation for work
performed.

So what? Pay me directly and let me buy my own.

the original argument was that companies could get better deals thru
group discounts.However,that may not hold true anymore.
Hasn't for quite awhile, and I am not sure it ever really did. For
awhile it was less expensive for the big boys to increase HC benefits
(especially the non-existant co-pays and low premiums. Another reason
I thought the Big Three were a little hypocritical when their earlier
decisions came back to bite them on the nether regions.


employers are NOT "subsidizing" healthcare.
It's part of the employee's compensation,that they EARNED.
It's no freebie.
Of course they are. Someone else pays 80% of something that you
use,
then it is subidised. Or at least paid for by someone else, my
definition of subsidy.


No,because your work earned it.(paid for it)
If your work did not earn enough to pay for it and still allow the company
to make a profit,they would not employ you,aside from bad management and
outside influence like unions.

the gov't counts employer-paid healthcare as income,and taxes it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Master Betty" wrote in
:

You may have a masters but you are totally missing the point. Like I
said: I'm not trying to convince anyone here...that just usually
doesn't happen....

If you can't see the possible benefits of going to a one payer
system......well.....what have you done for 25 years?

Personally, for over ten years I worked in a billing office billing
Medicare, Medicaid, private, and private insurance.

I was part of a huge Medicare/Medicaid certified nursing home (SNF)
but we also billed:

Doctor visits, Tx, Radiology and Lab. Part A and Part B. The 2 payer
system needs to trashed! We had pharmacy but I only billed part A for
Drugs.

I quit working there just about the time the new Rx legislation went
trough. I admit I'd like to been part of that system change but I was
pretty worn out by that time with all the changes SNFs went through. I
was part of more system changes than I care to remember.

I'm not arguing with you .....you need to get some grunt experience
first.
:-)



you're extremely NAIVE in believing that gov't can run healthcare with
efficiency better than private companies.The Oregon Health Plan shows how
wrong you are,and so does the UK National Healthcare System.

Then there's USPS,AMTRAK,Medicare/Medicaid.......all fine examples of gov't
mismanagment.


Government REGULATION is why US healthcare costs are high.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Master Betty" wrote in
:


"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:20:08 -0500, "Master Betty"
wrote:

I'll just presume you have not watched all three parts. You did
reply before having time to listen.


Yeah....just a couple min past the Churchill joke....funny guy...

Which part talks about the 2 payer?

"I'm not going to try to convince you".

You have time in the "beast".

Some people ought to listen, particularly from someone outside the
box.


Yeah...jus trying to be funny...

If it's me that's not listening then why am I interested in making
changes that don't include nationalizing? Nationanalized hc in the
states is impossible and probably not necessary.

People often misunderstand my political views.

What I was talking abut:

Tort reform

None of that in the current bills.
And it's NOT going to get there,as Obama is in hock to the lawyers.


Single payer (copayments are something else too- I'm for those)

No competition,no incentive to lower costs.

Standardized software for billing offices and insurance co.

Not for profit Health insurance(limited)

Communism. No thank you.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Please understand, if I am a bit disbelieving of you. My
experience wtih government programs is that they grow more
complicated every year. My experience with things that have
no competition, is that they rapidly increase price, and
rapidly lose quality.

Since you have spent hours in SS hearings (which are single
payer, and have no competition), why would you expect
different from single payer, no competition medical? Hmm?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Master Betty" wrote in message
...

Look at the cost savings of streamlining the healthcare
system to a one
payer system.

I'm not going to try to convince you because I doubt you
have the knowledge
I have from working in the beast for over a decade.

HC in the US involves so much bureaucracy. I've spent hours
in Social
Security hearings with ALJs Doctors and Therapist. The time
those hearings
take could be eliminated right there. You may get the
opportunity to get a
Medicare claim denied and you'll see what I mean.

The 2 payer system creates another massive layer of paper
work most people
are not really aware of. A HUGE portion of your hc dollar
goes to needless
paperwork and feeding a world of paper pushers you are not
probably totally
aware of.

If we did go to a "national" hc system this ALL could be
done with a push of
the button by THE DOCTOR. No billing office!

I've debated this before and found most ng bloggers lack
much of an
understanding about the process. Sorry, but to me, you guys
are like fish in
a barrel. Face it........there is a lot we need to learn.

Actually we have gotten away from the main concern have with this
whole thread. There was a Corvette with only a $4500 trade in value???
Someone got took.

--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

Douglas Johnson wrote:


Thanks for posting that link, but it didn't seem to contain any
references to specific pending bills and relevant sections in them.
You don't expect any article titled "5 Liberal Lies About Obamacare"
to contain well referenced research and this one doesn't disappoint.

It talks about 100 people a week in Britain losing their eye sight
due to a shortage of eye doctors. You dig into the reference they
provide and you discover it is all based on a single unsupported
statement from a Liberal Democrat MP. Would you believe it if Barney
Frank said it? Scare tactics.


From just today:

"Thousands of women are having to give birth outside [UK] maternity wards
because of a lack of midwives and hospital beds."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...l-toilets.html

Master Betty wrote:

....there is some truth to what you are saying...No study is going to
be perfect but to totally dismiss it is also a mistake.

A decade really isn't that long considering nothing in our country has
changed much other than Rx coverage for seniors.

Forgive me if I still find it relevant even though some guy on the
internet named "Heybub" says it's poo poo. :-)

You know, you guys seem to be missing the big picture.

Look at the cost savings of streamlining the healthcare system to a
one payer system.

I'm not going to try to convince you because I doubt you have the
knowledge I have from working in the beast for over a decade.

HC in the US involves so much bureaucracy. I've spent hours in Social
Security hearings with ALJs Doctors and Therapist. The time those
hearings take could be eliminated right there. You may get the
opportunity to get a Medicare claim denied and you'll see what I mean.

The 2 payer system creates another massive layer of paper work most
people are not really aware of. A HUGE portion of your hc dollar goes
to needless paperwork and feeding a world of paper pushers you are
not probably totally aware of.

If we did go to a "national" hc system this ALL could be done with a
push of the button by THE DOCTOR. No billing office!

I've debated this before and found most ng bloggers lack much of an
understanding about the process. Sorry, but to me, you guys are like
fish in a barrel. Face it........there is a lot we need to learn.

Look what you're saying. You assert that a massive amount of time and
treasure is wasted in a bureaucrat-heavy government system, then you declaim
that all this could be eliminated by converting EVERYTHING to a government
agency!

I object also to your dismissal of various positions because "most are not
aware" and "lack much of an understanding." Your claim might have more
credence if you had said "... it SEEMS as if most are not aware..." and so
on. But, evidently faced with the certainty of your position, you apparently
attribute ignorance (or malice) to those of differing views. In my case, not
only did I put in my time in the largest cancer research hospital in the
country, but had an interesting tenure as an Administrative Assistant to a
United States Senator. I know how both the health care system and the
political machinery work.

I also find it astounding that you make the claim that "nothing has changed
much" in a decade. Here's five off the top of my head:

* Robotic and laproscopic surgery
* VERY smart chemotherapy (actually antibodies)
* Artificial limbs
* Mapping the human genome
* Erectile disfunction therapy (which has implications far beyond putting on
a happy face)

While a bit more than a decade old, pharma no longer finds an exotic
organism then hunts for the disease it might cure. Drug companies now create
the drugs they need from scratch, thereby eliminating the last barrier to
clear-cutting the Amazon rain forest.

Had you been more involved in the health care field, you no doubt would have
known about the above - and probably a lot more.

(Just jerking your chain a bit... but you kind of dared me...)

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Please understand, if I am a bit disbelieving of you. My
experience wtih government programs is that they grow more
complicated every year. My experience with things that have
no competition, is that they rapidly increase price, and
rapidly lose quality.

That's a gross overstatement! Government programs shrink and disappear all
the time.

The last was just the other day: The Civil Aeronautics Administration was
subsumed by the FAA in 1958.

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:


Actually we have gotten away from the main concern have with this
whole thread. There was a Corvette with only a $4500 trade in value???
Someone got took.


Definitely.

and the Corvette can still have a new motor installed.
small block Chevy's are plentiful.Install a new EFI motor and you'd
probably get good mileage.

I wonder,what year was the Vette?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

HeyBub wrote:
Douglas Johnson wrote:

Thanks for posting that link, but it didn't seem to contain any
references to specific pending bills and relevant sections in them.
You don't expect any article titled "5 Liberal Lies About Obamacare"
to contain well referenced research and this one doesn't disappoint.

It talks about 100 people a week in Britain losing their eye sight
due to a shortage of eye doctors. You dig into the reference they
provide and you discover it is all based on a single unsupported
statement from a Liberal Democrat MP. Would you believe it if Barney
Frank said it? Scare tactics.


From just today:

"Thousands of women are having to give birth outside [UK] maternity wards
because of a lack of midwives and hospital beds."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...l-toilets.html




It would help if the reader had at least minimal understanding of
hospital maternity units. We don't build specialized hospital units to
accomodate the maximum number of patients possible - they are to
accomodate the most likely need. This goofy article mentions women
giving birth on toilets....that does happen now and then, but more
likely in a high-school or college dorm. Giving birth in a bed outside
of the standard delivery room is no biggy - loads of women in the US
give birth at home BY CHOICE. During a full moon, strange things happen )

wrote:

From just today:

"Thousands of women are having to give birth outside [UK] maternity
wards because of a lack of midwives and hospital beds."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...l-toilets.html




It would help if the reader had at least minimal understanding of
hospital maternity units. We don't build specialized hospital units
to accomodate the maximum number of patients possible - they are to
accomodate the most likely need.

Then the factotums in charge of the NHS are evidently no better at
arithmetic than they are at managing care. Of course the managers of the
local trust can report to their betters that "We have never exceeded our
capacity!"

This goofy article mentions women
giving birth on toilets....that does happen now and then, but more
likely in a high-school or college dorm. Giving birth in a bed
outside of the standard delivery room is no biggy - loads of women in the
US
give birth at home BY CHOICE. During a full moon, strange things
happen )

"[Home birth] by loads of women by choice?" Maybe two dozen a year in a
country with ten times the population of the UK*. And whereas midwives are a
staple in the UK, they are used only by the fringe in the US.

--------
* Actually 8% according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

Jim Yanik wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:


Actually we have gotten away from the main concern have with
this whole thread. There was a Corvette with only a $4500 trade in
value??? Someone got took.


Definitely.

and the Corvette can still have a new motor installed.
small block Chevy's are plentiful.Install a new EFI motor and you'd
probably get good mileage.


A bit more is required. The VIN is entered as "junked - cannot be titled"
You'd have to swipe a VIN plate off a righteous car.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
"Master Betty" wrote in
:


"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:20:08 -0500, "Master Betty"
wrote:

I'll just presume you have not watched all three parts. You did
reply before having time to listen.


Yeah....just a couple min past the Churchill joke....funny guy...

Which part talks about the 2 payer?

"I'm not going to try to convince you".

You have time in the "beast".

Some people ought to listen, particularly from someone outside the
box.


Yeah...jus trying to be funny...

If it's me that's not listening then why am I interested in making
changes that don't include nationalizing? Nationanalized hc in the
states is impossible and probably not necessary.

People often misunderstand my political views.

What I was talking abut:

Tort reform

None of that in the current bills.
And it's NOT going to get there,as Obama is in hock to the lawyers.


Single payer (copayments are something else too- I'm for those)

No competition,no incentive to lower costs.

Standardized software for billing offices and insurance co.

Not for profit Health insurance(limited)

Communism. No thank you.



Not communisim. BCBS started as Non-profit.

But thanks for seeing the crux of "my" issue. :-)

IMHO

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:



A bit more is required. The VIN is entered as "junked - cannot be titled"
You'd have to swipe a VIN plate off a righteous car.

As a start. See the article below about cloning a car. I am
interested to see when the first cloned CfC shows up.
http://austin.bbb.org/article/avoid-...used-car-11619

--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
Master Betty wrote:

....there is some truth to what you are saying...No study is going to
be perfect but to totally dismiss it is also a mistake.

A decade really isn't that long considering nothing in our country has
changed much other than Rx coverage for seniors.

Forgive me if I still find it relevant even though some guy on the
internet named "Heybub" says it's poo poo. :-)

You know, you guys seem to be missing the big picture.

Look at the cost savings of streamlining the healthcare system to a
one payer system.

I'm not going to try to convince you because I doubt you have the
knowledge I have from working in the beast for over a decade.

HC in the US involves so much bureaucracy. I've spent hours in Social
Security hearings with ALJs Doctors and Therapist. The time those
hearings take could be eliminated right there. You may get the
opportunity to get a Medicare claim denied and you'll see what I mean.

The 2 payer system creates another massive layer of paper work most
people are not really aware of. A HUGE portion of your hc dollar goes
to needless paperwork and feeding a world of paper pushers you are
not probably totally aware of.

If we did go to a "national" hc system this ALL could be done with a
push of the button by THE DOCTOR. No billing office!

I've debated this before and found most ng bloggers lack much of an
understanding about the process. Sorry, but to me, you guys are like
fish in a barrel. Face it........there is a lot we need to learn.

Look what you're saying. You assert that a massive amount of time and
treasure is wasted in a bureaucrat-heavy government system, then you
declaim that all this could be eliminated by converting EVERYTHING to a
government agency!


I said that?

About the car......sickening

"Master Betty" wrote in -
september.org:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
"Master Betty" wrote in
:


"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:20:08 -0500, "Master Betty"
wrote:

I'll just presume you have not watched all three parts. You did
reply before having time to listen.


Yeah....just a couple min past the Churchill joke....funny guy...

Which part talks about the 2 payer?

"I'm not going to try to convince you".

You have time in the "beast".

Some people ought to listen, particularly from someone outside the
box.


Yeah...jus trying to be funny...

If it's me that's not listening then why am I interested in making
changes that don't include nationalizing? Nationanalized hc in the
states is impossible and probably not necessary.

People often misunderstand my political views.

What I was talking abut:

Tort reform

None of that in the current bills.
And it's NOT going to get there,as Obama is in hock to the lawyers.


Single payer (copayments are something else too- I'm for those)

No competition,no incentive to lower costs.

Standardized software for billing offices and insurance co.

Not for profit Health insurance(limited)

Communism. No thank you.



Not communisim. BCBS started as Non-profit.

But BCBS has -competitors- in the private arena,while ObamaCare is intended
to be "single payer",eliminating any competition.

it's communist because you are anti-profit.
You wish to FORCE healthcare to be non-profit,by taking it out of private
hands and putting it in the hands of wasteful inefficient government.



But thanks for seeing the crux of "my" issue. :-)

IMHO





--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Master Betty" wrote in -
september.org:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
Master Betty wrote:

....there is some truth to what you are saying...No study is going to
be perfect but to totally dismiss it is also a mistake.

A decade really isn't that long considering nothing in our country has
changed much other than Rx coverage for seniors.

Forgive me if I still find it relevant even though some guy on the
internet named "Heybub" says it's poo poo. :-)

You know, you guys seem to be missing the big picture.

Look at the cost savings of streamlining the healthcare system to a
one payer system.

I'm not going to try to convince you because I doubt you have the
knowledge I have from working in the beast for over a decade.

HC in the US involves so much bureaucracy. I've spent hours in Social
Security hearings with ALJs Doctors and Therapist. The time those
hearings take could be eliminated right there. You may get the
opportunity to get a Medicare claim denied and you'll see what I mean.

The 2 payer system creates another massive layer of paper work most
people are not really aware of. A HUGE portion of your hc dollar goes
to needless paperwork and feeding a world of paper pushers you are
not probably totally aware of.

If we did go to a "national" hc system this ALL could be done with a
push of the button by THE DOCTOR. No billing office!

I've debated this before and found most ng bloggers lack much of an
understanding about the process. Sorry, but to me, you guys are like
fish in a barrel. Face it........there is a lot we need to learn.

Look what you're saying. You assert that a massive amount of time and
treasure is wasted in a bureaucrat-heavy government system, then you
declaim that all this could be eliminated by converting EVERYTHING to a
government agency!


I said that?

About the car......sickening



you said it about healthcare,not about the car.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
"Master Betty" wrote in
-
september.org:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
Master Betty wrote:

....there is some truth to what you are saying...No study is going to
be perfect but to totally dismiss it is also a mistake.

A decade really isn't that long considering nothing in our country has
changed much other than Rx coverage for seniors.

Forgive me if I still find it relevant even though some guy on the
internet named "Heybub" says it's poo poo. :-)

You know, you guys seem to be missing the big picture.

Look at the cost savings of streamlining the healthcare system to a
one payer system.

I'm not going to try to convince you because I doubt you have the
knowledge I have from working in the beast for over a decade.

HC in the US involves so much bureaucracy. I've spent hours in Social
Security hearings with ALJs Doctors and Therapist. The time those
hearings take could be eliminated right there. You may get the
opportunity to get a Medicare claim denied and you'll see what I mean.

The 2 payer system creates another massive layer of paper work most
people are not really aware of. A HUGE portion of your hc dollar goes
to needless paperwork and feeding a world of paper pushers you are
not probably totally aware of.

If we did go to a "national" hc system this ALL could be done with a
push of the button by THE DOCTOR. No billing office!

I've debated this before and found most ng bloggers lack much of an
understanding about the process. Sorry, but to me, you guys are like
fish in a barrel. Face it........there is a lot we need to learn.

Look what you're saying. You assert that a massive amount of time and
treasure is wasted in a bureaucrat-heavy government system, then you
declaim that all this could be eliminated by converting EVERYTHING to a
government agency!


I said that?

About the car......sickening



you said it about healthcare,not about the car.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

you guys are getting troll like.

see ya....

Jim Yanik wrote:

the gov't counts employer-paid healthcare as income,and taxes it.


Sorry, no. In almost every other case, employee benefits, including salary, is
tax deductible to the employer and taxable to the employee.

There are two exceptions which are tax deductible to the employer and not
taxable to the employee: The employer's FICA and Medicare contributions and
health insurance.

Oh, there are a couple of other minor exceptions such as uniforms and meals
provided to the employee for the employer's benefit.

-- Doug

Oh, I'm so sorr..... hey, wait, this is usenet. You're a
stinky purple flurpy!

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Please understand, if I am a bit disbelieving of you. My
experience wtih government programs is that they grow more
complicated every year. My experience with things that
have
no competition, is that they rapidly increase price, and
rapidly lose quality.

That's a gross overstatement! Government programs shrink and
disappear all
the time.

The last was just the other day: The Civil Aeronautics
Administration was
subsumed by the FAA in 1958.