In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:3v-
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

From the fines imposed on those that don't meet the law

SInce the fines as currently structured are less than the likely
premiums, how is that supposed to work?

"Currently structured" answers your own question. If too many companies
decide to pay the fine but not provide health care, the fines can be
adjusted until they do. This law *should* have been passed when so many
businesses *began* ditching health care and the problem hadn't become a
nationwide epidemic.
But then, they wouldn't have had to move large numbers of
people to the government plans. Interestingly enough, the same problem
show in the MA plan, more or less the template for much of reform. And
many people go in and out of insurance plans as needed since they can't
be kept out due to pre-existing conditions.
The REALLY scary part about MA is that, since inception of their
reform, annual increases in premiums have gone from well below the
national average to above it. Their general spending also has
accelerated in a similar matter.


Fixing healthcare is going to be a tough, ugly job because too many people
make oodles of money with things just the way they are. MRSA is a perfectly
example of the built in lack of incentives to actually *improve* healthcare.
With 30 years experience, Kurt, surely you can tell us how hospitals made
buckets of blood money making sick people even sicker from iatrogenic MRSA
infections. At least until the Feds stepped in, that is. And even that
will be a long, uphill battle.
Yeah, those evil hospitals who made a killer disease just to
increase revenue.

By definition the free market cannot operate fairly in a system where you're
buying a future service of unknown quality that can KILL you if poorly
performed. What are your free market options when the market has killed
you? To not buy THAT insurance again?

The insurance isn't going to kill you though.

A basic Federal minimum
Medicare-like plan for everyone who's a citizen with the ability to buy all
the Cadillac "gap" insurance for those who feel that the minimum is not good
enough for them is where we are headed and will end up. It will just take a
while.
Well under those indications, we should probably then federalize
car makers (well MORE federalize carmakers) because a bad brake pad
could kill me.


From the savings to the health care system because they catch/diagnose
cirrhosis
of the liver earlier thus preventing unnecessary liver transplants

I ahve followed these things professionally for nearly 3 decades and
the next study that shows this will be the first. Even in insured
populations this doesn't show up.

But the concept is sound. The current structure of the health care system
does very little to prevent ill health because that would rob them of
expensive "Hail Mary" procedures downstream. Mal's point is still valid
even if the example is not - and I don't even know if that's true. Just
because something isn't studied doesn't make it false. It's just unstudied.

The concept is sound but there is no evidence of its usefulness so
we should go ahead and do it anyway.

On the other hand, I can direct you to old journals full of studies showing
ulcers were stress induced (they're not - they are bacterially caused). So
even a study showing X is cause by Y has to be taken with a grain of salt -
or some antibiotics.
which of course makes my point rather nicely, the concept of stress
was sound (actually it still is but research has shown you need this
other thing, too) until it wasn't.

That's especially true when so darn many studies are
funded by the drug makers themselves with the express intent to prove a
product's efficacy or non-lethality. Common sense tells us that there are
likely to be some conflicts of interest in those studies.
Well known and well discussed.


Looking for myself, it seems to be now "common wisdom" that early detection
and treatment of cirrhosis can reduce the need for transplants:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cirrh...+for+l iver+t
ransplants

Makes sense to me, too, studied, unstudied, understudied or overstudied. Is
your objection simply that no studies have confirmed this? Or are you
actually saying that catching liver diseases earlier than where we tend to
catch them now would have NO effect on the liver transplant rates?

No, I am saying that no studies show that insurance status has an
impact on catching these things earlier. Even with insurance that covers
annual physicals, the rates at which people take the time to actually do
them is low. The magic behind preventive medicine is largely not
supported by reality.

--
Bobby G.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


we slash taxes more that jobs will be created is just more Reagan
mythology.
Economists keep reporting that companies are sitting on piles of cash.
They
aren't hiring because the demand's not there. The demand's not there
because so many people have lost their jobs and are barely scraping by.
That's in large part due to the stimulus being too small to make a
difference.
There are other reasons. Interesting stat from the Bureau of Labor
statistics, although you have to go looking through the reports. From
the low of the recession in January 0f 2009 to April of 2010, private
sector net jobs increased on average 67,600 a month. From April 2010
through May, the average increase in private sectors jobs was 6,400. The
cutoff date in April? The passing of healthcare reform. No hiring
because there is no clarity in what each person is going to cost.

Oh Golly, Pollyanna, is it true that the same American businessmen who made
their fortunes during the horrific uncertainty of the Cold War and the
ever-present threat of Nuclear Winter no longer live and breathe? I hear
this "uncertainty myth" and I ask you to name what "certainties" modern
businesses enjoy today. They have almost no guaranties of any kind. To
make the "uncertainty of health care costs" into the horrible, fearsome
incalcuable uncertainty monster holding the entire US business sector at bay
borders on the ludicrous. I'm just saying . . . (-:

My employers/companies always paid for health benefits. Since the recent,
mostly manufactured debate on the debt limit centers on "the children" it
seems that taking away their health care at more and more businesses every
day doesn't factor into "robbing their future." Our children should have
better lives than we've led because of the addition of our life's labor to
society. I had employer/company provided healthcare during my life. Why
should the next generation get ripped off? That's how companies can afford
$20M+ salary packages for CEOs - by reducing costs to the bone for everyone
*else* in the company.

The idea that businesses that have the daring to attempt to commercialize
moon travel yet fear some extra costs associated with employees doesn't even
sound plausible. It sounds like anti universal health care propaganda.
Matching two dates does not a correlation make.

Obviously I am astounded at the idea that businessmen who've created entire
new sectors of the economy out of scratch cower at taking on the risk of
once again having to at least co-pay worker's health care. Where was this
alleged incredible risk aversion when businesses were buying the complex
financial securities that sank the economy? It wasn't there then, it isn't
there now.

There's no demand for products or the new employees to make more of them
because the economy hasn't restarted. That's why the numbers are flat. If
it's up to some in Congress, it will never restart.

The difference between individual tax and corporate "optimizing" is
incredibly unfair. Big Business can hire armies of accountants and
lobbyists to get them sweet deals we individuals can only dream of. Big
Business perpetually whines about how the US has one of the highest
corporate tax rates in the world but they never mention how few big
businesses actually pay that "show" rate. The Democrats should be daily
pointing out how easily businesses like Exxon bypass tax liabilities
with
subsidies, tax perks and accounting games when the people are being told
"we've got to cut back on your health care - for the children." The
people
that stole billions from the nation's pension funds should at leave have
to
pay some of it back in taxes.

A 2008 study of 24 leading economies by the Organisation of Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) concludes that, "Taxation is most
progressively distributed in the United States, probably reflecting the
greater role played there by refundable tax credits, such as the Earned
Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. . . . Taxes tend to be least
progressive in the Nordic countries (notably, Sweden), France and
Switzerland."

Yabbut. Compare the cradle-to-grave care some of these countries offer
compared to ours and the numbers come out a little differently in what it
costs to actually "live a life." That's a metric that's pretty hard to come
by in way that's easily comparable and not subject to incredible
cherry-picking and criticism.

The OECD study of taxes paid to income received by the top 10% was
by far the highest
in the U.S., at 1.35, compared to 1.1 for France, 1.07 for Germany, 1.01
for Japan and 1.0 for Sweden (i.e., the top decile's share of Swedish
taxes is the same as their share of income).

Does i.e. mean the top 10% pay half their income to the state?

There's a reason why people come to America rather than Russia to make their
fortunes. Here in America, they might even be allowed to keep their
fortunes AND live. The government everyone loves to hate stands as a rock
of stability worldwide and is why Wall St. runs the world. Yet some are
determined to drive us to very grim consequences to score political points.
It's ironic that Boehner now has to deal with the Tea Party he was happy
have swell House ranks last year (I'll bet he was never *really* happy about
it and this predictable state of affairs is why).

There are also reasons to suggest that increasing some of these
(especially cap gains) may actually result in LESS taxes. The top 1%
reported fewer capital gains in the tech-stock euphoria of 1999-2000
(when the tax rate was 20%) than during the middling market of
2006-2007. It is doubtful so many gains would have been reported in
2006-2007 if the tax rate had been 20%.

All this (and much of economic prediction) depends on people acting
rationally. Study after study shows they don't. Especially NOT Congress!
Even you've reminded us that people aren't well equipped psychologically to
evaluate potential risks from various threats. People have been warned so
many foods are evil followed by a "we were wrong about so and so" that they
shut down input on the subject altogether.

Lower tax rates on capital gains increase the frequency of asset
sales

Except for now, when for a lot of people there's NO capital gain when they
have to sell a house for less than they paid for it. I'll agree that the
wealthy have strange and wonderful ways to evade/avoid taxation and will
certainly always find a way to adjust to a tax law change. But maybe we'll
help balance the budget by the time they catch up. What happened some other
time is only mildly comparable to today's market. Employment numbers are
strongly affected by housing prices. You won't move from NJ to Seattle to
take a $250K loss. When the housing market slumps, employment numbers soon
follow.

and thus result in more taxable capital gains on tax returns.
LArgely because (especially at the pinnacle) tax consequences are
figured in. A person has to hang on longer (slowing fruquency of sales
and thus taxes) to reach a simliar post tax earning. This was also seen
following the first cut in cap gains during the Clinton administration..
something both sides conveniently forget to mention for differing
reasons.

Hard to imagine that when the Constitution was written there was no income
tax. No capital gains tax. No sales tax.

--
Bobby G.

On Jul 27, 8:12*pm, wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" *wrote in message
...

You're right. The problem is that scientific truth is not determined
by majority vote. The climate researchers use scientific methods and
thereby claim their endeavors are science.

As opposed to folks who will go on insisting the earth is flat based
on their political or religious beliefs. *I think I'll give the edge
to the scientists in the credibility dept. *Which isn't to say
they're never wrong, but compared to the corporate whores and
religious whackos, the scientific community is just more believable.

You misunderstand. Just using parts of the scientific method does not make
the endeavor science.

For example, a significant part of the scientific method is that
"researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design
experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be
derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake
or confusion in any particular experimenter."

Show ONE repeatable experiment in the climate researcher's quiver.

Silly.

The warming effect of CO2 can be tested in experiments all day long.
Fill a tank with air add light, then vary amount of CO2, measure the
temperature.

The above line of reasoning is attempting to confuse the reader because
climate science makes predictions and the future only happens once.

Even with that, there's a new result to measure every day and many
places to do the measurement.

Very silly.

--
Dan Espen- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yep silly but that is all the deniers have in their arsenal.

Harry K

On Jul 28, 4:48*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" *wrote in message
...

You're right. The problem is that scientific truth is not
determined by majority vote. The climate researchers use
scientific methods and thereby claim their endeavors are science.

As opposed to folks who will go on insisting the earth is flat based
on their political or religious beliefs. *I think I'll give the edge
to the scientists in the credibility dept. *Which isn't to say
they're never wrong, but compared to the corporate whores and
religious whackos, the scientific community is just more believable.

You misunderstand. Just using parts of the scientific method does
not make the endeavor science.

For example, a significant part of the scientific method is that
"researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and
design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions
which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to
guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter."

Show ONE repeatable experiment in the climate researcher's quiver.

Silly.

The warming effect of CO2 can be tested in experiments all day long.
Fill a tank with air add light, then vary amount of CO2, measure the
temperature.

The above line of reasoning is attempting to confuse the reader
because climate science makes predictions and the future only happens
once.

Even with that, there's a new result to measure every day and many
places to do the measurement.

Very silly.

Good point. Still, if you're talking about a tank resembling a standard
aquarium, and you want the gas mixture to approximate the earth's
atmosphere, I have a technical question: How do you get about eight
molecules of CO2 into the tank?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Clue: a very small amount of some substances have a great effect on
things. If you had any chemistry classes at all in HS, you were run
through some titration excercises where a only a drop suddenly changes
things. YOu sound like one of the "if a little bit is good, than a
whole lot more won't hurt"

Harry K

On Jul 28, 7:14*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In article , HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" *wrote in message
...

You're right. The problem is that scientific truth is not
determined by majority vote. The climate researchers use
scientific methods and thereby claim their endeavors are science.

As opposed to folks who will go on insisting the earth is flat based
on their political or religious beliefs. *I think I'll give the edge
to the scientists in the credibility dept. *Which isn't to say
they're never wrong, but compared to the corporate whores and
religious whackos, the scientific community is just more believable.

You misunderstand. Just using parts of the scientific method does
not make the endeavor science.

For example, a significant part of the scientific method is that
"researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and
design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions
which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to
guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter."

Show ONE repeatable experiment in the climate researcher's quiver.

Silly.

The warming effect of CO2 can be tested in experiments all day long.
Fill a tank with air add light, then vary amount of CO2, measure the
temperature.

The above line of reasoning is attempting to confuse the reader
because climate science makes predictions and the future only happens
once.

Even with that, there's a new result to measure every day and many
places to do the measurement.

Good point. Still, if you're talking about a tank resembling a standard
aquarium, and you want the gas mixture to approximate the earth's
atmosphere, I have a technical question: How do you get about eight
molecules of CO2 into the tank?

* A common smaller aquarium size is 20 gallons, which is about 70 liters.
Earth's atmosphere is currently about 390 parts per million CO2 by volume,
so 76 liters of air has about .03 liter of CO2. *That's about 2.4 billion
billion molecules of CO2.

*- Don Klipstein )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Firtst Des posts about concrete and now _you_ try to inject actual
facts into the thread. Is that allowed here?

Harry K

On Jul 28, 8:01*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

Show ONE repeatable experiment in the climate researcher's quiver.

Silly.

The warming effect of CO2 can be tested in experiments all day long.
Fill a tank with air add light, then vary amount of CO2, measure the
temperature.

The above line of reasoning is attempting to confuse the reader
because climate science makes predictions and the future only happens
once.

Even with that, there's a new result to measure every day and many
places to do the measurement.

Very silly.

But what happens when the observations don't line up with the
experimental/simulation/predicted data? A new report, just out today, shows:

Money quotes:
* Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space
than alarmist computer models have predicted

* The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United
Nations computer models have predicted

snip

So even the denialist report admits that GW _is_ happening. Clue.
Science changes it's predications as date shows it is necessary.

Harry K

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

Oh Golly, Pollyanna, is it true that the same American businessmen who made
their fortunes during the horrific uncertainty of the Cold War and the
ever-present threat of Nuclear Winter no longer live and breathe? I hear
this "uncertainty myth" and I ask you to name what "certainties" modern
businesses enjoy today. They have almost no guaranties of any kind. To
make the "uncertainty of health care costs" into the horrible, fearsome
incalcuable uncertainty monster holding the entire US business sector at bay
borders on the ludicrous. I'm just saying . . . (-:
If you can't refute the stats, ridicule them. Works every time.
There is a big difference from the amorphous maybe of a missile strike
and the actual lack of knowledge of what will happen with what is most
people's second biggest expense. Especially in the great unwashed of
those who don't currently have to will past reform.

My employers/companies always paid for health benefits. Since the recent,
mostly manufactured debate on the debt limit centers on "the children" it
seems that taking away their health care at more and more businesses every
day doesn't factor into "robbing their future." Our children should have
better lives than we've led because of the addition of our life's labor to
society. I had employer/company provided healthcare during my life. Why
should the next generation get ripped off? That's how companies can afford
$20M+ salary packages for CEOs - by reducing costs to the bone for everyone
*else* in the company.
Actually the employer paid HC is a large part of the reason we are
in the fix we are. It managed to divorce the user (you and me) from the
costs of healthcare. CMS figures have shown every year that the average
person in America pays less then 20% (topping out at 18%) of all
healthcare expenses out of pocket, and that includes the o-o-p part of
the premium. When things are subsidized to such a great extent, then all
sorts of weird things happen to demand and supply. That and for awhile
(in one of the great ironies of the latter 20th century) it was actually
cheaper to give better health insurance than to actually pay a similar
wage. THis exacerbated the above problems by moving (for awhile anyway)
toward hiding even more of the expenses through low co-pays. We haven't
had health insurance (with insurance defined as taking a rare but
expensive risk and dividing that risk among many people) since the
demise of the old Major Medical policies.



Obviously I am astounded at the idea that businessmen who've created entire
new sectors of the economy out of scratch cower at taking on the risk of
once again having to at least co-pay worker's health care. Where was this
alleged incredible risk aversion when businesses were buying the complex
financial securities that sank the economy? It wasn't there then, it isn't
there now.

Well is you are astounded, everyone must be astounded.


There's no demand for products or the new employees to make more of them
because the economy hasn't restarted. That's why the numbers are flat. If
it's up to some in Congress, it will never restart.

Job formation is THE major driver of demand for products, especially
in the early stages of a recovery (which we are in). I also noted you
haven't done anything to actually call into question the validity of the
stats.



A 2008 study of 24 leading economies by the Organisation of Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) concludes that, "Taxation is most
progressively distributed in the United States, probably reflecting the
greater role played there by refundable tax credits, such as the Earned
Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. . . . Taxes tend to be least
progressive in the Nordic countries (notably, Sweden), France and
Switzerland."

Yabbut. Compare the cradle-to-grave care some of these countries offer
compared to ours and the numbers come out a little differently in what it
costs to actually "live a life." That's a metric that's pretty hard to come
by in way that's easily comparable and not subject to incredible
cherry-picking and criticism.

WHich has nothing to do with the progessivity of the tax system.








Except for now, when for a lot of people there's NO capital gain when they
have to sell a house for less than they paid for it.

Which is completely beside the point since under current law, you
don't PAY cap gains taxes on housing unless you have a monster cap gain
(IIRC it somewhere over $500,000 of cap gains that are excluded. That is
cap gains, not the price of the house.) and then only if you don't
recycle the gain into another abode within two years.



something both sides conveniently forget to mention for differing
reasons.

Hard to imagine that when the Constitution was written there was no income
tax. No capital gains tax. No sales tax.

Yep.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Makes sense to me, too, studied, unstudied, understudied or overstudied. Is
your objection simply that no studies have confirmed this? Or are you
actually saying that catching liver diseases earlier than where we tend to
catch them now would have NO effect on the liver transplant rates?

No, I am saying that no studies show that insurance status has an
impact on catching these things earlier. Even with insurance that covers
annual physicals, the rates at which people take the time to actually do
them is low. The magic behind preventive medicine is largely not
supported by reality.

And there's your answer: don't do the required annual physical and you get
dinged financially

On 7/29/2011 1:04 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
....

And there's your answer: don't do the required annual physical and you get
dinged financially

And there's the rub (but the apparent panacea to many) -- let the
government control every aspect of every minute of everybody's life.

Thanks, but no thanks...

--

On Jul 28, 12:13*am, "
wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:09:59 -0700, "DGDevin" wrote:

"HeyBub" *wrote in message
om...

To quote our revered betters: "Weather is not climate."

I recall last winter during some especially cold weather some right-wingnuts
were snickering about how that warming climate sure was a bitch, haw haw
haw. *For some reason they don't seem to have much to say on the subject at
the moment.

Yeah, we've all noticed that it's only "climate" when it's hot; when it's cold
it's only "weather".

The claim made is that global warming will cause extreme weather
events to become more common. It may well get colder in some parts of
the world.
Exactly what we are seeing these last few years.

On Jul 28, 1:00*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

-



Good idea. *Most of your nutcases are religious.
We have a few over here too. But at least they don't have guns.

Nutcases are found everywhere. Still, if you want to categorize evil-doers
by religious affiliation, you'd be hard-pressed to outdo Stalin, Mao,
Pol-Pot, and Pee-Wee Herman.

Add too all19th century American president/war criminals.

On Jul 28, 8:01*pm, dpb wrote:
On 7/27/2011 2:05 AM, harry wrote:
...

Most Americans are Godless.

That's certainly not what polling data indicates...while historic
organized denominations (of all stripes) are losing market share to the
nondenominational and that ilk, individuals indicate a personal belief
at roughly 70% overall US population. *Down some, but not "most" on the
side of no belief or belief in none by any stretch.

[No value judgment implied either way, simply observation...]

--

They are Godless because they ignore the basic precepts outlined in
the Bible.
They only slect the bits that suit them.

If you are going to claim to be Godly, you have to follow all the
rules.

On Jul 26, 1:35*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robert Green wrote:

Let's look at the numbers:

The NY Times Sunday Business editors asked Equilar to examine exec
compensation: *The final figures show that the median pay for top
executives at 200 big companies last year was $10.8 million. That
works out to a 23 percent gain from 2009. *Most ordinary Americans
aren't getting raises anywhere close to those of these chief
executives. Many aren't getting raises at all - or even regular
paychecks. Unemployment is still stuck at more than 9 percent.
According to a report released by GovernanceMetrics

http://www2.gmiratings.com/news_docs...elimceopay.pdf

in June, things improved for chief executives. Many executives
received stock options that were granted in 2008 and 2009, when the
stock market was sinking. *Now that the market has recovered from its
lows of the financial crisis, many executives are sitting on windfall
profits, at least on paper. In addition, cash bonuses for the
highest-paid C.E.O.'s are at three times prerecession levels, the
report said.

So what? Employees are paid what they are worth, what they contribute to the
profitability of the company, or what they can weasel out of the board of
directors. "Fairness" doesn't enter into it.

As for the executives getting stock options and the like, attribute that to
the class warfare mentality of the Congress. It passed a law limiting
executive pay to something like a million bucks per year but allowed
"bonuses" tied to productivity.











Those kind of numbers tell the real story behind your observation
that the wealthy are paying more in taxes than they used to. *The
answer is simple: the amount they pay reflects the growing schism
between the haves and the have nots. *CEO's are earning obscene
salaries and compensation compared to the workers in the companies
they run. *The workers that still *have* jobs, that is.

The average American worker was taking home $752 a week in late 2010,
up a mere 0.5 percent from a year earlier. After inflation, workers
were actually making less.

The rich got a 23% "raise" while the workers actually got one worth
less than zero. *So just looking at what percentile pays what tax
rate doesn't tell the whole story: you have to look at the bigger
picture.

In a capitalistic society, what a worker gets paid is determined by two
things.

The first is supply and demand. Burger flippers in North Dakota make upwards
of $17/hour because of low supply. Further, if an employee is willing to
work for the minimum wage, as an employer I would be a traitor to myself and
the company to pay more.

Secondly, pay is often determined by the overall "worth" of an employee to
the organization. As the decider-in-chief, the CEO obviously thinks he is
worth more, often a lot more, than the serf who toils on the factory floor.

On 7/29/2011 2:17 PM, harry wrote:
....

If you are going to claim to be Godly, you have to follow all the
rules.

Or at least the ones _you_ choose...

--

On Jul 27, 4:48*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
On Jul 27, 3:57 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

You need a new revolution in America. The old one has failed y'all.
You are in the hands of despots. Tax the poor to pay the rich.
The Russians didn't put up with it, why should you?

Because the Russians were godless communists and we're not.

Not true. *The church there is 1300 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Church
But then facts have never been your strong point.
But they realiased that religion is the root of most evil.
Love of money is the cause of the rest as Americans should now
realise.
Most Americans are Godless.

There were churches in Russia after the revolution - many of them turned
into museums.

I did not say there were no churches.

I visited an Orthodox church in Israel, located at Jacob's Well. It was
about four feet high. According to the guide, construction was begun in
1903, paid for by remittances from the "White" Russian Orthodox church.
After the revolution all payments by the Office of the Patriarch were
stopped by the Communist government. Construction began again in 1995 and
the church is almost finished.

By definition, however, atheism is an article of faith in Communism. Not
benign atheism, but atheism antagonistic to all religion.

Just leave Communism out of it, buddy! Communism, as practied in the
former USSR and its satellite slave countries, had zip to do with
atheism; that was just a convenient tool. To turn Marx on his head,
Atheism became the opium of the masses.

Atheism, and its more reasonable cousin Agnosticism, is a scientific
way of looking at the EVIDENCE. NO belief system (religion) has ever
had a shred of EVIDENCEto support its beliefs. Whatthese belief
systems have is scared people looking for comfort, which they find in
their faith. If I were to tell a (practitioner of belief system) that
he could walk across 8 lanes of freeway traffic without getting
killed, would he do it? I think he'd look at the EVIDENCE.

I look forward to the day when we can have an honest agnostic in the
White House (and in Congress). Being an agnostic means leading a
moral existence without the need for an outside Deity or whatever to
hold a reward/punishment threat over people's heads. Religious people
-- which is most of them -- lead hypocritical lives, where they pick
and choose what edicts they will hold to, and what they will violate.
Of course there are enormously good and decent religious people. But
they would be that way even with an outside belief system.

HB

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

Oh Golly, Pollyanna, is it true that the same American businessmen who
made
their fortunes during the horrific uncertainty of the Cold War and the
ever-present threat of Nuclear Winter no longer live and breathe? I
hear
this "uncertainty myth" and I ask you to name what "certainties" modern
businesses enjoy today. They have almost no guaranties of any kind. To
make the "uncertainty of health care costs" into the horrible, fearsome
incalculable uncertainty monster holding the entire US business sector
at bay
borders on the ludicrous. I'm just saying . . . (-:

If you can't refute the stats, ridicule them. Works every time.

What stats? Did you post something that conclusively showed businesses
weren't hiring due to this "uncertainty factor" that's so often thrown
around in the press? I must have missed it. All I saw were two trends that
matched up for what could have been a dozen different and far more like
reasons. I believe Cindy nailed it: there are no jobs because there is no
demand because too many people are out of work or underwater on a home. As
unemployment benefits and stimulus money runs out and states "shut down"
like Minnesota:

http://www.statesman.com/news/nation...e-1578074.html

we can expect demand to slacken even more and the housing and unemployment
numbers to react accordingly.

"
Consider these tricky rules: The State Department of Revenue says it still
expects people to pay their taxes, but it won't be sending out refunds.
Residents may renew their driver's licenses in certain locations, but no
driver's exams will be offered. The Minnesota Zoo is closed to visitors, but
a "Music in the Zoo" concert series was to proceed (though no animals would
be on display). State lottery ticket sales have ceased, costing the state
revenue, but people with winning tickets in hand can't redeem them for
cash."

Yes, that's certain to create jobs. In the Twilight zone.

There is a big difference from the amorphous maybe of a missile strike
and the actual lack of knowledge of what will happen with what is most
people's second biggest expense. Especially in the great unwashed of
those who don't currently have to will past reform.

You need to translate that into English for me and perhaps the rest of us.
Your English teacher is rolling in his or her grave. Well, at least mine
would be.

My employers/companies always paid for health benefits. Since the
recent,
mostly manufactured debate on the debt limit centers on "the children"
it
seems that taking away their health care at more and more businesses
every
day doesn't factor into "robbing their future." Our children should
have
better lives than we've led because of the addition of our life's labor
to
society. I had employer/company provided healthcare during my life.
Why
should the next generation get ripped off? That's how companies can
afford
$20M+ salary packages for CEOs - by reducing costs to the bone for
everyone
*else* in the company.

Actually the employer paid HC is a large part of the reason we are
in the fix we are.

Agreed. But the source was the practice of providing outrageously cheap
health care as a way to circumvent the WWII wage freeze that began the
problem. It's another of the many *gifts* that wars keep on giving us.
Once it got established, it was very hard to put the brakes on it.

It managed to divorce the user (you and me) from the
costs of healthcare. CMS figures have shown every year that the average
person in America pays less then 20% (topping out at 18%) of all
healthcare expenses out of pocket, and that includes the o-o-p part of
the premium.

Is that working Americans? Retirees? Out of work people? I haven't seen a
detailed study of medical cost issues that didn't have structural "issues"
you could drive a Mack truck through. The way the health care system is
arranged if you DON'T belong to an organization like Carefirst or even
Medicare, you'll pay the full freight for your medical care, including the
outrageously kited prices of medicines, fees and DME that in many cases
doubled before the RX portion of Medicare started up. Sure you can offer
the government "great" prices on drugs after you've raised them enormously.
Europeans pay less (up to 40% less!) for American drugs than Americans do.
How is that right? Why am *I* subsidizing Europeans?

http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/eu...u-s/2009-07-08

"Decision Resources came out with a report showing that drug costs in Europe
are an average of 40 percent less than in the U.S.--a price differential
that shows why reimportation was ever raised in the first place. The study
covered 170 of the most popular drugs and found costs to range from a low of
55 percent of the U.S. price in Italy to a high of 70 percent in Germany.
Most of the biggest price differences were on older drugs--such as Eli
Lilly's Prozac--that face generic competition; apparently, branded
drugmakers tend to cut prices in the face of generic competition in Europe,
but hold those prices steady in the U.S. Differentials varied not only by
geographic area, but also by therapeutic area, too."

Why do seniors have to take buses to Canada to buy medicine there? There's
a lot wrong with American medicine, and much of it starts with Big Pharma
and trickles down. Anyone who's ever seen the liner of a garbage dump knows
that what trickles down is NOT good stuff.

When things are subsidized to such a great extent, then all
sorts of weird things happen to demand and supply. That and for awhile
(in one of the great ironies of the latter 20th century) it was actually
cheaper to give better health insurance than to actually pay a similar
wage.

As a result of many factors, but all started in WWII to evade wage controls.
To me it's simple. If the nation has a right to draft you at 18 and send
you off to war, then it has a vested interest in its citizen's health.
Regrettably, medicine is a very profit-oriented business, and not
necessarily a "healthy customer" oriented one. If it were, the MRSA scandal
couldn't possibly exist. But it does because hospitals were making money on
second visits treating the horrific infections they gave the patients during
their FIRST visit. Now that Medicare won't pay for treatment of
iatrogenically-caused MRSA, hospitals are cleaning up their act. Very, very
s l o w l y.

THis exacerbated the above problems by moving (for awhile anyway)
toward hiding even more of the expenses through low co-pays. We haven't
had health insurance (with insurance defined as taking a rare but
expensive risk and dividing that risk among many people) since the
demise of the old Major Medical policies.

Are all Major Med/high deductible policies gone? As I noted before, if
you're not in a big plan like Carefirst aka Blue Double Cross or Medicare,
you pay full (highly inflated) rates for drugs, DME and medical fees. Many
people I know express awe when they see the numbers for "rate charged" and
"rate negotiated" on their statements because they are so radically
different.

Obviously I am astounded at the idea that businessmen who've created
entire
new sectors of the economy out of scratch cower at taking on the risk of
once again having to at least co-pay worker's health care. Where was
this
alleged incredible risk aversion when businesses were buying the complex
financial securities that sank the economy? It wasn't there then, it
isn't
there now.

Well is you are astounded, everyone must be astounded.

I *is* very astounded. (-: In the light of all the uncertainties most
businesses face without fear, the theory just doesn't hold a lot of water.
But it's promulgated any time change is threatened.

There's no demand for products or the new employees to make more of them
because the economy hasn't restarted. That's why the numbers are flat.
If
it's up to some in Congress, it will never restart.

Job formation is THE major driver of demand for products, especially
in the early stages of a recovery (which we are in). I also noted you
haven't done anything to actually call into question the validity of the
stats.

What stats? That jobs are lagging again? Maybe it's the uncertainty of
knowing whether the US will default on its debts that's scaring business.
Lack of demand is historically far more likely than either healthcare or
debt ceiling uncertainties to keep the job creation rate low. Companies are
finding that in a recession they can fire people and get their co-workers to
work even harder to cover the gaps for fear that they, too, will get sacked.
Now *that's* real fear - seeing co-workers getting the boot, knowing no one
will be hired to replace them and that the remaining workers will now have
to carry that load. Accounts for that "productivity increase" that you
often tout as being a positive economic indicator.

A 2008 study of 24 leading economies by the Organisation of Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) concludes that, "Taxation is most
progressively distributed in the United States, probably reflecting
the
greater role played there by refundable tax credits, such as the
Earned
Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. . . . Taxes tend to be
least
progressive in the Nordic countries (notably, Sweden), France and
Switzerland."

Yabbut. Compare the cradle-to-grave care some of these countries offer
compared to ours and the numbers come out a little differently in what
it
costs to actually "live a life." That's a metric that's pretty hard to
come
by in way that's easily comparable and not subject to incredible
cherry-picking and criticism.

WHich has nothing to do with the progessivity of the tax system.

Which causes me to ask, what did tax progressiveness or lack thereof have
anything to do with the subject of business uncertainty? That knife cuts
both ways. FWIW, I was merely attempting to point out that different
nations have very different financial and social structures and any attempts
to cross-level them are fraught with as many potential interpretations and
problems as climate modeling has.

Except for now, when for a lot of people there's NO capital gain when
they
have to sell a house for less than they paid for it.

Which is completely beside the point since under current law, you
don't PAY cap gains taxes on housing unless you have a monster cap gain
(IIRC it somewhere over $500,000 of cap gains that are excluded. That is
cap gains, not the price of the house.) and then only if you don't
recycle the gain into another abode within two years.

Having an asset you can't sell (for most people their most expensive asset)
is going to effect every other financial decision you make.

something both sides conveniently forget to mention for differing
reasons.

Hard to imagine that when the Constitution was written there was no
income
tax. No capital gains tax. No sales tax.

Yep.

Hey, we agree on something. Break out the champagne.

--
Bobby G.

On 7/29/2011 2:37 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:
....

... NO belief system (religion) has ever
had a shred of EVIDENCE to support its beliefs....

OTOH, there's no way to prove the negative, either...

--

harry wrote:
On Jul 28, 1:00 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

-



Good idea. Most of your nutcases are religious.
We have a few over here too. But at least they don't have guns.

Nutcases are found everywhere. Still, if you want to categorize
evil-doers by religious affiliation, you'd be hard-pressed to outdo
Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, and Pee-Wee Herman.

Add too all19th century American president/war criminals.

If you refer to Lincoln, many southerners would agree...

Higgs Boson wrote:

Atheism, and its more reasonable cousin Agnosticism, is a scientific
way of looking at the EVIDENCE. NO belief system (religion) has ever
had a shred of EVIDENCEto support its beliefs. Whatthese belief
systems have is scared people looking for comfort, which they find in
their faith. If I were to tell a (practitioner of belief system) that
he could walk across 8 lanes of freeway traffic without getting
killed, would he do it? I think he'd look at the EVIDENCE.


That's just not true. There were 200,000 witnesses to God's revelation at
Sinai (plus countless women, children, slaves, and asses). And an unbroken
oral tradition retelling the tale to subsequent generations. As such, that
fact is as acceptable and believable as a news story in the New York Times.

No, wait...

Never mind.

"dpb" wrote in message ...
On 7/29/2011 2:37 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:
...

... NO belief system (religion) has ever
had a shred of EVIDENCE to support its beliefs....

OTOH, there's no way to prove the negative, either...

I dunno. Someone posted an interesting site a while back about why an
all-powerful God who makes miracle cures each minute of each day has never
regrown a severed limb. I had my (sadly dying) evangelic cousin tackle that
and she responded "there have been cases of fingertip regeneration." If
there is a God, he/she/it seems strangely limited to effecting cures that
random chance could just as easily explain. The fact that there are so many
different versions of God tends to prove that there isn't any true one. A
"true" God should have been revealed a long, long time ago but just the
reverse is happening - religions split all the time, splintering even
further the concept of one all-knowing God.

--
Bobby G.

Harry K ) writes:
On Jul 28, 7:14=A0pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In article , HeyBub wrote=
:
wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" =A0wrote in message
...

You're right. The problem is that scientific truth is not
determined by majority vote. The climate researchers use
scientific methods and thereby claim their endeavors are science.

As opposed to folks who will go on insisting the earth is flat based
on their political or religious beliefs. =A0I think I'll give the ed=
ge
to the scientists in the credibility dept. =A0Which isn't to say
they're never wrong, but compared to the corporate whores and
religious whackos, the scientific community is just more believable.

You misunderstand. Just using parts of the scientific method does
not make the endeavor science.

For example, a significant part of the scientific method is that
"researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and
design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions
which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to
guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter."

Show ONE repeatable experiment in the climate researcher's quiver.

Silly.

The warming effect of CO2 can be tested in experiments all day long.
Fill a tank with air add light, then vary amount of CO2, measure the
temperature.

The above line of reasoning is attempting to confuse the reader
because climate science makes predictions and the future only happens
once.

Even with that, there's a new result to measure every day and many
places to do the measurement.


Good point. Still, if you're talking about a tank resembling a standard
aquarium, and you want the gas mixture to approximate the earth's
atmosphere, I have a technical question: How do you get about eight
molecules of CO2 into the tank?


=A0 A common smaller aquarium size is 20 gallons, which is about 70 liter=
s.
Earth's atmosphere is currently about 390 parts per million CO2 by volume=
,
so 76 liters of air has about .03 liter of CO2. =A0That's about 2.4 billi=
on
billion molecules of CO2.

=A0- Don Klipstein )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Firtst Des posts about concrete and now _you_ try to inject actual
facts into the thread. Is that allowed here?

The other 6.8 trillion (that's with a 'T' not a 'B') molecules don't count?




Harry K

Harry K ) writes:
On Jul 28, 8:01=A0am, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

Show ONE repeatable experiment in the climate researcher's quiver.

Silly.

The warming effect of CO2 can be tested in experiments all day long.
Fill a tank with air add light, then vary amount of CO2, measure the
temperature.

The above line of reasoning is attempting to confuse the reader
because climate science makes predictions and the future only happens
once.

Even with that, there's a new result to measure every day and many
places to do the measurement.

Very silly.

But what happens when the observations don't line up with the
experimental/simulation/predicted data? A new report, just out today, sho=
ws:

Money quotes:
* Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space
than alarmist computer models have predicted

* The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than Unit=
ed
Nations computer models have predicted


snip

So even the denialist report admits that GW _is_ happening. Clue.
Science changes it's predications as date shows it is necessary.


GW already happened, didn't you know... it's what eliminated the
last 'Ice Age' (12,000 years ago), and it was fast, relative to how
long it took for glaciation. The period which follows ice ages are
called 'Inter Glacial Periods', the period we are in now. A time line
of temperature (with low resolution) since the last ice age (after the
fast, large rise), is a flat horizontal line. With resolution... it's up
and down with a flat horizontal trend.

You need a better glue on your labels... they keep falling off.




Harry K

) writes:
(M.A. Stewart) writes:

) writes:
"HeyBub" writes:

wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

You're right. The problem is that scientific truth is not
determined by majority vote. The climate researchers use
scientific methods and thereby claim their endeavors are science.

As opposed to folks who will go on insisting the earth is flat based
on their political or religious beliefs. I think I'll give the edge
to the scientists in the credibility dept. Which isn't to say
they're never wrong, but compared to the corporate whores and
religious whackos, the scientific community is just more believable.

You misunderstand. Just using parts of the scientific method does
not make the endeavor science.

For example, a significant part of the scientific method is that
"researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and
design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions
which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to
guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter."

Show ONE repeatable experiment in the climate researcher's quiver.

Silly.

The warming effect of CO2 can be tested in experiments all day long.
Fill a tank with air add light, then vary amount of CO2, measure the
temperature.

The above line of reasoning is attempting to confuse the reader
because climate science makes predictions and the future only happens
once.

Even with that, there's a new result to measure every day and many
places to do the measurement.

Very silly.

Good point. Still, if you're talking about a tank resembling a standard
aquarium, and you want the gas mixture to approximate the earth's
molecules of CO2 into the tank?


Show your math.

For starters, a cubic meter of air contains 10**23 molecules.


Ya forgot the free atoms.


Free atoms? Definition:

(atomic physics) An atom, as in a gas, whose properties, such as
spectrum and magnetic moment, are not significantly affected by other
atoms, ions, or molecules nearby.

Not significant.


Does that include the 9300 ppm (0.93%) of Ar?



--
Dan Espen

(M.A. Stewart) writes:

) writes:
(M.A. Stewart) writes:

) writes:
"HeyBub" writes:

wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

You're right. The problem is that scientific truth is not
determined by majority vote. The climate researchers use
scientific methods and thereby claim their endeavors are science.

As opposed to folks who will go on insisting the earth is flat based
on their political or religious beliefs. I think I'll give the edge
to the scientists in the credibility dept. Which isn't to say
they're never wrong, but compared to the corporate whores and
religious whackos, the scientific community is just more believable.

You misunderstand. Just using parts of the scientific method does
not make the endeavor science.

For example, a significant part of the scientific method is that
"researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and
design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions
which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to
guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter."

Show ONE repeatable experiment in the climate researcher's quiver.

Silly.

The warming effect of CO2 can be tested in experiments all day long.
Fill a tank with air add light, then vary amount of CO2, measure the
temperature.

The above line of reasoning is attempting to confuse the reader
because climate science makes predictions and the future only happens
once.

Even with that, there's a new result to measure every day and many
places to do the measurement.

Very silly.

Good point. Still, if you're talking about a tank resembling a standard
aquarium, and you want the gas mixture to approximate the earth's
molecules of CO2 into the tank?


Show your math.

For starters, a cubic meter of air contains 10**23 molecules.


Ya forgot the free atoms.


Free atoms? Definition:

(atomic physics) An atom, as in a gas, whose properties, such as
spectrum and magnetic moment, are not significantly affected by other
atoms, ions, or molecules nearby.

Not significant.

Does that include the 9300 ppm (0.93%) of Ar?

Yes, the Ar is insignificant, along with all the other inerts.

Actually, didn't expect any of the noble gases occurred with that
frequency. Ar is 3rd most common. Surprising...

So, instead of 10**23, we have 9.99**23?

--
Dan Espen

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Higgs Boson wrote:

Atheism, and its more reasonable cousin Agnosticism, is a scientific
way of looking at the EVIDENCE. NO belief system (religion) has ever
had a shred of EVIDENCEto support its beliefs. Whatthese belief
systems have is scared people looking for comfort, which they find in
their faith. If I were to tell a (practitioner of belief system) that
he could walk across 8 lanes of freeway traffic without getting
killed, would he do it? I think he'd look at the EVIDENCE.


That's just not true. There were 200,000 witnesses to God's revelation at
Sinai (plus countless women, children, slaves, and asses). And an unbroken
oral tradition retelling the tale to subsequent generations. As such, that
fact is as acceptable and believable as a news story in the New York Times.

No, wait...

Never mind.

for us agnostic/atheists can you provide proof of this?

In article , dpb wrote:

On 7/29/2011 1:04 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
...

And there's your answer: don't do the required annual physical and you get
dinged financially

And there's the rub (but the apparent panacea to many) -- let the
government control every aspect of every minute of everybody's life.

Thanks, but no thanks...

--

Yes, of course. We'd be much better with volunteer armies, armor, armament. Also
volunteer built bridges, tunnels, aquaducts etc would be better.

But then again with the current state of public education, who really cares

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



Agreed. But the source was the practice of providing outrageously cheap
health care as a way to circumvent the WWII wage freeze that began the
problem. It's another of the many *gifts* that wars keep on giving us.
Once it got established, it was very hard to put the brakes on it.
Actually it was a government expedience, and those hardly ever go
wrong (grin).



Is that working Americans? Retirees? Out of work people? I haven't seen a
detailed study of medical cost issues that didn't have structural "issues"
you could drive a Mack truck through.
That is the annual report(s) from the Office of the Actuary on ALL
healthcare expenditures in the US of A. Working, out of work, retired,
child and man. The whole enchilada.

The way the health care system is
arranged if you DON'T belong to an organization like Carefirst or even
Medicare, you'll pay the full freight for your medical care, including the
outrageously kited prices of medicines, fees and DME that in many cases
doubled before the RX portion of Medicare started up. Sure you can offer
the government "great" prices on drugs after you've raised them enormously.
Europeans pay less (up to 40% less!) for American drugs than Americans do.
How is that right? Why am *I* subsidizing Europeans?

http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/eu...u-s/2009-07-08

As much as it pains me deeply to say this, I have seen bunches of
studies that suggest we are not subsidizing anyone. I have had rather
large knock-down-drag-outs with people when I suggest that we are, but
studies don't suggest that. They seem to indicate that the pharm settle
for less profits elsewhere. What nobody has been able to explain is why
that isn't subsidization...


Why do seniors have to take buses to Canada to buy medicine there? There's
a lot wrong with American medicine, and much of it starts with Big Pharma
and trickles down. Anyone who's ever seen the liner of a garbage dump knows
that what trickles down is NOT good stuff.
Canada has price controls for brand medicines. They just say what
they will pay. Some drugs aren't available in Canada because of this.
Interestingly, generics are actually much cheaper in the US than Canada
largely because they aren't price controlled in the Great White North.




When things are subsidized to such a great extent, then all
sorts of weird things happen to demand and supply. That and for awhile
(in one of the great ironies of the latter 20th century) it was actually
cheaper to give better health insurance than to actually pay a similar
wage.

As a result of many factors, but all started in WWII to evade wage controls.

Not really. It all started in WWII so the government could buy off the
workers who were getting restless under the wage and price controls.
Paying for health care wasn't really violating these controls (nudge,
nudge, wink, wink). Not evading when the government itself gives you
the out.
Actually the real problems did not really start until the 60s. In
1960 the o-o-p expense for healthcare (from earlier versions of the
healthcare expenditures study) stood at 50%. Now it is less than 20%
that I actually delve into my own pocket to pay for. As the o-o-p
expense from healthcare made that drop, the %age of GDP towards
healthcare rose in tandem. Coincidence? I think not.


Are all Major Med/high deductible policies gone? As I noted before, if
you're not in a big plan like Carefirst aka Blue Double Cross or Medicare,
you pay full (highly inflated) rates for drugs, DME and medical fees. Many
people I know express awe when they see the numbers for "rate charged" and
"rate negotiated" on their statements because they are so radically
different.


Yet nobody is on awe of the difference between street price and msrp
for cars, electronics, etc. Heck even most of the uninsured don't even
pay those prices.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Dennis Lockhart, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, has
saying that "the lack of clarity about the cost implications of the
recent health care legislation" is a prominent factor in the sluggish
recovery.
"We've frequently heard strong comments to the effect of 'my company
won't hire a single additional worker until we know what health
insurance costs are going to be,'" the Fed president said.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

) writes:
(M.A. Stewart) writes:

) writes:
"HeyBub" writes:

wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

You're right. The problem is that scientific truth
is not
determined by majority vote. The climate
researchers use
[Christmas
presents under
the tree]

On 7/29/2011 9:57 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
....

Yes, of course. We'd be much better with volunteer armies, armor, armament.

We do have if you hadn't noticed...

--

On 7/29/2011 3:17 PM, harry wrote:
On Jul 28, 8:01 pm, wrote:
On 7/27/2011 2:05 AM, harry wrote:
...

Most Americans are Godless.

That's certainly not what polling data indicates...while historic
organized denominations (of all stripes) are losing market share to the
nondenominational and that ilk, individuals indicate a personal belief
at roughly 70% overall US population. Down some, but not "most" on the
side of no belief or belief in none by any stretch.

[No value judgment implied either way, simply observation...]

--

They are Godless because they ignore the basic precepts outlined in
the Bible.
They only slect the bits that suit them.

If you are going to claim to be Godly, you have to follow all the
rules.

Whose Bible, harry? There are so many to choose from....

In article ,
aemeijers wrote:


If you are going to claim to be Godly, you have to follow all the
rules.

Whose Bible, harry? There are so many to choose from....

I am betting that you too are, at bottom, a polyatheist. There are
probably whole bunches of gods you don't believe in. Can I get a
"Maybe!" (grin)

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article , dpb wrote:

On 7/29/2011 9:57 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
...

Yes, of course. We'd be much better with volunteer armies, armor, armament.

We do have if you hadn't noticed...

--

Really? I'd sure like to see some of those homemade Abrams

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

In article , dpb wrote:

On 7/29/2011 9:57 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
...

Yes, of course. We'd be much better with volunteer armies, armor,
armament.

We do have if you hadn't noticed...

--

Really? I'd sure like to see some of those homemade Abrams

Here's one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVSBXqPbD1o

In article ,
Smitty Two wrote:

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

In article , dpb wrote:

On 7/29/2011 9:57 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
...

Yes, of course. We'd be much better with volunteer armies, armor,
armament.

We do have if you hadn't noticed...

--

Really? I'd sure like to see some of those homemade Abrams

Here's one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVSBXqPbD1o

Well then all that's needed is either a homemade C-5A or Naval transport to
bring it to the front.

"Stormin Mormon" ) writes:
) writes:
(M.A. Stewart) writes:

) writes:
"HeyBub" writes:

wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

You're right. The problem is that scientific truth
is not
determined by majority vote. The climate
researchers use
[Christmas
presents under
the tree]




wow... WOW... W O W ... no top posting...

the morman storms... since this has a bizarre Xmas tangent, may
I suggest a great Xmas gift for those who have received those damned
liberal political t-shirts, and want to get back.

This is the Xmas t-shirt to give in return... it's a ' I [heart] CO2' t-shirt,
available at http://www.zazzle.ca/i_heart_co2_t_s...76169182883924


--
Was Hunter S. Thompson corrupted by avarice and addiction (AKA a squared)?
Answer... Yes and no. Discuss...

Higgs Boson wrote:

Actually, the Cheney-instigated invasion of Iraq (neglecting the REAL
target, Osama's refuge in Afghanistan) was to put down that insolent
rascal of a Saddam Hussein who actually thought he could bust the
sacrosanct US.-Saudi oil relationship and replace it with his cartel.
Tsk, tsk! And then to have the chutzpah to plan denominating his oil
in Euros instead of the sacred Dollar! Man's gotta go...


Uh, we invaded Afghanistan before we invaded Iraq.

It was never the policy of the Bush administration to kill or capture Osama
ben Laden.

Don't get me wrong, if OBL HAD been captured or killed, that would have been
a plus, but the stated goals of the Bush adminstration was to disrupt or
destroy the ability of terrorists to train, have sanctuary, get financing,
recruit, or organize. These goals were substantially achieved.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:3v-
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

From the fines imposed on those that don't meet the law

SInce the fines as currently structured are less than the likely
premiums, how is that supposed to work?

"Currently structured" answers your own question. If too many companies
decide to pay the fine but not provide health care, the fines can be
adjusted until they do. This law *should* have been passed when so many
businesses *began* ditching health care and the problem hadn't become a
nationwide epidemic.

But then, they wouldn't have had to move large numbers of
people to the government plans. Interestingly enough, the same problem
show in the MA plan, more or less the template for much of reform. And
many people go in and out of insurance plans as needed since they can't
be kept out due to pre-existing conditions.
The REALLY scary part about MA is that, since inception of their
reform, annual increases in premiums have gone from well below the
national average to above it. Their general spending also has
accelerated in a similar matter.

When one state alone does it, there are too many extra forces working
against success. Just like legislators discovered that despite their
draconian gun laws, DC was impossible to keep free of guns because it shared
a border with Virginia, where getting guns in some counties is very, very
easy. That's why the healthcare pool should include *everyone* since that's
the only way to avoid the fervent desire of for-profit insurers to not
insure sick or likely to be sick people. Who knows how many people came to
MA looking for a freebie like so many immigrants flock to the US to have
anchor babies? When you offer a benefit that nearby people don't have,
they're going to move.

People will always pay more for their healthcare in a profit-based system
than under a Medicare/Medigap system unless the latter is mis-managed to the
hilt - and it may be. The government can use its enormous purchasing power
to strike the kind of 40% Big Pharma discounts that only the Europeans get
(on OUR medicine!!!!). They supply a basic formulary excluding experimental
treatments. If you want that, you pay extra, just like if you feel you need
flood insurance.

What's gumming up the works is the basic fact that commercial health
insurers have no interest in *really* caring for the seriously ill. Payouts
= lost profits. It's that simple. Anyone whose dealt with them knows that.
That's why "pre-existing" crap started and the "recission game" came into
being. Commercial insurers DO NOT WANT to insure sick or even likely to be
sick people. Medicare evolved because some people over 55 couldn't buy
health insurance at any price. People forget that it was the for-profit
insurers refusomg to insure retirees that basically forced the birth of
Medicare.

In a non-profit situation, there is no conflict between a patient's health
and a for-profit corporation's need to pay huge salaries to the CEO and big
dividends to the stockholders. Lots of people have to get their cut of my
premium payment before I see a penny of benefits in the for profit system.
I am still in awe of how many people believed that government health care
meant "death panels." I was even more amazed to realize that so many people
didn't know those "death panels" were already in full operation at
for-profit insurers. People really seemed unaware that for profit insurers
have teams that review the week's major claims and how to "stop-loss" them.
For profit health insurance is a dirty, miserable business that does not
operate in the interest of the customer's health (for which they are paid)
but in the interests of their stockholders. That conflict alone is driving
healthcare to unaffordable levels for a lot of people.

Fixing healthcare is going to be a tough, ugly job because too many
people
make oodles of money with things just the way they are. MRSA is a
perfectly
example of the built in lack of incentives to actually *improve*
healthcare.
With 30 years experience, Kurt, surely you can tell us how hospitals
made
buckets of blood money making sick people even sicker from iatrogenic
MRSA
infections. At least until the Feds stepped in, that is. And even that
will be a long, uphill battle.

Yeah, those evil hospitals who made a killer disease just to
increase revenue.

Those evil hospitals that refused to do the minimum required to keep a known
killer infection at bay because they got MORE income for treating the
patient for the disease THEY gave him. Tell me where the incentive IS for
hospitals to keep the patient from acquiring MRSA? Nowhere. Giving a
patient that came in for a routine surgery MRSA merely means guaranteeing a
very expensive return visit. Is that evil? Is it criminal negligence? Is
it stupidity? Or is it something that keeps the bucks flowing into a profit
center and it won't be dislodged until it *doesn't* represent a lucrative
($50K per patient) followup business? They didn't invent it, but they sure
have taken advantage of it and I think that makes them evil. YMMV.

For most countries badly affected by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus (MRSA) there have been many years of debate about its relative
virulence compared with methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) and whether
it could be controlled. Now that it is endemic in the majority of hospitals
around the world, it is clear that it is at least as virulent as MSSA and is
an additional burden of healthcare-acquired infection. There is increasing
evidence that, despite this endemicity, control efforts can be successful,
although they are often perceived as expensive. In reality, there is a large
body of consistent evidence that control is highly cost effective,
particularly in the context of the huge societal costs of MRSA and the
future ever-greater threats that it poses. Source:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...24857906003499

And yet it took the Federal threat to withhold payment for iatrogenic
(medically caused) MRSA infections that the patient acquired previously at
that hospital. A lot of people died A LOT of people. Twenty thousand a
year according to some reports. Lots more people are horribly maimed by the
"flesh eating bacteria" MRSA.

When a report says "cost effective" it should mean for the payers: the
patient and insurers. Infecting people with a disease that guarantees a
return visit brings is very cost effective for HOSPITALS because of the
incredible extra revenue it represents. They're not about to cut off a
revenue stream unless forced at financial gunpoint - and that's exactly what
it took and the hospitals are finally responding. W i t h a l l d e l i b
e r a t e s p e e d. I'll bet they're looking for loopholes as I write
this.

How many people does MRSA kill?

http://www.medicinenet.com/mrsa_infection/article.htm says:

"Statistical data suggest that as many as 19,000 people per year die from
MRSA in the U.S.; current data suggest this number has declined by about
25%-35% in recent years, in part, because of prevention practices at
hospitals and home care."

By definition the free market cannot operate fairly in a system where
you're
buying a future service of unknown quality that can KILL you if poorly
performed. What are your free market options when the market has killed
you? To not buy THAT insurance again?

The insurance isn't going to kill you though.

You're a funny guy, Kurt. Bad insurance certainly CAN kill you if it denies
you urgently needed medical care by stalling approvals for procedures and
treatment long enough for you, the patient to die. Or are you going to
really try to deny that those cases are not a dime-a-dozen to find? Do I
*really* need to review the thousands (maybe tens or hundreds of thousands)
of cases where people who died wrapped up in their medical insurer's red
tape?

With your three decades in the business you HAVE to know all the tactics
insurers use to keep premiums but avoid payouts. I'd hate to think you were
"HeyBubbing" us. But you're dodging the question. How can the free market
work when a bad choice in insurers can kill you? So in light of what I just
wrote, perhaps you can explain why you believe "insurance isn't going to
kill you" by denying you treatment that they deem "too expensive" or "not in
our formulary." Unless, of course, you're playing silly word games with us
as in "insurance doesn't kill people, diseases do." Freemarket rules don't
work when it comes to a commodity that you may not need until 20 years after
you've been paying for it.

Most people don't know they have bad health insurance until they get a
denial in a life-threatening case. So where's the built-in competition and
the freemarket buyer's ability to reject inferior goods? I have read over
and over that people with advanced degrees in medical fields can't properly
compare plan benefits because they are so complex. So I believe it's a
given that people don't really know exactly what they are buying, or what it
will really cover. It's a commercial gold mine and no wonder they are
fighting Obamacare so hard. It might derail the gravy train for private
insurers.

A basic Federal minimum
Medicare-like plan for everyone who's a citizen with the ability to buy
all
the Cadillac "gap" insurance for those who feel that the minimum is not
good
enough for them is where we are headed and will end up. It will just
take a
while.

Well under those indications, we should probably then federalize
car makers (well MORE federalize carmakers) because a bad brake pad
could kill me.

That's a bit non-sequitur, a bit specious and quite a leap of logic. We've
come close to Federalizing carmakers - no, wait, we actually DID Federalize
carmakers - literally. The point is that at least in safety areas like
brakes the Feds specify what safety equipment is supposed to do and they do
it with far more detail than what your health insurance will and won't pay
for.

Brake pads have to be manufactured to stringent Federal specifications
because your bad brakes may not only kill you, but may also kill many other
people when you can't stop your car. So I ask again, if your health insurer
stalls your treatment long enough to kill you how does the free market
protect you when their self-interest (profits) collide with your
self-interest (staying alive)? Remember, I will spank your ass rosy red if
you keep denying such things happen with a dozen examples of people dying
before their insurer decided if they'll pay. (-:

I read the LAT too often to have missed the antics of California's medical
insurers, the absolute leaders in weaseling out of paying for their
insured's medical care just with two nuclear options: recissions and
pre-existing condition denials. A private insurer can renege on a payout
for nearly any reason, and if you're too sick to fight and don't have family
capable of fighting for you, you're likely to get stomped. To death.
That's why Obamacare is here. Too many private insurers have figured out
too many ways to rip off policyholders and refuse to pay what they promised.
Other countries handle universal health just fine. We're beginning to look
like the world's knuckleheads with all the unsolved problems we're facing.

From the savings to the health care system because they
catch/diagnose
cirrhosis
of the liver earlier thus preventing unnecessary liver transplants

I ahve followed these things professionally for nearly 3 decades
and
the next study that shows this will be the first. Even in insured
populations this doesn't show up.

But the concept is sound. The current structure of the health care
system
does very little to prevent ill health because that would rob them of
expensive "Hail Mary" procedures downstream. Mal's point is still valid
even if the example is not - and I don't even know if that's true.
Just
because something isn't studied doesn't make it false. It's just
unstudied.

The concept is sound but there is no evidence of its usefulness so
we should go ahead and do it anyway.

Nonsense. The MRSA data alone indicates that when there's a clear benefit
in prophylactic care, hospitals STILL refuse to get on board. It appears to
take a much bigger hammer than clearly better patient outcomes to get them
off their asses to do it right. And that's wrong. Or are you going to now
claim there's no benefit to be gained by NOT infecting people with the flesh
eating bacteria MRSA?

On the other hand, I can direct you to old journals full of studies
showing
ulcers were stress induced (they're not - they are bacterially caused).
So
even a study showing X is cause by Y has to be taken with a grain of
salt -
or some antibiotics.

which of course makes my point rather nicely, the concept of stress
was sound (actually it still is but research has shown you need this
other thing, too) until it wasn't.

Say what? It proves MY point. Australians proved antibiotics cured the
disease, but the best our US drug makers could come up with was expensive
drugs that merely treated the symptoms. That's endemic of our current
system. Don't cure - treat over a lifetime with expensive drugs.

If the fact that the medical establishment had proof up the wazoo that
something was true when it wasn't makes your point then your point is
perhaps pretty pointless. What is it you're trying to prove, anyway? That
preventative care is meaningless? Doctors kept pushing useless treatments
for ulcers that didn't cure the problem but were highly profitable to Big
Pharma - who fought the Australian studies tooth and nail. That's MY point.
Good health outcomes are secondary to the profits of the medical industries.
When was the last time medicine cured something as serious as smallpox or
polio? A long, long time ago.

That's especially true when so darn many studies are
funded by the drug makers themselves with the express intent to prove a
product's efficacy or non-lethality. Common sense tells us that there
are
likely to be some conflicts of interest in those studies.

Well known and well discussed.

Great. I'll take that as an admission that studies that show preventative
care is useless were likely to be funded by drug companies who profit more
from "treating for life" than they do curing or preventing..

Looking for myself, it seems to be now "common wisdom" that early
detection
and treatment of cirrhosis can reduce the need for transplants:


http://www.google.com/search?q=cirrh...+for+l iver+t
ransplants

Makes sense to me, too, studied, unstudied, understudied or overstudied.
Is
your objection simply that no studies have confirmed this? Or are you
actually saying that catching liver diseases earlier than where we tend
to
catch them now would have NO effect on the liver transplant rates?

No, I am saying that no studies show that insurance status has an
impact on catching these things earlier. Even with insurance that covers
annual physicals, the rates at which people take the time to actually do
them is low. The magic behind preventive medicine is largely not
supported by reality.

First of all, I don't believe Mal restricted himself to "insurance status"
but regardless, when you're forced to admit that "reality" is determined by
studies sponsored by drug companies that have a vested interest in selling
more drugs, then it's clear that they would not be interested in proving
that preventative care is worthwhile. Here's an interesting "study of past
studies" by the NEJM (who assures us this report is bias free - although all
the reports they're aggregating could be as biased as hell). It says that
preventative measures can work:

Some preventive measures save money, while others do not, although they
may still be worthwhile because they confer substantial health benefits
relative to their cost. In contrast, some preventive measures are expensive
given the health benefits they confer. In general, whether a particular
preventive measure represents good value or poor value depends on factors
such as the population targeted, with measures targeting higher-risk
populations typically being the most efficient.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558

The way these cost-benefit analyses are set up, there's a lot of fudge to
factor in. I believe it was you who pointed out how subjective a concept
like a QALY (quality adjusted life year) turns out to be.

When you factor in the newness of prevention as a tool in the medical
toolkit, it's very likely we don't quite yet know *how* to best prevent
disease. So I would expect prevention numbers to improve substantially as
more feedback is acquired. Monitoring a hard drinker for signs of cirrhosis
seems to be intuitive and perhaps as diagnostic imaging improves, we'll be
able to catch liver failure and even more untreatable things like pancreatic
cancer faster. AFAIK, pancreatic cancer is almost always fatal because it's
so notoriously difficult to catch early and people only survive more than a
few months if surgeons discover it, usually looking for something else.

New gene-based tests that can detect even a few pancreatic cancer cells are
destined to come to market (although many have failed dismally) and
eventually prevention studies like the NEJM's are going to show substantial
shifts. It's really as common sense an idea as routine auto maintenance and
inspection to detect small problems from becoming bigger. Only in the wacky
world of medical statistics does that simple, time-proven idea get turned on
its head.

--
Bobby G.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Robert Green wrote:

Did you feed your children, or keep all the food for yourself and
tell the kids to go catch themselves a cat and cook it up?

I don't think HB has any kids, but if he did, I am sure they would be
eating armadillos that they shot using HB's mini-arsenal and not cats.

You don't have to shoot armadillos. You can just trot up alongside one and
lift it up (it's feet keep moving) and dump it in the pot, much like a
lobster.

That will save on bullets. I assume they don't taste like lobster or else
they'd be all gone now.

Interesting aside:

A couple of years ago the head of the Tennessee Highway Commission issued
a
press release informing the citizens of the state that the Nine-Banded
Armadillo had migrated as far as The Volunteer State. He cautioned drivers
that, upon seeing one in the road, to NOT honk at it.

When startled, armadillos leap about four feet straight up and the driver
would experience a twelve-pound bowling ball striking his windshield at 30
to 60 miles per hour.

That's useful information. My MIL hit a deer in New Jersey. Its hooves
crashed through the windshield and she was kicked in the head repeatedly,
barely managing to bring the car to a stop on the side of the road. Boy
does she ever hate deer now.

--
Bobby G.