On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 09:33:49 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
wrote:




True dat! My case appears somewhat identical to Tony's. As a retiree,
I was able to keep my BC&BS Preferred provider coverage and did so.
Took a huge hit when I turned 65 and went on Medicare and BC&BS became
my "Supplemental" What happened was BC&BS under terms of the policy in
effect for my group assumes that Part A & B are in effect. My wife, not
yet of age for Medicare is still covered completely AND, I forgot, the
subsidy paid by my employer ends when I hit 65. So even though the
premium for my coverage dropped when I hit 65 and BC&BS became my
supplemental, I was now paying full price across the board. However, I
paid no more nor any less than the employer/employee were paying for
like coverage.

And, yeah, premiums are steep. Spending about $1,600 month for my
coverage plus the ~$100.mo for Medicare B

Is that $1600 for both of you? The supplement for Medicare should be
in the $200 to $250 range for just you.

I have Medicare and a supplement and it is less than $700 for the two
of us and it is virtually 100% coverage on anything but some
prescription co-pays.

On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 10:02:56 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"Tony944" wrote:


Example in 2004 I have retire just for me and my wife I was paying BC&BS type
J coverage $1900.00 per month, the very same coverage group insured was
paying $800.00 or less, perhaps some of you reading this will tell me that is
fair: I don't think so". What happens with people like me we want change even
on the end perhaps become losers? That is why some people don't care who
they are taking it from "They want the Change"!

What do you mean "covered group"?

I think he is talking about the group where he worked. That is how
most plans work, you insure from 5 to even 5000+ employees all at the
same price per month. The average age of those covered my be 35 or 45
and require little medical care. As a 60+ year old individual you are
more likely to need lots of care, thus a higher premium.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message m...
In article ,
"Tony944" wrote:


Example in 2004 I have retire just for me and my wife I was paying BC&BS type
J coverage $1900.00 per month, the very same coverage group insured was
paying $800.00 or less, perhaps some of you reading this will tell me that is
fair: I don't think so". What happens with people like me we want change even
on the end perhaps become losers? That is why some people don't care who
they are taking it from "They want the Change"!

What do you mean "covered group"?
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe


Ok my English is not that great.
I SAID BEFORE I WENT INTO RETIREMENT
I as individual was paying $1900.00 BC&BS of N.J. for medical coverage per month
while people that are insure through a group paying only $800.00 or less for the
same coverage is that fair????

Note: This does not have anything to do with Medicare or Medicgap

On 10/19/2013 10:05 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 09:33:49 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
wrote:


premium for my coverage dropped when I hit 65 and BC&BS became my
supplemental, I was now paying full price across the board. However, I
paid no more nor any less than the employer/employee were paying for
like coverage.

And, yeah, premiums are steep. Spending about $1,600 month for my
coverage plus the ~$100.mo for Medicare B

Is that $1600 for both of you? The supplement for Medicare should be
in the $200 to $250 range for just you.

I have Medicare and a supplement and it is less than $700 for the two
of us and it is virtually 100% coverage on anything but some
prescription co-pays.

Afraid so... She has the full-boat (as do I) including dental and
prescription ($7.50 co pay on a 90 day supply). We are in the Chicago
Metro area that doesn't help, I don't think, premium-wise.

Thru BC/BS my "supplemental coverage is a lot lower than her full
coverage but still high when you compare it with other supplemental
policies.

She goes on Medicare 2nd quarter of 2014 and I will be dropping Bc/BS
and picking up supplemental for both of us. I managed my late father's
affairs for several years before he passed. He had Medicare A &B and a
premium supplemental plan through AARP written by United Healthcare. He
paid very little out of pocket all things considered and he had
significant medical issues those last several years. Think his premium
was around $300/mo for United Healthcare. Last I checked (a year or two
back) premium had not increased by very much at all.

So, all in all, barring a total screwing by Obummercare's
implementation, I'm hoping to cut my premium by about half next year.
Fingers are crossed.

On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 11:21:59 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
wrote:




I have Medicare and a supplement and it is less than $700 for the two
of us and it is virtually 100% coverage on anything but some
prescription co-pays.

Afraid so... She has the full-boat (as do I) including dental and
prescription ($7.50 co pay on a 90 day supply). We are in the Chicago
Metro area that doesn't help, I don't think, premium-wise.

Thru BC/BS my "supplemental coverage is a lot lower than her full
coverage but still high when you compare it with other supplemental
policies.

She goes on Medicare 2nd quarter of 2014 and I will be dropping Bc/BS
and picking up supplemental for both of us. I managed my late father's
affairs for several years before he passed. He had Medicare A &B and a
premium supplemental plan through AARP written by United Healthcare. He
paid very little out of pocket all things considered and he had
significant medical issues those last several years. Think his premium
was around $300/mo for United Healthcare. Last I checked (a year or two
back) premium had not increased by very much at all.

So, all in all, barring a total screwing by Obummercare's
implementation, I'm hoping to cut my premium by about half next year.
Fingers are crossed.

My AARP supplement for Plan F is $205. Medicare is $104.
Prescriptions $37. I'm in CT, also a high medical cost state.

My wife recently had surgery and 2 week hospital stay, , month in a
physical rehab, another 3 days hospital stay and a daily nurse visit
every day for 5 months. My total out of pocket cost is $0. Actual
cost is probably in the range of 32 years of premiums.

In article om,
bud-- wrote:

Opay as you go programs since the mid-80s when the
Congress (by a large bipartisan majority which means it fits most any
definition of "functional") passed a tax increase that was then, by law,
placed ONLY in Treasury securities. This was specifically put in place
to help pay for the Boomers.
At that time, and every administration and every Congress since
then, the politicians have sorta forgot to find money to pay back the
securities (either interest or principle). And to this day they continue
the pretense of SS being funded for another 30 years or so when the cash
runs out much sooner and there is no way to fund the payments. I call
this our own Grecian Formula.

Are you talking about the trust fund being invested in treasury bills
which, because of the way it was reported, does not show up in the deficit?
I would settle for it not showing up in the deficit. It is viewed as
a positive that actually hides the real deficit and debt. If any company
tried to call a long-term liability (the bonds) as a short term asset,
numerous federal agencies would be standing in line to haul people off
to jail


It is a debt, just like the debt to China. I suppose the US could
default on its debt...
Which is pretty much my point. This is an unfunded liability that
nobody knows how we are going to pay for. We will be Greece within the
next 25 years (at most) if we don't do somethind today. We won't but we
should.



And the CBO underestimates the savings from medical cost control. Some
of the changes are built into the ACA. (Looking at "best practices" is
also in the ACA.)
Since when? Their projections for MCare growth and expenses have
been consistently overestimating savings since at least the mid 80s.


I suppose we could use estimates from the Heritage Foundation.
Certainly as second opinion.



It assumes that none of the various taxes will have an
effect on prices paid. It assumes that the cuts in pay to the docs and
hospitals will come about (ironically enough the day before the ACA was
passed, Congress stopped a 35% in cut in pay to the docs. The reason for
the cut was accumulated cuts that hadn't happened in the Medicare
Sustainability Act from the mid-90s.)

It is a problem that is irrelevant to ACA - if ACA disappeared the doc
pay problem would still be there.
But the ACA's cost projections and saving were based on getting
these cuts.. which they haven't stuck to since the Sustainability Act
was passed in the 97 or so. These cuts are the backbone of the
financial side of the ACA and hardly irrelevant.

But if the ACA disappeared the doc fix is still a problem. It is a
problem that is independent of the ACA.
Yeah, but the problem is made even worse because the assumptions of
the ACA are built on Congress all of a sudden doing something they
haven't done since 1997. My point is why now would they get the balls to
follow through.


The CBO is the accepted basis for estimates to congress.
And the EPA estimates are the accepted basis for cars. Doesn't mean
either one is correct.

So you reject the CBO.
No, but neither do I assume they are gospel. Too many indicators
suggest otherwise. They are one data point, that is all.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 19:52:45 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 19:25:44 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Ed Pawlowski:
I've been trying to hire a person for a trainee type maintenance
position. I get two types of applicants. One is the 60+ year old guy
that was making $25 or more an hour. The other is the young guy that
did not finish high school and has a difficult time spelling the name
of the street he lives on. .

My son-in-law recently had to hire somebody to help test financial
planning software. He decided that one litmus test was whether the
applicant could demonstrate an understanding of compound interest.

He had to interview twenty-seven *college graduates* before he found
somebody who could.

Perhaps now you understand why we elect the people we do.
\

zING!!!!

On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 06:20:44 +0200, nestork
wrote:


When threads go totally off track like this one has, it's fertile ground
for an argument to pop into existance, like energy in a vaccuum.

I think you really can't compare the buying power of an hour's worth of
wages today to that of 50 years ago because so many things have changed
in 50 years.

I suppose there's some truth to that but if you want to compare you
need some basis of comparison. Dollars or hours are about all I can
think of. I sort of like hours better because it makes it somewhat
closer to a work = get stuff equation. If the average weekly income
in 1940 (for 60 hours of work) was $50 it would still make a big
difference if that $50 was earned with 40 hours of work or with 60
hours of work. So if you looked at 1940 versus 2000 and said the
average weekly income in 1940 was $50 and in 2000 its $500 it looks
like people make 10 times as much for a weeks worth of work. But if
you covert it to dollars per hour labor equivalent than 1940 is
$0.83/hr and 2000 is $12.50/hr and the ratio is not 10:1 it's 30:1.
It's not nearly as important as "what is cost in dollars" but "what it
cost in your labor/time". Another way to look at this is the old joke
about how if Bill Gate's drops a hundred dollar bill on the sidewalk
when getting out of a taxi it's not worth his time to stop and pick it
up, his time is too valuable. Now for a single instance that's
obviously silly, but what if the comparison was - should Bill Gates
spend all day picking up $10,000 dollars in $100 bills that fell out
of his suitcase or should he let it go and proceed to his meeting in
the penthouse to seal some deal. Clearly for Bill he should just hope
on the Elevator. If that happened to me... I'd be on my hands and
knees scooping up the money, my "important meeting" of the dust bunny
club could wait.

On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 20:50:52 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 20:27:19 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 10/15/2013 7:07 PM, Bill wrote:

The $60 microwave oven made me a "chef"! : )

What would you have paid for one in 1960?

In 1960, the wife stayed home with Wallace and
Theodour. She had black and white TV. After her
morning dexedrine, she had plenty of energy to
do her chores, and cook on the range. Dad came
home in the 8 cylinder Buick, using ethyl gas,
played with the boys for a while, and went to
the den to smoke his pipe. They would have paid
about $19.95 for a microwave, which would have
lasted 20 years. And comes in avocado green.


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

Percy Spencer discovered the heating effect of microwaves in 1945.

The first Raytheon commercial microwave oven was the 1161 Radarange,
which was marketed in 1954. Rated at 1600 watts, it was so large and
expensive that it was practical only for restaurant and institutional
use.

In 1947, the first commercial microwave oven hit the market. These
primitive units where gigantic and enormously expensive, standing 5
1/2 feet tall, weighing over 750 pounds, and costing about $5000
each.($52,273 in today's dollars) The magnetron tube had to be
water-cooled, so plumbing installations were also required.

By the early 1950s, domestic appliance makers began showing interest
in the microwave. Lacking the distribution and marketing
infrastructure to promote and sell the product on its own, Raytheon
entered into a licensing agreement with Tappan Stove Company in 1952.
In 1955, Tappan introduced the first domestic microwave oven, which
featured a more compact but less powerful microwave generating system.
With a price tag of approximately $1,300, these domestic models fared
only modestly.





In 1967, Amana, a division of Raytheon, introduced its domestic
Radarange microwave oven, marking the beginning of the use of
microwave ovens in home kitchens. Although sales were slow during the
first few years, partially due to the oven’s relatively expensive
price tag, the concept of quick microwave cooking had arrived. In
succeeding years, Litton and a number of other companies joined the
countertop microwave oven market. By the end of 1971, the price of
countertop units began to decrease and their capabilities were
expanded


I was just getting out of college in 1972 and setting up my first real
"place of my own". As a bachelor chef, one of the first items on my
list was a microwave oven. Unlike most of my cars, it's not something
I "wish I still had" but I sure enjoyed using it and quite honestly
there isn't more then a dimes worth of functional difference between
the one I had in 1972 and the one I have today other then increased
power and a revolving turntable.

On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 07:34:11 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 10/14/2013 9:52 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 10/14/2013 6:41 PM, wrote:
Back in the 1970's me and a several guys I knew decided to take a
refresher course so we could obtain our First Class FCC license required
for a job as a broadcast engineer. We already knew our electronics and
had experience in the field but needed a little
help to guarantee we passed our test. There was one gal in the class.
She was nice and we all liked her but she didn't know one end of a
soldering iron from the other but did know a screwdriver was for
screwing. Everyone in the class passed the test and obtained our First
Class FCC license. Guess who was immediately hired by a radio station?
That was my first real brush with Affirmative Action. o_O

She had the tools the station was looking for.


Two pointy ones. o_O

TDD

When Kodak still had employees, my Dad used to joke
that a Jewish Black woman could be hired and be VP
within a year. As usual, the Congress is the problem,
writing and enforcing laws like Affirmative Action.

Sadly, Congress "pay no attention to the man behind
the curtain!" seldom gets credit for their problems.

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


All this BS is before the supreme court again. somehow some of the
justices don't understand the concept of "treat everyone equal"
preferring to treat some people as more equal then others.

The reason a college degree is required for almost any decent job
today is because making a degree a job requirement eliminates many of
the "equal employment class" from the job pool and somehow has managed
to escape the ire of the Affirmative action wackos. They have,
however, started attacking the notion that you can ask someone if they
are a convicted criminal when considering employing them. That's
unfair, you shouldn't be allowed to protect your workplace from KNOWN
thieves cuz they 'paid their time' in jail and shouldn't get punished
again in the workplace. I guess the notion that maybe they shouldn't
have been out thieving never occurred to these people.

On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 18:22:47 -0500, Dean Hoffman
" wrote:

On 10/13/13 5:44 PM, Neill Massello wrote:
Dean Hoffman " wrote:

He has ten other examples of decreasing work hours needed to buy given
items.

And concludes that everybody is getting richer, which is quite
unwarranted unless the time cost of little things like food, housing,
transportation, medical care, education, and taxes are also taken into
account. This kind of half-baked, disingenuous crap is about the only
thing AEI puts out any more. Like many of the other so-called
"conservative" or "free enterprise" organizations, it has largely become
a shill for big business.


Americans are spending less of their disposible income on food as
time goes by. I looked at the U.S. Department of Agriculture site. It
has that type of information but it is unavailable due to the "shutdown".
There is a chart he http://tinyurl.com/3yqoses
Americans spent about 23% of their disposable income in 1930. We were
spending about 9.5% of it by 2010. I wonder why the big spike in the
mid to late 1940s.
Wouldn't it be tough to compare medical costs over time? Doctors
have a bunch of new toys and techniques they didn't have in the past.

We currently spend around 13% of GPD on medical care and the
projection is that it will rise to 25%. Do you really think that's
sustainable? A quarter of ALL our productivity will go to medical
care????? I know the below is hard to read but at the least it shows
how much GOVERMENT money is spent on various categories. So when you
look at the healthcare it presumably does NOT include private payments
to health care costs. Does it really seem right that the two biggest
expenses of the gvt are pensions and health care??? Is that the
purpose of GVT ????

[+] Pensions 928.5 0.0 204.7 42.0 1,175.2
[+] Health Care 973.6 -324.8 510.2 141.0 1,300.0
[+] Education 141.8 -96.5 277.2 662.9 985.4
[+] Defense 830.9 0.0 1.3 0.0 832.2
[+] Welfare 393.7 -119.0 153.9 100.6 529.1
[+] Protection 36.0 -7.1 76.6 166.9 272.5
[+] Transportation 103.8 -70.5 116.3 135.6 285.3
[+] General Government 53.4 -4.3 56.3 78.7 184.2
[+] Other Spending 93.2 -18.2 103.5 372.3 550.8
[+] Interest 222.9 0.0 51.6 65.7 340.2
[+] Balance 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0
[+] Total Spending: Start chart 3,777.8 -640.3 1,551.5 1,765.6 6,454.7
[+] Federal Deficit 744.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 744.2
[+] Gross Public Debt 18,246.9 0.0 1,176.5 1,867.7 21,291.1

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 07:40:42 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 06:23:31 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:



Of course, that is "at home"expenditure, not total.

When I was a kid, eating out was maybe a once or twice a year thing and
there was no such thing as "fast food". Now, restaurants of all kinds have
proliferated and people eat out frequently; they patronize fast food places
even more frequently.

A few weeks back, my wife had a late doctor's appointment so we
stopped at a restaurant on the way home. This was a local chain, the
99, similar to Applebees and the like. It was a little after 5, just
enough time for parents to leave work and grab the kids from a sitter.
I was amazed at how many families were there. Like you, eating out
was a rare treat when we were kids. It was a big deal to go shopping
with mom and have lunch at the counter in Woolworths.


For us, eating out was a once or twice a month thing and it WAS fast
food. I don't think I ate in a real restaurant till I was 16.

On 10/21/2013 03:59 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
Does it really seem right that the two biggest
expenses of the gvt are pensions and health care??? Is that the
purpose of GVT ????

[+] Pensions 928.5 0.0 204.7 42.0 1,175.2
[+] Health Care 973.6 -324.8 510.2 141.0 1,300.0

The pension payout is MY money. My employer and I have been paying in 15% of my wages my entire career.

The health care problem is going to bankrupt the US.
Over half the people are lazy and obese from eating sugar-loaded junk food.
Most are moments away from a heart attack or stroke and Joe Taxpayer gets stuck with the nursing home tab.

On 10/21/2013 1:31 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 07:34:11 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 10/14/2013 9:52 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 10/14/2013 6:41 PM, wrote:
Back in the 1970's me and a several guys I knew decided to take a
refresher course so we could obtain our First Class FCC license required
for a job as a broadcast engineer. We already knew our electronics and
had experience in the field but needed a little
help to guarantee we passed our test. There was one gal in the class.
She was nice and we all liked her but she didn't know one end of a
soldering iron from the other but did know a screwdriver was for
screwing. Everyone in the class passed the test and obtained our First
Class FCC license. Guess who was immediately hired by a radio station?
That was my first real brush with Affirmative Action. o_O

She had the tools the station was looking for.


Two pointy ones. o_O

TDD

When Kodak still had employees, my Dad used to joke
that a Jewish Black woman could be hired and be VP
within a year. As usual, the Congress is the problem,
writing and enforcing laws like Affirmative Action.

Sadly, Congress "pay no attention to the man behind
the curtain!" seldom gets credit for their problems.

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


All this BS is before the supreme court again. somehow some of the
justices don't understand the concept of "treat everyone equal"
preferring to treat some people as more equal then others.

The reason a college degree is required for almost any decent job
today is because making a degree a job requirement eliminates many of
the "equal employment class" from the job pool and somehow has managed
to escape the ire of the Affirmative action wackos. They have,
however, started attacking the notion that you can ask someone if they
are a convicted criminal when considering employing them. That's
unfair, you shouldn't be allowed to protect your workplace from KNOWN
thieves cuz they 'paid their time' in jail and shouldn't get punished
again in the workplace. I guess the notion that maybe they shouldn't
have been out thieving never occurred to these people.


How about determining the intelligence of job applicants because you
have very expensive equipment you don't want some dumbass destroying
because he can't read and understand the operating instructions? But
darn, that would be racist even if it eliminated many Caucasian job
applicants. ^_^

TDD

In article ,
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:43:26 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:35:25 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Is it required that you lust after others' possessions? You think
that's healthy? Does it help you save faster? Does it help your
neighbor pay for his? The gain is?

Not required. Probably not healthy. In fact, I don't lust after
my neighbor's chariot. It neither helps me save faster, nor
helps him pay for his.

Yet you think it's a good thing for others?

What does it matter?

It matters a *lot*. When people covet what others have instead of
what they will work for it wrecks society.

What do you think "covet" means? It means "yearn to possess or have".
How does wanting to have something wreck society? Isn't that what
consumer demand is all about?

Suppose it's not good. What are we going to do about it?

We? You think it's just peachy to want to take from others.

What evidence do you have to support this?

There's no gain. A lot of what people do produces no gain,
yet it's human nature to do these things. We're not robots.

...and that's a good thing?

Human nature comprises both good and bad. Always has, always will.

True but irrelevant. You think it's a good idea to cater to the least
common denominator. I'd rather look somewhat above that.

You seem to wish to restrict people's freedom to covet.

It's wrong on all levels. It is a deadly sin for a reason.

Ah, sin. I don't have much of a concept of sin.

I can tell. Your lack of morality is quite evident.

I suppose if pushed to it, I'd define it the way
Terry Pratchett does: "Treating people as things".

Define "it".

Sin. "Sin is treating people as things".

Covetousness doesn't seem to be a sin.

Bull****. You *are* treating people as objects when you're envious of
their possessions. If you treated them as equals you could never be
envious.

That doesn't make a lick of sense. If my neighbor has a Rolls Royce,
and I think, "I envy his Rolls Royce. I wish I had one", where's
the harm?

Cindy Hamilton
--

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 01:01:47 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 07:40:42 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 06:23:31 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:



Of course, that is "at home"expenditure, not total.

When I was a kid, eating out was maybe a once or twice a year thing and
there was no such thing as "fast food". Now, restaurants of all kinds have
proliferated and people eat out frequently; they patronize fast food places
even more frequently.

A few weeks back, my wife had a late doctor's appointment so we
stopped at a restaurant on the way home. This was a local chain, the
99, similar to Applebees and the like. It was a little after 5, just
enough time for parents to leave work and grab the kids from a sitter.
I was amazed at how many families were there. Like you, eating out
was a rare treat when we were kids. It was a big deal to go shopping
with mom and have lunch at the counter in Woolworths.


For us, eating out was a once or twice a month thing and it WAS fast
food. I don't think I ate in a real restaurant till I was 16.

I don't recall my parents ever taking the family out to a fast-food
restaurant (there weren't many). We would occasionally go out to a
restaurant but certainly not once or twice a month, even before my
father died. Rarely, in fact, unless we were traveling.

OTOH, we've been going out three times a week, lately (over the
weekend), but never to a fast-food restaurant, again, unless we're
traveling (eat on-the-go). Don't need the fast part - would rather
have the food part.

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:32:39 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 10/21/2013 1:31 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 07:34:11 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 10/14/2013 9:52 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 10/14/2013 6:41 PM, wrote:
Back in the 1970's me and a several guys I knew decided to take a
refresher course so we could obtain our First Class FCC license required
for a job as a broadcast engineer. We already knew our electronics and
had experience in the field but needed a little
help to guarantee we passed our test. There was one gal in the class.
She was nice and we all liked her but she didn't know one end of a
soldering iron from the other but did know a screwdriver was for
screwing. Everyone in the class passed the test and obtained our First
Class FCC license. Guess who was immediately hired by a radio station?
That was my first real brush with Affirmative Action. o_O

She had the tools the station was looking for.


Two pointy ones. o_O

TDD

When Kodak still had employees, my Dad used to joke
that a Jewish Black woman could be hired and be VP
within a year. As usual, the Congress is the problem,
writing and enforcing laws like Affirmative Action.

Sadly, Congress "pay no attention to the man behind
the curtain!" seldom gets credit for their problems.

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


All this BS is before the supreme court again. somehow some of the
justices don't understand the concept of "treat everyone equal"
preferring to treat some people as more equal then others.

The reason a college degree is required for almost any decent job
today is because making a degree a job requirement eliminates many of
the "equal employment class" from the job pool and somehow has managed
to escape the ire of the Affirmative action wackos. They have,
however, started attacking the notion that you can ask someone if they
are a convicted criminal when considering employing them. That's
unfair, you shouldn't be allowed to protect your workplace from KNOWN
thieves cuz they 'paid their time' in jail and shouldn't get punished
again in the workplace. I guess the notion that maybe they shouldn't
have been out thieving never occurred to these people.


How about determining the intelligence of job applicants because you
have very expensive equipment you don't want some dumbass destroying
because he can't read and understand the operating instructions? But
darn, that would be racist even if it eliminated many Caucasian job
applicants. ^_^

TDD

years ago, state gvt, I was going to interview applicants for my clerk
position. I thought I would do a very short dictation and have them
type it up as part of the interview. Mentioned that to HR and they
blew a gasket. It was to BE ASSUMED that if HR put them on "the list"
that they had those minimum qualifications. Did HR test them for
that? No, they just took their word for it!!! But I was not allowed
to verify they actually had the skill. Basically we were not allowed
to "test them" in anyway as part of the interview.

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 14:06:11 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 01:01:47 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 07:40:42 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 06:23:31 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:



Of course, that is "at home"expenditure, not total.

When I was a kid, eating out was maybe a once or twice a year thing and
there was no such thing as "fast food". Now, restaurants of all kinds have
proliferated and people eat out frequently; they patronize fast food places
even more frequently.

A few weeks back, my wife had a late doctor's appointment so we
stopped at a restaurant on the way home. This was a local chain, the
99, similar to Applebees and the like. It was a little after 5, just
enough time for parents to leave work and grab the kids from a sitter.
I was amazed at how many families were there. Like you, eating out
was a rare treat when we were kids. It was a big deal to go shopping
with mom and have lunch at the counter in Woolworths.


For us, eating out was a once or twice a month thing and it WAS fast
food. I don't think I ate in a real restaurant till I was 16.

I don't recall my parents ever taking the family out to a fast-food
restaurant (there weren't many). We would occasionally go out to a
restaurant but certainly not once or twice a month, even before my
father died. Rarely, in fact, unless we were traveling.

OTOH, we've been going out three times a week, lately (over the
weekend), but never to a fast-food restaurant, again, unless we're
traveling (eat on-the-go). Don't need the fast part - would rather
have the food part.


If I'm working I want the fast part. But it surprises me how little
actual difference there is in price between my wife and I eating at a
typical fast food place, maybe $16 versus a real sit down restaurant,
which for a non-fancy outing might be $21. For the extra $5 you get
served, real plates, actual food.....

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:59:52 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:43:26 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:35:25 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Is it required that you lust after others' possessions? You think
that's healthy? Does it help you save faster? Does it help your
neighbor pay for his? The gain is?

Not required. Probably not healthy. In fact, I don't lust after
my neighbor's chariot. It neither helps me save faster, nor
helps him pay for his.

Yet you think it's a good thing for others?

What does it matter?

It matters a *lot*. When people covet what others have instead of
what they will work for it wrecks society.

What do you think "covet" means? It means "yearn to possess or have".

What *they* posses. If you don't think that's poisonous, you must be
blonde.

How does wanting to have something wreck society? Isn't that what
consumer demand is all about?

Do *you* know what "envy"means?

Suppose it's not good. What are we going to do about it?

We? You think it's just peachy to want to take from others.

What evidence do you have to support this?

You're justifying envy. You said it. I'm just repeating what you
said.

There's no gain. A lot of what people do produces no gain,
yet it's human nature to do these things. We're not robots.

...and that's a good thing?

Human nature comprises both good and bad. Always has, always will.

True but irrelevant. You think it's a good idea to cater to the least
common denominator. I'd rather look somewhat above that.

You seem to wish to restrict people's freedom to covet.

It's wrong on all levels. It is a deadly sin for a reason.

Ah, sin. I don't have much of a concept of sin.

I can tell. Your lack of morality is quite evident.

I suppose if pushed to it, I'd define it the way
Terry Pratchett does: "Treating people as things".

Define "it".

Sin. "Sin is treating people as things".

One.

Covetousness doesn't seem to be a sin.

Bull****. You *are* treating people as objects when you're envious of
their possessions. If you treated them as equals you could never be
envious.

That doesn't make a lick of sense. If my neighbor has a Rolls Royce,
and I think, "I envy his Rolls Royce. I wish I had one", where's
the harm?

You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Envy (from Latin invidia) is a resentment which "occurs when someone
lacks another's quality, achievement or possession and wishes that the
other lacked it."

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:26:02 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 14:06:11 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 01:01:47 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 07:40:42 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 06:23:31 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:



Of course, that is "at home"expenditure, not total.

When I was a kid, eating out was maybe a once or twice a year thing and
there was no such thing as "fast food". Now, restaurants of all kinds have
proliferated and people eat out frequently; they patronize fast food places
even more frequently.

A few weeks back, my wife had a late doctor's appointment so we
stopped at a restaurant on the way home. This was a local chain, the
99, similar to Applebees and the like. It was a little after 5, just
enough time for parents to leave work and grab the kids from a sitter.
I was amazed at how many families were there. Like you, eating out
was a rare treat when we were kids. It was a big deal to go shopping
with mom and have lunch at the counter in Woolworths.


For us, eating out was a once or twice a month thing and it WAS fast
food. I don't think I ate in a real restaurant till I was 16.

I don't recall my parents ever taking the family out to a fast-food
restaurant (there weren't many). We would occasionally go out to a
restaurant but certainly not once or twice a month, even before my
father died. Rarely, in fact, unless we were traveling.

OTOH, we've been going out three times a week, lately (over the
weekend), but never to a fast-food restaurant, again, unless we're
traveling (eat on-the-go). Don't need the fast part - would rather
have the food part.


If I'm working I want the fast part. But it surprises me how little
actual difference there is in price between my wife and I eating at a
typical fast food place, maybe $16 versus a real sit down restaurant,
which for a non-fancy outing might be $21. For the extra $5 you get
served, real plates, actual food.....

Exactly. At work, I'm generally eating out at least once a week,
always to a real restaurant. Of course, I'm not picking up the check
(suppliers buy). ;-) Otherwise, I bag my lunch.

If I'm working around the house, I won't eat until I'm done. If we go
out, then, it's a real restaurant. You're right, the difference isn't
significant, at least for two people. There's also the tip; that's
another $5.

On 10/21/13 2:59 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
nch of new toys and techniques they didn't have in the past.

We currently spend around 13% of GPD on medical care and the
projection is that it will rise to 25%. Do you really think that's
sustainable? A quarter of ALL our productivity will go to medical
care????? I know the below is hard to read but at the least it shows
how much GOVERMENT money is spent on various categories. So when you
look at the healthcare it presumably does NOT include private payments
to health care costs. Does it really seem right that the two biggest
expenses of the gvt are pensions and health care??? Is that the
purpose of GVT ????

No, it doesn't seem at all right to me.
I vote for what ever small government candidate I can.
I picture the Founding Fathers looking down on us and yelling "No, you
idiots, that's not what we meant".

On 10/21/2013 4:26 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

If I'm working I want the fast part. But it surprises me how little
actual difference there is in price between my wife and I eating at a
typical fast food place, maybe $16 versus a real sit down restaurant,
which for a non-fancy outing might be $21. For the extra $5 you get
served, real plates, actual food.....


If you're still able to find it for $21, you are doing OK. Seems most
of the time now it is $30+. Not difficult to hit $50 either.

In article ,
wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:59:52 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:43:26 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:35:25 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Is it required that you lust after others' possessions? You think
that's healthy? Does it help you save faster? Does it help your
neighbor pay for his? The gain is?

Not required. Probably not healthy. In fact, I don't lust after
my neighbor's chariot. It neither helps me save faster, nor
helps him pay for his.

Yet you think it's a good thing for others?

What does it matter?

It matters a *lot*. When people covet what others have instead of
what they will work for it wrecks society.

What do you think "covet" means? It means "yearn to possess or have".

What *they* posses. If you don't think that's poisonous, you must be
blonde.

How does wanting to have something wreck society? Isn't that what
consumer demand is all about?

Do *you* know what "envy"means?

Suppose it's not good. What are we going to do about it?

We? You think it's just peachy to want to take from others.

What evidence do you have to support this?

You're justifying envy. You said it. I'm just repeating what you
said.

There's no gain. A lot of what people do produces no gain,
yet it's human nature to do these things. We're not robots.

...and that's a good thing?

Human nature comprises both good and bad. Always has, always will.

True but irrelevant. You think it's a good idea to cater to the least
common denominator. I'd rather look somewhat above that.

You seem to wish to restrict people's freedom to covet.

It's wrong on all levels. It is a deadly sin for a reason.

Ah, sin. I don't have much of a concept of sin.

I can tell. Your lack of morality is quite evident.

I suppose if pushed to it, I'd define it the way
Terry Pratchett does: "Treating people as things".

Define "it".

Sin. "Sin is treating people as things".

One.

Covetousness doesn't seem to be a sin.

Bull****. You *are* treating people as objects when you're envious of
their possessions. If you treated them as equals you could never be
envious.

That doesn't make a lick of sense. If my neighbor has a Rolls Royce,
and I think, "I envy his Rolls Royce. I wish I had one", where's
the harm?

You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Envy (from Latin invidia) is a resentment which "occurs when someone
lacks another's quality, achievement or possession and wishes that the
other lacked it."

You're right. I'm wrong. Thanks for educating me.

Cindy Hamilton
--

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/21/2013 4:26 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

If I'm working I want the fast part. But it surprises me how little
actual difference there is in price between my wife and I eating at a
typical fast food place, maybe $16 versus a real sit down restaurant,
which for a non-fancy outing might be $21. For the extra $5 you get
served, real plates, actual food.....


If you're still able to find it for $21, you are doing OK. Seems most
of the time now it is $30+. Not difficult to hit $50 either.

Hmmm,
Eating out? We never go to a fast food joint to eat junk food.
Respectable eatery costs ~100.00 per person including tip at least.
Going on a cruise is another option. There are all kinda good deals
since economy tanked.

In article ,
Tony Hwang wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/21/2013 4:26 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

If I'm working I want the fast part. But it surprises me how little
actual difference there is in price between my wife and I eating at a
typical fast food place, maybe $16 versus a real sit down restaurant,
which for a non-fancy outing might be $21. For the extra $5 you get
served, real plates, actual food.....


If you're still able to find it for $21, you are doing OK. Seems most
of the time now it is $30+. Not difficult to hit $50 either.

Hmmm,
Eating out? We never go to a fast food joint to eat junk food.
Respectable eatery costs ~100.00 per person including tip at least.

Really? I generally figure about half that. Of course, we rarely
have any kind of alcohol when we eat in restaurants.

Perhaps we have differing definitions of "respectable". We don't do
"cuisine". The places we go most often (in no particular order):
German
Indian
Turkish
Japanese
Chinese
Italian
Syrian
Steakhouse

Some quite tasty ethnic meals can be had for $25 for two people.

That's all in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Prices are of course higher
in a large metropolis.

Cindy Hamilton
--

On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:36:29 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 10/21/2013 4:26 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

If I'm working I want the fast part. But it surprises me how little
actual difference there is in price between my wife and I eating at a
typical fast food place, maybe $16 versus a real sit down restaurant,
which for a non-fancy outing might be $21. For the extra $5 you get
served, real plates, actual food.....


If you're still able to find it for $21, you are doing OK. Seems most
of the time now it is $30+. Not difficult to hit $50 either.
Surprising number of places, locally, where you can get a good,
healthy, sit-down meal for no more than $2 more than a typical fast
food meal. A "fast food" meal is NOT a money saver.(unless you are
buying off the "bargain menu" "valu meal" etc - in which case what you
are getting is usually significantly less than what you would get at
the sit-down restaurant too.

On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 11:18:54 AM UTC-4, Tony Hwang wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 10/21/2013 4:26 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:



If I'm working I want the fast part. But it surprises me how little

actual difference there is in price between my wife and I eating at a

typical fast food place, maybe $16 versus a real sit down restaurant,

which for a non-fancy outing might be $21. For the extra $5 you get

served, real plates, actual food.....





If you're still able to find it for $21, you are doing OK. Seems most

of the time now it is $30+. Not difficult to hit $50 either.



Hmmm,

Eating out? We never go to a fast food joint to eat junk food.

Respectable eatery costs ~100.00 per person including tip at least.

Going on a cruise is another option. There are all kinda good deals

since economy tanked.


A meal at a respectable eatery costing $100+ per person
is your idea of a good deal? I didn't see anyone here talking
about high end restaurants. Sure, you *can* spend $100 a
person at a high end restaurant. Nothing wrong with that.
But that isn't the typical dining out experience I'd bet
for 100% of the people on the newsgroup.

On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:18:54 -0600, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/21/2013 4:26 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

If I'm working I want the fast part. But it surprises me how little
actual difference there is in price between my wife and I eating at a
typical fast food place, maybe $16 versus a real sit down restaurant,
which for a non-fancy outing might be $21. For the extra $5 you get
served, real plates, actual food.....


If you're still able to find it for $21, you are doing OK. Seems most
of the time now it is $30+. Not difficult to hit $50 either.

Hmmm,
Eating out? We never go to a fast food joint to eat junk food.
Respectable eatery costs ~100.00 per person including tip at least.
Going on a cruise is another option. There are all kinda good deals
since economy tanked.
Here in Waterloo Region, Ontario, there are MANY places where you
can go to a "respectable eatery" for a sub-$25 meal if you don't
drink. Both buffet, country style, family style, or a-la-carte.

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
In article ,
Tony Hwang wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/21/2013 4:26 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

If I'm working I want the fast part. But it surprises me how little
actual difference there is in price between my wife and I eating at a
typical fast food place, maybe $16 versus a real sit down restaurant,
which for a non-fancy outing might be $21. For the extra $5 you get
served, real plates, actual food.....


If you're still able to find it for $21, you are doing OK. Seems most
of the time now it is $30+. Not difficult to hit $50 either.

Hmmm,
Eating out? We never go to a fast food joint to eat junk food.
Respectable eatery costs ~100.00 per person including tip at least.

Really? I generally figure about half that. Of course, we rarely
have any kind of alcohol when we eat in restaurants.

Perhaps we have differing definitions of "respectable". We don't do
"cuisine". The places we go most often (in no particular order):
German
Indian
Turkish
Japanese
Chinese
Italian
Syrian
Steakhouse

Some quite tasty ethnic meals can be had for $25 for two people.

That's all in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Prices are of course higher
in a large metropolis.

Cindy Hamilton

Hi,
You left out my old country Korea. Korean beef BBQ is good!
The place we may be going to eat is formal suit and tie place.
Or if I want freebee we can push ourselves to in-laws' private
club house, he,he. Some people live to eat, it seems but we eat to live.
If I can live without eating, that will be just fine with me.

Here in Calgary AB, there are more hidden rich folks than other cities
and consumer price and inflaation rate is higher than national average.
Likewise average income of household is higher too. We're retired but we
have been able to manage so far. Unemployment rate in the city
at the moment is ~4.3%. I used to live in S.S. Marie ON, way back in the
'60s. Then to Toronto and transfered out here in the spring of '70
where I raissed family and retired. Now just two of us and a dog in an
empty nest. No more cat. Our old cat died in April this year and if we
get another kitten, it may outlive losing us.

We love Italian food(our daughter-in-law is Southern Italian) I don't
like French cuisine, just good to look at, nothing much to eat,LOL!

On 10/22/2013 11:18 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:

Hmmm,
Eating out? We never go to a fast food joint to eat junk food.
Respectable eatery costs ~100.00 per person including tip at least.



$100 per person you consider a "normal" meal? Three times a week?
Sure, we do that once in a while, but not a couple of times a week just
beause we don't feel like cooking.

We have four good restaurants in town and can get away with $40 to $70
for the two of us for a damned good meal of high quality, not Applebees
fare.

In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 10/22/2013 11:18 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:

Hmmm,
Eating out? We never go to a fast food joint to eat junk food.
Respectable eatery costs ~100.00 per person including tip at least.



$100 per person you consider a "normal" meal? Three times a week?
Sure, we do that once in a while, but not a couple of times a week just
beause we don't feel like cooking.


And you can do if you know where to look. We go to Claudaugh's Pub
on Monday for their two for one fish and chips and get out for around
$30 with drinks. Tonight we are contemplating going to one of the local
pizza places for their buy one pizza get another for $2.22 AND $2.00
drafts with the next one being 2 cents. We can get way too full and way
to drunk for less than $20.00 (grin).
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:36:29 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 10/21/2013 4:26 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

If I'm working I want the fast part. But it surprises me how little
actual difference there is in price between my wife and I eating at a
typical fast food place, maybe $16 versus a real sit down restaurant,
which for a non-fancy outing might be $21. For the extra $5 you get
served, real plates, actual food.....


If you're still able to find it for $21, you are doing OK. Seems most
of the time now it is $30+. Not difficult to hit $50 either.

Sub $20, including drink (no alcohol) but excluding tax is quite easy
here (total w/tax about $21-$24). I can choose Italian, Greek,
Mexican, Lebanese, or American for between $15 and $20 for any of the
three meals. Of course, they have more expensive dishes and there are
more expensive restaurants. $50 for two is easy, as well. No need
for it, though. Good food can be had for cheap money.

On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:18:54 -0600, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/21/2013 4:26 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

If I'm working I want the fast part. But it surprises me how little
actual difference there is in price between my wife and I eating at a
typical fast food place, maybe $16 versus a real sit down restaurant,
which for a non-fancy outing might be $21. For the extra $5 you get
served, real plates, actual food.....


If you're still able to find it for $21, you are doing OK. Seems most
of the time now it is $30+. Not difficult to hit $50 either.

Hmmm,
Eating out? We never go to a fast food joint to eat junk food.
Respectable eatery costs ~100.00 per person including tip at least.

Utter nonsense. You can easily spend that, if you're nuts, but it's
not necessary to get good food. Actually, without alcohol,that's
pretty tough to do. I think the most I've paid was at Ruths Chris and
that was $150 for the two of us. My wife had a glass of wine, too.

Going on a cruise is another option. There are all kinda good deals
since economy tanked.

If you want to wait for a tow home, sans toilets.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/22/2013 11:18 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:

Hmmm,
Eating out? We never go to a fast food joint to eat junk food.
Respectable eatery costs ~100.00 per person including tip at least.



$100 per person you consider a "normal" meal? Three times a week?
Sure, we do that once in a while, but not a couple of times a week just
beause we don't feel like cooking.

We have four good restaurants in town and can get away with $40 to $70
for the two of us for a damned good meal of high quality, not Applebees
fare.
Hey,
That's not our fault, in this city everything costs more. Explosive
growth and booming economy is the reason. We used to have live-in house
keeper who cooked as well for us. When kids grow up and went their own
no more of that. Just cleaning lady coming every two weeks.

Right now wife is away back home, Seoul Korea to stay with her aging god
mother for couple of weeks(maaybe last time together). I am pigging out
almost every day now which is not much fun alone.

On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:27:05 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

$100 per person you consider a "normal" meal? Three times a week?
Sure, we do that once in a while, but not a couple of times a week just
beause we don't feel like cooking.


And you can do if you know where to look. We go to Claudaugh's Pub
on Monday for their two for one fish and chips and get out for around
$30 with drinks. Tonight we are contemplating going to one of the local
pizza places for their buy one pizza get another for $2.22 AND $2.00
drafts with the next one being 2 cents. We can get way too full and way
to drunk for less than $20.00 (grin).

After years, I finally went to a movie. Wife paid $4.00 for each of
us. After, she bought buffet, ~ $13.00 for both of us.

I can get a $100 steak and $20 fries to go with it.

Las Vegas

On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:27:14 -0400, wrote:

Good food can be had for cheap money.

(...so can bad food)

I can make a cheap turkey taste good.

On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:44:23 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:27:14 -0400, wrote:

Good food can be had for cheap money.

(...so can bad food)

Such places don't last long. Too much competition.

I can make a cheap turkey taste good.

Sure. Dunk it in gravy.

On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 20:02:56 -0400, wrote:

I can make a cheap turkey taste good.

Sure. Dunk it in gravy.

Why? It taste better when smoked; moist and tender.

Pull off the bone food.

In article om,
bud-- wrote:


Interesting that no one from the Feds that I have found even
mentioned that. You would think that if they could shift the blame to
someone nefarious they would be trumpeting it to the heavens. Besides,
you could get to the site, then THEIR banner would say to wait. DOS
would normally be such that you wouldn't get that far and the website
certainly wouldn't have a banner up asking you to wait.

Not at all obvious to me that is true. DNS can crash a system. It can
make it too busy. It is, in any case, only one of the possible reasons
the fed exchange has problems.
Except even the Feds have said DNS wasn't a problem. While DNS can
trash *a* system there is not a shred of evidence that is has had any
effect on *this* system. It should be obvious given the lack of evidence
to the contrary (especially since you and I both know that HHS and the
President would love to have even a sniff of a DoS attack as an out) and
the fact that what happens ( such getting to the site and then having to
sit on it for extended periods of time) are not consistent with a DoS
attack. The Feds screwed the pooch on this one. Period.




to the states that don't want it being
responsible.

Some states that do not want ACA to be successful increased the work in
creating a fed exchange.
How? It is the Fed's program so why is it the responsibility of the
states to make sure it runs right?

It was still a move, at least in part, to make building the fed exchange
more difficult.
You mind reading? It was a move largely because the Dems pushed
this through with no GOP support and the GOP wasn't all that keen to
take even a part of the fall when it screwed up.

It was still a move, at least in part, to make building the fed exchange
more difficult.
Again without a shred of evidence. Even assuming you are correct.
This is something they knew from the getgo and were (or at least should
have) planning around. It isn't like the states said they were going to
and then changed their minds and pulled out at the last minute. Actually
it was other way around as some such as FL, said they weren't going to
the build their own and then did.



I have also heard a few more reported.

Interesting that my points were very specific and (yes I admit)
verbose. This is the best you can do as a comeback?

I didn't know we were sharing all the reasons that we have heard.
Rather pointless since they are largely guesses what the major sticking
points are.
I would have settled for one or two. If rather pointless why, then
did you make a point to point them out?

Amazon managed to do that from the get.

Amazon at the start was not as complex as Amazon now and was not as
complex as the exchanges.
Again, this was something that the Feds knew about from the start
and should have worked around. Although, it is hardly only a Fed thing
to dither around before making the original RFP and then changing their
minds multiple times (and probably from the programmer's standpoint,
random intervals) during the runup. These are the problems most of the
experts have talked about most often.



You have yet to give me anything remotely resembling an actual
fact (a few others, heard many times) and you suggest I get real?

Apparently you have not looked very hard.
Can't tell how hard you looked, or even IF you looked since you have
given nothing but nebulous "I have heard" responses.



Since the fed rules are the same it is not obvious to me why an insurer
would not want to be in a state. Could be because the state rules are
onerous, but the low-plan states don't seem to be ones that would have
much state regulation.

Mostly because they can't be all places at all times. The rules may
be the same, but the populations, markets, expenses, etc., aren't. Some
pulled out because of current penetration consideratinos that they
thought made it unlikely that they could get a big enough group of
patients to make any money. There are many things other than just the
structure of the plans that enter into it.

I don't understand how that explains how only 2 (for sake of argument)
companies put up plans for a state.
The big one is penetration. Especially with community rating (where
you can't underwrite for anything other than age, place, and smoking ),
you have to have a VERY big group to make any money. And that group has
to be made up a diverse group of people age and conditions. If you don't
have this diversity, say a concentration of us old farts with health
issues, then you can't balance the cheaper kids with the expensive old
farts and the policy gets very expensive and people leave. Unlike before
where just certain policies were in this death spiral, there is a
possibility that the whole system will go into a death spiral.
So, if you can't get enough people, they can't make any money and
you can lose great amounts.
For this alone, it is makes sense that companies pulled out of
marginal states and were hesitant to go into others. Add in the great
amount of uncertainty and resources that needed to be put in to get the
new policies up and functioning, and you have some states with only a
couple of insurance companies interested. As I mentioned, the
interesting thing will be if this changes after a couple of years of
experience and things have settled down.
Also, it should be noted that there is no requirement that a plan
work for the entire state. There is at least one group in Indiana that
is only available in Indy and the donut counties. So, even if a state
has some large number of providers, a given area is likely to have many
fewer.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In article om,
bud-- wrote:

Largely because we haven't had anywhere near the austerity of other
countries. Hard to suggest austerity when the debt rises at such a great
rate.

Don't know what you have in mind.

Austerity is what the 'conservatives' are pushing.
We can catch up with Europe.

Actually the idea for austerity is that we DON"T catch up with
Europe. We make the needed changes now at our leisure and with some
control instead of waiting until the excrement hits the rotating
wind-producing device and our creditors come in, and like Greece. TELL
us what we have to do.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe