With any luck, I've started a multi generational internet
flame war. Oh, BTW, you're a Nazi.

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


wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 May 2011 23:03:23 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I usually pound the races out with a hammer and big screw
driver, from the other side of the axle. Sometimes along
with WD-40 which is a lubricant.


Boy, Stormy - you are living dangerously using lubricant and
that 4
letter "word" in the same sentance!!!!

Ed Huntress wrote:
"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...
That looks an awful lot like IBM CEO Samuel Palmisano...
But, of course, it could be a left wing plot...

About five or ten seconds of interview clipped out of a much longer one..
And you have to suspect it's Breitbarted -- cut to make it say what they
want.

Look, here's where I got suspicious about the whole thing. Palmisano says he
can cut $900 billion of fraud from the health care system. Even assuming
he's talking about all of the privately insured health care as well as all
of the publicly insured, something is seriously whacky here. The outside
estimate for fraud in Medicare plus Medicaid, by industry experts, not the
government, is around $60 billion. And the organization most knowledgeable
about it (and most likely to inflate the number), the National Health Care
Anti-Fraud Association (NHCAA), says it's as high as $100 billion for the
whole US health care system, private and public combined.

Why would Palmisano say something like that if he is "serious," as the
conspiracy theorists on Fox said?

Well, if you watched the WSJ video, you saw something else: Palisano was now
talking about saving $200 billion in fraud, and the other $700 billion was
unspecified -- although part of it apparently involved requiring discounts
from pharma companies. That's illegal for the federal government to do under
present law. Then, when asked by WSJ why it didn't fly, he says that it
"didn't align with the administration's priorities." At that time, the
priority was to extend health care to everyone.


And have some other fool pay for it, right?



http://online.wsj.com/video/viewpoin...ORDS=palmisano


Hrump. I couldn't get your video to play...

I didn't get a sense of what time frame that was for.
I seriously doubt it was one year...



My feeling is that IBM's proposal included a lot of things that are unstated
here, or you couldn't get anywhere near $900 billion. It may be that they
would require new legislation, such as changing the law for negotiating with
pharma companies. And the government already had a full load of health care
legislation on their plate.

And in my gut, I think the administration didn't believe them. You know I
spent some years working in health care writing and promotion. *I* don't
believe them when they say they can save $900 billion. That's 1/3 of the
total costs of all US health care. If they had something like that, the WSJ
would have it in 70-point screaming type on the front page, not buried in a
business video.

It's fishy.



If you think so.
I think the whole health care bru-ha-ha is fishy.

We have a serious financial collapse - and the president wants
to give everybody bandaides?

It's fishy all right...
--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~sv_temptress

Steve B wrote:
I'm seriously starting to believe that Obama had something to do with
stryped's axle problem ........................


Oh my! Sorry Steve (et al)
I got sucked into that one.

Apologies
--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~sv_temptress

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...
That looks an awful lot like IBM CEO Samuel Palmisano...
But, of course, it could be a left wing plot...

About five or ten seconds of interview clipped out of a much longer one..
And you have to suspect it's Breitbarted -- cut to make it say what they
want.

Look, here's where I got suspicious about the whole thing. Palmisano says
he can cut $900 billion of fraud from the health care system. Even
assuming he's talking about all of the privately insured health care as
well as all of the publicly insured, something is seriously whacky here.
The outside estimate for fraud in Medicare plus Medicaid, by industry
experts, not the government, is around $60 billion. And the organization
most knowledgeable about it (and most likely to inflate the number), the
National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association (NHCAA), says it's as high as
$100 billion for the whole US health care system, private and public
combined.

Why would Palmisano say something like that if he is "serious," as the
conspiracy theorists on Fox said?

Well, if you watched the WSJ video, you saw something else: Palisano was
now talking about saving $200 billion in fraud, and the other $700
billion was unspecified -- although part of it apparently involved
requiring discounts from pharma companies. That's illegal for the federal
government to do under present law. Then, when asked by WSJ why it didn't
fly, he says that it "didn't align with the administration's priorities."
At that time, the priority was to extend health care to everyone.


And have some other fool pay for it, right?

Pay for what? You're wading into a deep subject there. If you want the
perspective of an independent policy institute on what it will cost, here's
a good one:

http://www.urban.org/health_policy/url.cfm?ID=412181




http://online.wsj.com/video/viewpoin...ORDS=palmisano


Hrump. I couldn't get your video to play...

Too bad. The more times I listen to it, the more I realize Palisano doesn't
know what he's talking about. He says it would require "no legislative
changes." When the WSJ pointed out to him that his discount idea had been
squashed in Congress by the pharmaceutical companies, his response was,
"then use IBM's discount." He doesn't seem to understand that the whole idea
was outlawed for the government. He really seemed surprised when the WSJ
interviewer told him about it. I think maybe Palisano is a big talker...


I didn't get a sense of what time frame that was for.
I seriously doubt it was one year...

Palisano is vague about it in the WSJ video.




My feeling is that IBM's proposal included a lot of things that are
unstated here, or you couldn't get anywhere near $900 billion. It may be
that they would require new legislation, such as changing the law for
negotiating with pharma companies. And the government already had a full
load of health care legislation on their plate.

And in my gut, I think the administration didn't believe them. You know I
spent some years working in health care writing and promotion. *I* don't
believe them when they say they can save $900 billion. That's 1/3 of the
total costs of all US health care. If they had something like that, the
WSJ would have it in 70-point screaming type on the front page, not
buried in a business video.

It's fishy.



If you think so.
I think the whole health care bru-ha-ha is fishy.

We have a serious financial collapse - and the president wants
to give everybody bandaides?

It's fishy all right...

Wait a minute. You may not be following what's going on here. Be patient for
a minute.

These are rough figures I'm pulling from memory, but they're in the
ballpark. We spend about $2.7 trillion on health care. Over half of that is
government paying for the insurance, as it has been for some years. That's
Medicare, Medicaid, VA health care, government employees' health care at all
levels, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

Around 1/3 is private insurance, mostly company sponsored or company paid.

The rest is uninsured. Some small percentage of this is paid out of the
pockets of private individuals. But the big bills, and many of the small
bills, are paid by our taxes. That's the Gunner types for the big bills, and
the uninsured poor visiting emergency rooms for the small ones. It's
expensive as hell and the outcomes are poor because there is no preventive
care for those people, and the chronic care is almost nonexistent, except as
a new "emergency" each time they go to the ER. It's based on systems made
for handling emergencies, and every sore throat gets the ER treatment.

So we're paying for it already. And we're paying much more than we would if
it was all under one program, with preventive and continuing care available
for everyone.

Obama's program is all about getting it all under that roof, while not
interfering with private programs that people are happy with and want to
keep. This has the benefits implied above, plus it puts big-time pricing
power into the equation to control costs -- eventually, if the Republicans
will go along with it. There are lots of plans for controlling costs out
there, besides IBM's, but there is no authority able to put them into
action.

And the political will is weak. My son interned with the guy who wrote
Medicare Part D. He's a Republican, then Staff Director of the House Ways
and Means Health Subcommittee. He says the plan originally was to allow
Medicare to negotiate, but he wasn't allowed to write it into the bill. It's
a long story. That guy now runs a health care lobbying firm, BTW. g

So, do you see the picture? We're already paying for it and we have been for
years. We're paying more than we should have to. The PPACA (the health care
reform act) has some costs that go up and down, but the point is to start
going down as soon as possible.

Again, we'll be paying for no more than we're paying now. That's the only
way to really get costs under control. And, at the same time (and the real
motivator for most of the advocates), to simultaneously clean up the act,
getting ordinary medical care out of the ERs and improving preventive and
chronic care.

The OMB has made forecasts that contradict much of what the Tea Partiers are
saying -- because the teabaggers generally don't know what they're talking
about, and those that do are spinning it all to hell for philosophical
reasons rather than fiscal ones.

That think tank I pointed to above, the Urban Institute, has studied a lot
of the questions surrounding health care in general and the PPACA in
particular. They write abstracts so you can get the bottom line in a
paragraph or two:

http://www.urban.org/health_policy/h...ed-to-Know.cfm

Don't listen to the blowhards who are running for office. Don't listen to
the teabag ignoramuses. Read some independent analysis.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

Ya'll forgive me one more time?



It's fishy.


If you think so.
I think the whole health care bru-ha-ha is fishy.

We have a serious financial collapse - and the president wants
to give everybody bandaides?

It's fishy all right...

Wait a minute. You may not be following what's going on here. Be patient for
a minute.

These are rough figures I'm pulling from memory, but they're in the
ballpark. We spend about $2.7 trillion on health care. Over half of that is
government paying for the insurance, as it has been for some years. That's
Medicare, Medicaid, VA health care, government employees' health care at all
levels, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).


Spend 2.7 Trillion dollars a year on health care?

Independent analyze that, Ed...
Because I have troubles counting that high!


2.7 Trillion bucks? 2,700,000,000,000 (can that possibly be right???)
300 million people? 300,000,000

Per capita? $9000 a year for every man, woman, and child in America?


I'll big time agree with you about it being fishy...
The oil companies should be so lucky.

No wonder it became the political Holy Grail...

--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~sv_temptress

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Ya'll forgive me one more time?



It's fishy.


If you think so.
I think the whole health care bru-ha-ha is fishy.

We have a serious financial collapse - and the president wants
to give everybody bandaides?

It's fishy all right...

Wait a minute. You may not be following what's going on here. Be patient
for a minute.

These are rough figures I'm pulling from memory, but they're in the
ballpark. We spend about $2.7 trillion on health care. Over half of that
is government paying for the insurance, as it has been for some years.
That's Medicare, Medicaid, VA health care, government employees' health
care at all levels, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).


Spend 2.7 Trillion dollars a year on health care?


Get used to it. g

Independent analyze that, Ed...
Because I have troubles counting that high!


2.7 Trillion bucks? 2,700,000,000,000 (can that possibly be right???)

You got it. If you're going to do this budget stuff, work in scientific
notation. It will keep you from going cross-eyed.

300 million people? 300,000,000

Per capita? $9000 a year for every man, woman, and child in America?

Yup. It's a bummer, isn't it? We're closing in on 18% of GDP, and, as
Krugman says, we're number one! In health care spending, that is. d8-)



I'll big time agree with you about it being fishy...
The oil companies should be so lucky.

No wonder it became the political Holy Grail...

The real killer is the growth rate. Health care does not follow the usual
pattern of costs as technology improves. It does the opposite.

--
Ed Huntress



--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~sv_temptress

On Tue, 31 May 2011 08:38:36 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:

I'm seriously starting to believe that Obama had something to do with
stryped's axle problem ........................

Damn. You owe me a monitor and keyboard.


In Mr. Obamaï¿œs shunning of a private sector program that would have
saved our country almost $1 trillion in healthcare expenditures, presented
to him as he declared a "crisis in healthcare ", he proves two things
beyond any doubt: that he is anti-Capitalist and anti-private sector in
nature and that he can no longer be trusted to tell the truth in both his
political declarations or espoused goals.

Somebody else tell Iggy. He doesn't believe me, thinking that Obama
can do no wrong while telling no tales.

--
Education is when you read the fine print.
Experience is what you get if you don't.
-- Pete Seeger

On 2011-05-31, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2011 08:38:36 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:

I'm seriously starting to believe that Obama had something to do with
stryped's axle problem ........................

Damn. You owe me a monitor and keyboard.


In Mr. Obama??????s shunning of a private sector program that would have
saved our country almost $1 trillion in healthcare expenditures, presented
to him as he declared a "crisis in healthcare ", he proves two things
beyond any doubt: that he is anti-Capitalist and anti-private sector in
nature and that he can no longer be trusted to tell the truth in both his
political declarations or espoused goals.

Somebody else tell Iggy. He doesn't believe me, thinking that Obama
can do no wrong while telling no tales.


http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=70746


Actually, thi yet another chain email, has to do more with
Republicans' gullibility (for those gullible ones who have not
verified the veracity of that chain e-mail), or lack of honesty (for
those who have verified it, but dishonestly reposted it anyway).

This is a perfect example of what I mentioned -- Republicans spreading
lies via false chain e-mails. This had a lot to do with me losing
trust in the Republican party. I mean, how can I have trust in a party
of liars and suckers?

The rule of thumb is very simple: if you receive a pro-Republican
chain email, chances are great that it is a lie. Reposting it without
triple checking is hazardous to your reputation.

If those emails were not lies, they would appear in more reputable
sources instead of emails.

All you need to do so is visit any of the fact checking websites.

i

On Tue, 31 May 2011 19:03:13 -0500, Ignoramus17069
wrote:

On 2011-05-31, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2011 08:38:36 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:

I'm seriously starting to believe that Obama had something to do with
stryped's axle problem ........................

Damn. You owe me a monitor and keyboard.


In Mr. Obama??????s shunning of a private sector program that would have
saved our country almost $1 trillion in healthcare expenditures, presented
to him as he declared a "crisis in healthcare ", he proves two things
beyond any doubt: that he is anti-Capitalist and anti-private sector in
nature and that he can no longer be trusted to tell the truth in both his
political declarations or espoused goals.

Somebody else tell Iggy. He doesn't believe me, thinking that Obama
can do no wrong while telling no tales.


http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=70746


Actually, thi yet another chain email, has to do more with
Republicans' gullibility (for those gullible ones who have not
verified the veracity of that chain e-mail), or lack of honesty (for
those who have verified it, but dishonestly reposted it anyway).

This is a perfect example of what I mentioned -- Republicans spreading
lies via false chain e-mails. This had a lot to do with me losing
trust in the Republican party. I mean, how can I have trust in a party
of liars and suckers?

Where are you now with the Democrats? ****, they're far worse.
I'm disgusted with both parties.


The rule of thumb is very simple: if you receive a pro-Republican
chain email, chances are great that it is a lie. Reposting it without
triple checking is hazardous to your reputation.

If those emails were not lies, they would appear in more reputable
sources instead of emails.

All you need to do so is visit any of the fact checking websites.

You mean "All you need to do so is visit any of the liberals' fact
checking websites.", right? sigh

Rule for all of us: Don't believe everything you read on the Internet
or in email.

--
Education is when you read the fine print.
Experience is what you get if you don't.
-- Pete Seeger

On Tue, 31 May 2011 06:27:49 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"CaveLamb" wrote in message
om...
That looks an awful lot like IBM CEO Samuel Palmisano...
But, of course, it could be a left wing plot...

About five or ten seconds of interview clipped out of a much longer one..
And you have to suspect it's Breitbarted -- cut to make it say what they
want.

Look, here's where I got suspicious about the whole thing. Palmisano says he
can cut $900 billion of fraud from the health care system. Even assuming
he's talking about all of the privately insured health care as well as all
of the publicly insured, something is seriously whacky here. The outside
estimate for fraud in Medicare plus Medicaid, by industry experts, not the
government, is around $60 billion. And the organization most knowledgeable
about it (and most likely to inflate the number), the National Health Care
Anti-Fraud Association (NHCAA), says it's as high as $100 billion for the
whole US health care system, private and public combined.

Why would Palmisano say something like that if he is "serious," as the
conspiracy theorists on Fox said?

Well, if you watched the WSJ video, you saw something else: Palisano was now
talking about saving $200 billion in fraud, and the other $700 billion was
unspecified -- although part of it apparently involved requiring discounts
from pharma companies. That's illegal for the federal government to do under
present law. Then, when asked by WSJ why it didn't fly, he says that it
"didn't align with the administration's priorities." At that time, the
priority was to extend health care to everyone.

http://online.wsj.com/video/viewpoin...ORDS=palmisano

My feeling is that IBM's proposal included a lot of things that are unstated
here, or you couldn't get anywhere near $900 billion. It may be that they
would require new legislation, such as changing the law for negotiating with
pharma companies. And the government already had a full load of health care
legislation on their plate.

And in my gut, I think the administration didn't believe them. You know I
spent some years working in health care writing and promotion. *I* don't
believe them when they say they can save $900 billion. That's 1/3 of the
total costs of all US health care. If they had something like that, the WSJ
would have it in 70-point screaming type on the front page, not buried in a
business video.

It's fishy.
If you've been in the computer business for more than 10 years you
know you don't take anything IBM promises to deliver as "gospel".

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 May 2011 06:27:49 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"CaveLamb" wrote in message
news:qqidneqV4bE1DnnQnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@earthlink. com...
That looks an awful lot like IBM CEO Samuel Palmisano...
But, of course, it could be a left wing plot...

About five or ten seconds of interview clipped out of a much longer one..
And you have to suspect it's Breitbarted -- cut to make it say what they
want.

Look, here's where I got suspicious about the whole thing. Palmisano says
he
can cut $900 billion of fraud from the health care system. Even assuming
he's talking about all of the privately insured health care as well as all
of the publicly insured, something is seriously whacky here. The outside
estimate for fraud in Medicare plus Medicaid, by industry experts, not the
government, is around $60 billion. And the organization most knowledgeable
about it (and most likely to inflate the number), the National Health Care
Anti-Fraud Association (NHCAA), says it's as high as $100 billion for the
whole US health care system, private and public combined.

Why would Palmisano say something like that if he is "serious," as the
conspiracy theorists on Fox said?

Well, if you watched the WSJ video, you saw something else: Palisano was
now
talking about saving $200 billion in fraud, and the other $700 billion was
unspecified -- although part of it apparently involved requiring discounts
from pharma companies. That's illegal for the federal government to do
under
present law. Then, when asked by WSJ why it didn't fly, he says that it
"didn't align with the administration's priorities." At that time, the
priority was to extend health care to everyone.

http://online.wsj.com/video/viewpoin...ORDS=palmisano

My feeling is that IBM's proposal included a lot of things that are
unstated
here, or you couldn't get anywhere near $900 billion. It may be that they
would require new legislation, such as changing the law for negotiating
with
pharma companies. And the government already had a full load of health
care
legislation on their plate.

And in my gut, I think the administration didn't believe them. You know I
spent some years working in health care writing and promotion. *I* don't
believe them when they say they can save $900 billion. That's 1/3 of the
total costs of all US health care. If they had something like that, the
WSJ
would have it in 70-point screaming type on the front page, not buried in
a
business video.

It's fishy.
If you've been in the computer business for more than 10 years you
know you don't take anything IBM promises to deliver as "gospel".

The more I look into this, the more skeptical I am about what it is that IBM
was proposing. The whole idea seems to have dropped off the planet.
Palisano's numbers look ridiculous.

I wish I was still in the business and could afford the time to track it
down. I'd be on the phone with IBM's media people tomorrow morning.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2011-06-01, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2011 19:03:13 -0500, Ignoramus17069
wrote:

On 2011-05-31, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2011 08:38:36 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:

I'm seriously starting to believe that Obama had something to do with
stryped's axle problem ........................

Damn. You owe me a monitor and keyboard.


In Mr. Obama??????s shunning of a private sector program that would have
saved our country almost $1 trillion in healthcare expenditures, presented
to him as he declared a "crisis in healthcare ", he proves two things
beyond any doubt: that he is anti-Capitalist and anti-private sector in
nature and that he can no longer be trusted to tell the truth in both his
political declarations or espoused goals.

Somebody else tell Iggy. He doesn't believe me, thinking that Obama
can do no wrong while telling no tales.


http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=70746


Actually, thi yet another chain email, has to do more with
Republicans' gullibility (for those gullible ones who have not
verified the veracity of that chain e-mail), or lack of honesty (for
those who have verified it, but dishonestly reposted it anyway).

This is a perfect example of what I mentioned -- Republicans spreading
lies via false chain e-mails. This had a lot to do with me losing
trust in the Republican party. I mean, how can I have trust in a party
of liars and suckers?

Where are you now with the Democrats? ****, they're far worse.
I'm disgusted with both parties.

Just a few minutes ago, you seemed to be disgusted only with
Democrats.


The rule of thumb is very simple: if you receive a pro-Republican
chain email, chances are great that it is a lie. Reposting it without
triple checking is hazardous to your reputation.

If those emails were not lies, they would appear in more reputable
sources instead of emails.

All you need to do so is visit any of the fact checking websites.

You mean "All you need to do so is visit any of the liberals' fact
checking websites.", right? sigh

Try snopes.com.

Rule for all of us: Don't believe everything you read on the Internet
or in email.

That would always be a good start.

But, as of yet, I have not seen an honest Republican chain email, and
I have seen a lot.

i

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Ya'll forgive me one more time?



It's fishy.


If you think so.
I think the whole health care bru-ha-ha is fishy.

We have a serious financial collapse - and the president wants
to give everybody bandaides?

It's fishy all right...

Wait a minute. You may not be following what's going on here. Be patient
for a minute.

These are rough figures I'm pulling from memory, but they're in the
ballpark. We spend about $2.7 trillion on health care. Over half of that
is government paying for the insurance, as it has been for some years.
That's Medicare, Medicaid, VA health care, government employees' health
care at all levels, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).


Spend 2.7 Trillion dollars a year on health care?

Independent analyze that, Ed...
Because I have troubles counting that high!


2.7 Trillion bucks? 2,700,000,000,000 (can that possibly be right???)
300 million people? 300,000,000

Per capita? $9000 a year for every man, woman, and child in America?


I'll big time agree with you about it being fishy...
The oil companies should be so lucky.

No wonder it became the political Holy Grail...

--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~sv_temptress

Ok, I broke down and contacted IBM's press department to see if I can get an
update or background. I'll let you know.

--
Ed Huntress

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Ya'll forgive me one more time?



It's fishy.


If you think so.
I think the whole health care bru-ha-ha is fishy.

We have a serious financial collapse - and the president wants
to give everybody bandaides?

It's fishy all right...

Wait a minute. You may not be following what's going on here. Be patient
for a minute.

These are rough figures I'm pulling from memory, but they're in the
ballpark. We spend about $2.7 trillion on health care. Over half of that
is government paying for the insurance, as it has been for some years.
That's Medicare, Medicaid, VA health care, government employees' health
care at all levels, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).


Spend 2.7 Trillion dollars a year on health care?

Independent analyze that, Ed...
Because I have troubles counting that high!


2.7 Trillion bucks? 2,700,000,000,000 (can that possibly be right???)
300 million people? 300,000,000

Per capita? $9000 a year for every man, woman, and child in America?


I'll big time agree with you about it being fishy...
The oil companies should be so lucky.

No wonder it became the political Holy Grail...

--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~sv_temptress

Man, IBM's press office is quick to respond. I have the story. I am not
going to repeat it in public, nor in e-mail.. If you want the whole thing,
I'll send you my phone number and we can discuss it.

What I will say, though, is that Fox screwed this one up royally. The Wall
Street Journal really dropped the ball. And the bloggers are misleading,
unethical, and irresponsible -- but we knew that already.

The bottom line is that the savings was projected to be $200 billion over
ten years, distributed between Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, federal
grants, and income tax refunds. Yes, that's right. The $900 billion is also
projected over ten years, and includes ALL federal government activities,
plus things like selling off thousands of government buildings and leasing
them back, and increasing government fees wherever possible. g

So Mr. Palisano misspoke a bit. More than a bit. And the WSJ and Fox turned
it all on its head.

If you want to read the report he was basing it on, it's he

http://www.techceocouncil.org/client...sons_FINAL.pdf

What a screw-up, huh?

(Why, oh why, did the WSJ, US News and World Report, and Fox News not do
what I just did? I'll have to reprimand them when I see them...)

--
Ed Huntress