Digest for rec.sport.football.college@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 7 topics

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com>: May 09 09:49AM -0700

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html
 
Aetna didn't pull out of Obamacare because they were losing money. They pulled out because they thought it would help make their case for a merger with Humana.
Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan): May 09 04:55PM

On Tue, 9 May 2017 09:49:13 -0700 (PDT), xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com>
wrote:
 
>http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html
 
>Aetna didn't pull out of Obamacare because they were losing money. They pulled out because they thought it would help make their case for a merger with Humana.
 
Has Aetna rejoined the UnACA or do you have an excuse for that also?
 
Hugh
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" <constance@duxmail.com>: May 09 12:04PM -0500


> Aetna didn't pull out of Obamacare because they were losing money.
> They pulled out because they thought it would help make their case for
> a merger with Humana.
 
I note that you aren't trying to do a Gruber, where you claim Trump
caused the current problems with Obamacare. But are you going to claim
that the insurers are doing just fine, and the myriad other pull-outs
were for similar, non-performance-related reasons?
 
--
"We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more
than they hate us". -- Golda Meir
Ken Olson <kolson@freedomnet.org>: May 09 01:39PM -0400

On 5/9/2017 1:04 PM, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> caused the current problems with Obamacare. But are you going to claim
> that the insurers are doing just fine, and the myriad other pull-outs
> were for similar, non-performance-related reasons?
 
Don't scrutinize him like that! ;)
xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com>: May 09 10:49AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 1:04:27 PM UTC-4, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> caused the current problems with Obamacare. But are you going to claim
> that the insurers are doing just fine, and the myriad other pull-outs
> were for similar, non-performance-related reasons?
 
I don't make any claims other than that the Aetna talking point was BS. Now the question is, what general assumption should that cause one to question?
 
A quick google, which is by no means exhaustive research, shows that health insurers seem to be doing fine, with the most recent report I can find (summer 2016) saying that insurers that lost money under Obamacare had been losing money already before Obamacare.
"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" <constance@duxmail.com>: May 09 01:09PM -0500


> I don't make any claims other than that the Aetna talking point was
> BS. Now the question is, what general assumption should that cause
> one to question?
 
None unless you are going to believe that the preponderance of
evidence about one narrow question is dispositive to the whole
market.
 
"In fact, says Judge John D. Bates, Aetna made its decision at least
partially in response to a federal antitrust lawsuit blocking its
proposed $34-billion merger with Humana."
 
In other words, he nowhere discounts Aetna's statement that they
were doing poorly in that business. He just says it is clear that
they had other reasons to make the decision.
 
 
> A quick google, which is by no means exhaustive research, shows that
> health insurers seem to be doing fine,
 
In what way?
 
> with the most recent report I can find (summer 2016) saying that
> insurers that lost money under Obamacare had been losing money
> already before Obamacare.
 
If they had been holding the on, or reducing, premiums then I might
find this persuasive. But since premiums in the individual market
have increased much more than overall health care costs, I find it
not at all so.
 
 
--
How far can you open your
mind before your brains
fall out?
xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com>: May 09 11:15AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 2:09:48 PM UTC-4, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> proposed $34-billion merger with Humana."
 
> In other words, he nowhere discounts Aetna's statement that they
> were doing poorly in that business.
 
You must have missed this part:
 
"Bates found that this rationalization was largely untrue. In fact, he noted, Aetna pulled out of some states and counties that were actually profitable to make a point in its lawsuit defense — and then misled the public about its motivations."
 
or this:
 
"Indeed, he wrote, Aetna's decision to pull out of the exchange business in Florida was "so far outside of normal business practice" that it perplexed the company's top executive in Florida, who was not in the decision loop.
 
"I just can't make sense out of the Florida dec[ision]," the executive, Christopher Ciano, wrote to Jonathan Mayhew, the head of Aetna's national exchange business. "Based on the latest run rate data . . . we are making money from the on-exchange business. Was Florida's performance ever debated?" Mayhew told him to discuss the matter by phone, not email, "to avoid leaving a paper trail," Bates found. As it happens, Bates found reason to believe that Aetna soon will be selling exchange plans in Florida again."
 
Mergers in the healthcare sector: why you'll pay more
Mergers in the healthcare sector: why you'll pay more
"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" <constance@duxmail.com>: May 09 01:19PM -0500

> discuss the matter by phone, not email, ???to avoid leaving a paper
> trail,??? Bates found. As it happens, Bates found reason to believe
> that Aetna soon will be selling exchange plans in Florida again."
 
So? Profitability in one market segment doesn't necessarily pertain to the
profitability of the whole.
 
--
An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>: May 09 12:20PM -0700

In article <b77e962d-01e2-4a12-8278-88709b54884b@googlegroups.com>,
xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com> wrote:
 
 
Like the one where the woman was convicted of laughing?
 
--
Michael Press
"the_andrew_smith@yahoo.com" <agavinsmith@gmail.com>: May 09 12:41PM -0700

> health insurers seem to be doing fine
 
Duh.
 
They're making record revenues.
xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com>: May 09 12:52PM -0700

On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 3:20:53 PM UTC-4, Michael Press wrote:
> In article <b77e962d-01e2-4a12-8278-88709b54884b@googlegroups.com>,
> xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com> wrote:
 
> Like the one where the woman was convicted of laughing?
 
No, that one's true.
"the_andrew_smith@yahoo.com" <agavinsmith@gmail.com>: May 09 12:40PM -0700

Saw the hardtop in the wild today. Meh.
xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com>: May 09 12:52PM -0700

> Saw the hardtop in the wild today. Meh.
 
You mean the coupe? I don't think there's a hardtop version of the ND
Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan): May 09 12:39PM

On Mon, 8 May 2017 13:33:42 -0700 (PDT), Some dued
 
>Drinking alcohol suppresses the immune system (in my anecdotal experience). When I was 19 I had a cold for over a month because I drank nearly every night.
 
There may be some truth to that.
 
About a year ago I started having one drink a night while watching TV.
Until then I might go weeks without having a drink. I have had 2 colds
since then when one per year had been my max.
 
Maybe we can test your theory. I'll continue to have one per night
while you teetotal. We can compare notes later.
 
Hugh
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Some dued <theodoreward@gmail.com>: May 09 12:45PM -0700

I'm not volunteering for that!
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>: May 08 09:41PM -0700

In article <13933a4c-f71b-446b-a84c-7f9752e62ec0@googlegroups.com>,
 
> I can't deny it.
 
This:
Global temperature follows obliquity of Earth's axis
and does not follow computer models.
 
--
Michael Press
Emperor Wonko the Sane <doug@sorensensdomain.net>: May 09 08:01AM -0700

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 4:42:39 PM UTC-5, Michael Press wrote:
> and does not follow computer models.
 
> <https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/03/lindzen-soon-and-spencer-debunked/>
> <http://tinyurl.com/l9pxxgo>
 
"The Little Ice Age cold was blamed, in part, for plagues. The public at the time often blamed the cold on Jews and witches and murdered supposed witches by the tens of thousands because they thought the witches were controlling the climate and causing the cold, see the story here. The figure below is a 1486 woodcut of a supposed sorceress conjuring up a hailstorm. It is from Professor Wolfgang Behringer's excellent book A Cultural History of Climate.
 
 
"Then, as now, the public chose to blame people for climate change without proof. We really have not advanced very far in the last 500 years."
 
Good stuff.
 
Doug
dotslashderek@gmail.com: May 09 08:57AM -0700

The vast majority of climate scientists are lying. Good - I don't like their message.
 
There is a small minority telling the truth. Happy coincidence - I like what they have to say.
 
Lol. I like the idea of perpetual motion. Luckily, there are a couple morons out there telling me I can have it. And the (vast) majority who say it can't possibly work? Clearly doing it for the grant money.
 
Cheers.
Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan): May 09 12:43PM

On Mon, 8 May 2017 15:19:35 -0700 (PDT), Some dued
 
>You must admit that the math where lowering taxes while spending more reduces the federal debt is really tricky.
 
When I comprehend that principle I will respond.
 
Hugh
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Futbol Phan <sgzphd@gmail.com>: May 09 07:42AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 7:43:07 AM UTC-5, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
 
> >You must admit that the math where lowering taxes while spending more reduces the federal debt is really tricky.
 
> When I comprehend that principle I will respond.
 
> Hugh
 
 
Whaaaaaa? Lack of comprehension has never kept you from responding before. New policy? We can only hope...
Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan): May 09 03:31PM

On Tue, 9 May 2017 07:42:03 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan
 
>Whaaaaaa? Lack of comprehension has never kept you from responding before. New policy? We can only hope...
 
Comprehension is not required when responding to you. It would be
overkill.
 
Hugh
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
CtrlAltDel <altiemcd@aol.com>: May 09 04:40AM

stalk, fine, and intimidate old man who was hiding in his car with his
windows up to smoke a cigarette. Ontario has to be a liberal stronghold.
 
https://is.gd/1uJQXW
 
Ontario man given three tickets by 'the smoke police' for having a
cigarette alone in his SUV
 
Harry Kraemer has run into issues with the anti-smoking enforcement
officers before
 
LONDON, Ont. — Harry Kraemer knows darn well that smoking isn't good for
you but it's a 60-year habit he doesn't want to break.
 
The 76-year-old owner of Sparkles Cleaning Service is a healthy guy who
loves a puff or two when he's alone, sometimes at home with the windows
open in his rec room or in his Porsche SUV, minding his own business and
away from others who could breathe in his second-hand fumes.
 
What he doesn't like are those he calls "the smoke police," the Smoke-Free
Ontario enforcement officers who he believes have placed a no-smoking sign
as a target on his back.
 
The provincial anti-smoking laws set out stringent rules banning smoking
in enclosed workplaces, enclosed public places, outdoor patios and
vehicles where children are passengers and other spaces to protect people
from second-hand smoke.
 
But Kraemer scored one for the Marlboro Man last week when he had three
workplace smoking infractions dismissed at Provincial Offences Court.
 
Kraemer was slapped with the charges last fall for lighting up inside his
luxury SUV in a parking lot at Baseline and Wellington roads, just after
he's bought a doughnut and coffee from Tim Hortons.
 
The vehicle's ownership is registered to Sparkles and the argument was it
is a workplace vehicle. Kraemer said it is for his personal use.
 
"This is my personal car that I drive from home to work and from work to
home," he said.
 
"The justice of the peace said, 'I haven't heard one shred of evidence
that that car was ever used for business for Sparkles,'" said the
victorious Kraemer.
 
To back up a little bit, Kraemer has already paid financial penalties for
his bad habit and likely ruffled the feathers of the anti-smoking
authorities.
 
About a year ago, an enforcement officer came to his business on
Wellington Road for a routine check. Kraemer said he tended to smoke in
his second-floor office away from the rest of the business with the door
closed, the window open and a fan blowing.
 
Pretty soon we can't have a smoke except in the middle of some
farmer's field
 
"There's no smoke that ever goes down to where the employees are," he said.
 
Kraemer said the officer came into his office and opened a desk drawer to
discover an ash tray and a butted out cigarette. He issued two tickets to
Kraemer, each carrying a $350 fine.
 
That didn't go over well with Kraemer. "I was annoyed. Isn't one ticket
enough?"
 
Kraemer had some words with the officer and told him to leave. "I verbally
told him to get the hell out of my office and I said some very nasty
things maybe, I don't know."
 
The officer, Kraemer said, told him, "We'll be back."
 
Kraemer paid the fines. Last fall came the tickets in the Tim Hortons lot
— for smoking in an enclosed workplace, failing to have a no-smoking sign
in his SUV, and failing to properly supervise a workplace.
 
The enforcment officer testified he was acting on "an anonymous complaint"
when he watched Kraemer get into his SUV, drive to the coffee shop and
through the drive-through and park.
 
"I proceeded to have my coffee, my doughnut and my cigarette, and he
walked up and he gave me three tickets," Kraemer said.
Stan Behal/Postmedia
 
With possible fines that could have run into thousands of dollars, Kraemer
took it to court.
 
His defence lawyer Gordon Cudmore successfully argued that Kraemer wasn't
an employee, the SUV wasn't a workplace where an employee might actually
work and that "common sense" would dictate that Kraemer wasn't breaking
any smoking law.
 
No vaccum, broom, dustpan or work papers were found inside the vehicle and
there was no distinctive Sparkles logo on the car with the rendering of a
young woman with a dust mop that's on the company's fleet of white cars
with green and yellow signage.
 
Kraemer isn't even an employee. He's a shareholder who is paid with
dividends from the business.
 
The justice of the peace agreed that the tickets went a step too far.
 
"It's just a waste of taxpayers' money as far as I'm concerned," Cudmore
said about the charges.
 
"And the law was never intended to consider a situation like this."
 
Kraemer went one step further. "Who would use a Porsche to do house
cleaning with?" he said.
 
I proceeded to have my coffee, my doughnut and my cigarette, and he
walked up and he gave me three tickets
 
"If a Porsche pulled up to your house to clean your house, you would say,
'What the hell is going on here.'"
 
Linda Stobo, program manager for the chronic disease prevention and
tobacco control team at the Middlesex-London Health Unit, said though she
couldn't speak specifically about the Kraemer case, she believes the
investigators were not out of bounds when they charged him in his SUV.
 
"The purpose of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act is to protect people from the
harmful exposure to second-hand smoke at work," she said.
 
A workplace vehicle under the law is a vehicle used for any type of work,
24 hours a day, seven days a week, Stobo said.
 
She added the health unit receives complaints "very frequently" from
people exposed to second-hand smoke or have seen people exposed to second-
hand smoke while at work.
 
The health unit received 100 complaints last year and are up over 20 this
year. "We have a duty under the law to investigate," Stobo said.
 
Now that the smoke has settled in his case, Kraemer agrees that there is
some value in the provincial no-smoking laws, but added, "I find some of
the smoke police are overzealous as we found in this case.
 
"Very soon, they'll keep coming and coming and coming at us and pretty
soon we can't have a smoke except in the middle of some farmer's field."
Ken Olson <kolson@freedomnet.org>: May 09 01:00AM -0400

On 5/9/2017 12:40 AM, CtrlAltDel wrote:
> the smoke police are overzealous as we found in this case.
 
> "Very soon, they'll keep coming and coming and coming at us and pretty
> soon we can't have a smoke except in the middle of some farmer's field."
 
I think tobacco should be in the Federal controlled substances spectrum.
Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan): May 09 01:04PM

On Tue, 9 May 2017 01:00:49 -0400, Ken Olson <kolson@freedomnet.org>
wrote:
 
 
 
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>http://www.avg.com
 
I have mixed emotions. Our oldest son has tried several times and
can't quit smoking. I smoked for 30 years - almost 3 packs a day at
the end. I gave the last cig in the pack away and quit cold turkey.
 
I will never understand his lack of strength to quit.
 
Hugh
"the_andrew_smith@yahoo.com" <agavinsmith@gmail.com>: May 09 02:44AM -0700

Is there room for all those kids and your walker?
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.football.college+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

0 comments:

Post a Comment