Digest for rec.sport.golf@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 9 topics

Thursday, May 4, 2017

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 04 03:59AM -0700

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 1:09:38 AM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > calculating per capita healthcare costs?
 
> I'm saying that our Federal government cannot possibly manage the
> healthcare of 330 million people.
 
An interesting claim, particularly considering that the Feds **already**
manage the healthcare for 44 (Medicare) + 70 Million (Medicaid & CHIP),
which is a third of the US Population.
 
... and if memory serves, while at a lower management overhead expense rate
than what the Private Healthcare systems cost - - so much for those claims
that private industry is always "more efficient", right?
 
 
> Possibly on the state level, but you would have a smorgasbord of
> efficiency and chaos.
 
Why possibly on the State level? Are you trying to suggest that
local municipalities somehow are inherently "better" at running large
organizations?
 
For example, you do realize that the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has to
work with more than ~50 Law Enforcement Groups from the 50 States ... right?
FYI, if I recall correctly, the actual number is around 22,000.
 
 
-hh
Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>: May 04 08:29AM -0400

On 05/04/2017 01:09 AM, Dene wrote:
>> calculating per capita healthcare costs?
 
> I'm saying that our Federal government cannot possibly manage the
> healthcare of 330 million people.
 
Bias unsupported by fact.

> Possibly on the state level, but you would have a smorgasbord of
> efficiency and chaos.
 
You're still not understanding how much simpler the administration would
be if everyone were on the same plan. And the economies of scale would be
much greater in America, and a smaller percentage of the population lives
in remote and expensive to service areas.
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 04 06:13AM -0700

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 6:59:38 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
 
> An interesting claim, particularly considering that the Feds **already**
> manage the healthcare for 44 (Medicare) + 70 Million (Medicaid & CHIP),
> which is a third of the US Population.
 
Oh, and add another 9.4 million on Tricare.
 
That raises the total to roughly 124M out of a current
population of 321M, which is 38%.
 
As such, having the Feds take over everything would only require
a bit more than a doubling the existing Federal infrastructure.
 
Plus the comparison on USA vs Canada on taxation isn't as simple
as it may appear, for the US rates do not include personal
healthcare insurance costs whereas the Canadian one does.
 
For example, for a notional US domestic healthcare expense rate of
$10K/pp-year, at a generic US gross income of $100K/year, that's a
hidden 10% "tax" handicapping offset that needs to be added to
the total expenses for Americans before comparing to Canada. Still
really want to claim that we're paying less overall in the USA?
 
 

> (NIJ) has to work with more than ~50 Law Enforcement Groups from
> the 50 States ... right? FYI, if I recall correctly, the actual
> number is around 22,000.
 
Contemporary literature says "over 22K":
 
http://discoverpolicing.org/files/dp-brochure.pdf
 
That's a hell of a lot of little fiefdoms to wrangle...
 
 
-hh
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 04 08:17AM -0700

On 5/4/2017 3:59 AM, -hh wrote:
 
> An interesting claim, particularly considering that the Feds **already**
> manage the healthcare for 44 (Medicare) + 70 Million (Medicaid & CHIP),
> which is a third of the US Population.
 
The bulk of Medicare claims administration is handled by private
insurance companies via Advantage plans. Reason...private insurers are
more efficient than our bloated Federal govt.
 
Medicaid is administered by the states. Oregon's is quite mismanaged.
Long hold times. Delays with enrollment and receiving ID cards. I've
enrolled many and the majority become quite frustrated. This kind of
"service" does not happen in the private sector.
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 04 10:01AM -0700

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 11:17:25 AM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
 
> The bulk of Medicare claims administration is handled by private
> insurance companies via Advantage plans. Reason...private insurers are
> more efficient than our bloated Federal govt.
 
Unfortunately, the Fed's practice of contracting out does not
automatically mean that it is done solely due to efficiency:
there's been a lot of Congressional Mandates to do it even when
it ends up costing more.
 
Even so, how do the profits of these providers compare to
those in the rest of the market?
 
 
> Long hold times. Delays with enrollment and receiving ID cards. I've
> enrolled many and the majority become quite frustrated. This kind of
> "service" does not happen in the private sector.
 
Which serves my point about how there's nothing magical about
tossing it down to the States either.
 
In any case, the net overhead rates are still lower than the
non-Government private healthcare firms today, are they not?
 
For example, this one claims 1.3% vs 12%:
 
<http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/30/barbara-boxer/barbara-boxer-says-medicare-overhead-far-lower-pri/>
 
And granted, this has been a subject of debate, such as by also
factoring in differences in detection of fraud, or how Agencies
have off-the-books institutional support but there's also been
a quiet "inflated markup" running through the private companies
claims too that's an expense that's been under the radar too...
 
"Contrary to claims made by John Goodman and Thomas Saving in
an earlier Health Affairs Blog post, non-partisan data from
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Center for Medicare
and Medicaid Services (CMS) demonstrate definitively that private
insurance is increasingly less efficient than Medicare."
 
<http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/>
 
In any case, there's also a fundamental difference in the basic
business models too: the private healthcare insurance companies
have a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict-of-interest between
optimizing their service to their customer recipients versus an
optimization of their profits to their stockholders: a Government
entity and/or a Mutual doesn't have this same contradiction.
 
-hh
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 04 11:49AM -0700

On 5/4/2017 10:01 AM, -hh wrote:
> automatically mean that it is done solely due to efficiency:
> there's been a lot of Congressional Mandates to do it even when
> it ends up costing more.
 
If not for efficiency, why does Congress continue to mandate it?
 
> Even so, how do the profits of these providers compare to
> those in the rest of the market?
 
What?
 
>> "service" does not happen in the private sector.
 
> Which serves my point about how there's nothing magical about
> tossing it down to the States either.
 
Single payor would be a disaster...even if the states ran it. Single
payor will never happen. Only a minority in our country trust the
government to that extent.
 
> optimizing their service to their customer recipients versus an
> optimization of their profits to their stockholders: a Government
> entity and/or a Mutual doesn't have this same contradiction.
 
Many health insurance companies...like Blue Cross...are non profit
entities.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 04 11:57AM -0700

On 2017-05-04 11:49 AM, Dene wrote:
>> there's been a lot of Congressional Mandates to do it even when
>> it ends up costing more.
 
> If not for efficiency, why does Congress continue to mandate it?
 
If only one could figure out what might cause politicians to do what is
best for private corporations rather than people...
 
 
> Single payor would be a disaster...even if the states ran it. Single
> payor will never happen. Only a minority in our country trust the
> government to that extent.
 
Single payer exists all over the world...
 
...and it works.
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 04 12:22PM -0700

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 2:49:38 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
 
> Single payor would be a disaster...even if the states ran it. Single
> payor will never happen. Only a minority in our country trust the
> government to that extent.
 
Every developed country on earth except the US has
single-payer health insurance. You would be hard-
pressed to find a citizen of any of those countries
who would prefer to have a private-sector system. Do
you know of any Medicare beneficiaries who don't want
to be on Medicare?
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 04 12:47PM -0700

On 5/4/2017 12:22 PM, John B. wrote:
> who would prefer to have a private-sector system. Do
> you know of any Medicare beneficiaries who don't want
> to be on Medicare?
 
Medicare recipients, who stay with original medicare are not happy
campers, if they incur a chronic or catastrophic event. Those who buy
an Advantage plan (the bulk of Medicare recipients) or a Medigap plan
are the happy campers.
 
They are also happy because the premium is lower. Reason...it's a trust
that they have been paying into for years.
 
Bottom line...Medicare is apples and oranges, compared to a single payor
system. It's reality vs. idealism.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 04 12:53PM -0700

On 5/2/2017 6:06 PM, Dene wrote:
> is emphasizing that caveat. It's "OMG....I have to pay more if I get
> sick."
 
> Not true. You pay more if you are irresponsible before becoming sick.
 
So the first step has been taken in replacing ACA. Hallelujah.
What I find most remarkable is this fact. With ACA clearly failing,
(e.g. Iowas), there is no Dem bills or movement to reform the existing
law. They have reduced themselves to becoming a party of no without any
fixes or solutions.
 
Americans are watching. The Dems are out of touch. Vision is needed.
Ask those who are honest about HRC's failed campaign.
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 04 04:03AM -0700

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 2:00:05 AM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> [deleted]
 
Gosh, how ironic that Greg was just trying to remind me about just how bad and
unreliable surveys & polls are ...
 
 
... but when there's one with news he likes, they're suddenly wonderful and to
be trusted fully, with utterly no doubts.
 
 
/S
 
 
For example, what's the likelihood that this poll became biased because the
Trump supporters tried to conceal that by having a higher tendency to lie ... again?
 
 
-hh
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 04 08:20AM -0700

On 5/4/2017 4:03 AM, -hh wrote:
>> [deleted]
 
> Gosh, how ironic that Greg was just trying to remind me about just how bad and
> unreliable surveys & polls are ...
 
Which poll predicted Trump would win the presidency?
 
 
> /S
 
> For example, what's the likelihood that this poll became biased because the
> Trump supporters tried to conceal that by having a higher tendency to lie ... again?
 
What part of this poll do you deny?
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 04 12:16PM -0700

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 2:00:05 AM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
 
> http://observer.com/2017/04/dartmouths-college-survey-democratic-student-intolerance/
 
> When asked how they felt about rooming with a student of opposing political views, 45 percent of students who identify as Democratic said they would be "uncomfortable" living with someone whose political opinions differed from their own. Thirty-nine percent said they would be comfortable. This was the only demographic where more people said they would be uncomfortable than comfortable living with a political opponent.
 
> For Independents, 61 percent said they would be comfortable in such a situation, with only 16 percent saying they would be uncomfortable. Republicans were the most tolerant, with 69 percent saying they would be comfortable with a roommate whose views they opposed. Just 12 percent of Republican students said they would be uncomfortable.
 
These are just college kids. Their responses are not indicative
of how adults would answer the same questions.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 04 12:23PM -0700

On 2017-05-04 12:16 PM, John B. wrote:
>> Leftists are indeeed tolerant....except toward conservatives. I
>> have experienced this over and over again.
 
>> http://observer.com/2017/04/dartmouths-college-survey-democratic-student-intolerance/
 
When asked how they felt about rooming with a student of opposing
political views, 45 percent of students who identify as Democratic said
they would be "uncomfortable" living with someone whose political
opinions differed from their own. Thirty-nine percent said they would be
comfortable. This was the only demographic where more people said they
would be uncomfortable than comfortable living with a political opponent.
>> uncomfortable.
 
> These are just college kids. Their responses are not indicative of
> how adults would answer the same questions.
 
Especially when you consider that due to the proportion of each group,
more Republican students have had the chance to learn that living with a
Democrat isn't much of a thing than vice versa.
 
:-)
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 04 12:48PM -0700

On 5/4/2017 12:16 PM, John B. wrote:
 
>> For Independents, 61 percent said they would be comfortable in such a situation, with only 16 percent saying they would be uncomfortable. Republicans were the most tolerant, with 69 percent saying they would be comfortable with a roommate whose views they opposed. Just 12 percent of Republican students said they would be uncomfortable.
 
> These are just college kids. Their responses are not indicative
> of how adults would answer the same questions.
 
Leftist intolerance has been on full display ever since Trump was
elected. There are examples after examples.
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 04 12:49PM -0700

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
 
> > Gosh, how ironic that Greg was just trying to remind me about just how bad and
> > unreliable surveys & polls are ...
 
> Which poll predicted Trump would win the presidency?
 
Why does that matter? Be specific.
 

> > biased because the Trump supporters tried to conceal that
> > by having a higher tendency to lie ... again?
 
> What part of this poll do you deny?
 
None of it. I'm merely pointing out where you've consciously
chosen to be highly biased.
 
 
-hh
Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org>: May 04 07:47PM

Why do you ignore my son?
 
He is such a fragile child, he needs attention.
 
I worry when this poor boy is ignored.
 
Please respond to him, you are helping my boy.
 
Give him the attention I did not.
 
Thank you for helping the SHIT STAIN..
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 04 10:14AM -0700

'Yes, people will die. This one tends to get laughed off; can people
really die from poor access to healthcare in our wonderful country?
Here's one small data point to prove it. When Obamacare allowed states
to expand Medicaid to cover more people, the states that expanded
coverage saved thousands of lives. There were 2,840 more deaths per year
per state in those that refused the expansion, compared to those that
implemented it. Backing up to the bigger picture, the best estimates
suggest that if 20 million people lose health insurance (an
underestimate for this bill), 24,000 will die unnecessarily.'
 
<http://vitals.lifehacker.com/the-most-important-things-they-don-t-want-you-to-know-a-1794917217>
Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org>: May 04 04:06PM

Because he is an attention seeking troll.
 
Who reeeeelly could use a hair cut!
 
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 04 06:18AM -0500


>> Thank God!
 
> Comey, the director of the FBI and a Republican decided charges weren't
> warranted and Obama's cabinet secretary had recused herself...
 
That is not his job. He played cop and prosecutor.
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 04 06:20AM -0500

>> fault.
 
> No, doofus.
 
> That is NOT what they're investigating.
 
No shit. Being stupid is not a crime. Otherwise you would be locked up.
--
"Welcome to Trumpton" <trumpton@maiIsorter.co.uk>: May 04 03:30PM

Dene wrote:
 
> Leftists are indeeed tolerant....except toward conservatives. I have
> experienced this over and over again.
 
http://observer.com/2017/04/dartmouths-college-survey-democratic-student-intolerance/
> Republicans were the most tolerant, with 69 percent saying they would
> be comfortable with a roommate whose views they opposed. Just 12
> percent of Republican students said they would be uncomfortable.
 
IOW Republicans are despised the most; I can see that could be true.
 
--
Most people believe there is truth and there are lies. "Alternative
facts" are lies.
Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org>: May 04 01:34PM

Please give attention to shit stain.
 
He needs it.
 
Thank you all
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 04 06:24AM -0700

In the news today, an initiative which supposedly "allows" employers
to provide Comp Time as an alternative to Overtime (OT):
 
<http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/02/news/economy/overtime-pay-bill-passes-house/>
 
It appears that the reason why this is being tagged as "bad" is
because it apparently empowers Employers to take the decision *AWAY*
from employees on if they want to be paid now (OT) or later (Comp).
 
And FYI, I've personally worked at employers who have offered Comp
Time as an alternative to OT and seen in short order just how such
supposedly "employee friendly" policies get abused.
 
The first step is that OT goes away, even though it still officially
exists: all extra hours worked must be put onto the books as Comp,
never OT, which benefits the employer because the policy that they
were using was that Comp converts to OT pay after six (6) months.
Yes kids, under this plan, they withhold paying you for six months.
 
The second step is that as the Comp time comes up to its six month
"payout", the local managers (who are required to track it) are put
under pressure to have their employees use up the Comp before it
converts.
 
In other news, the prospects for growing our way out, especially
in Michigan and other States with automobile manufacturing jobs:
 
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/02/business/auto-sales-decline.html?_r=0>
 
Yes, 4th month in a row with declining demand, which will mean
that these production lines will be shrinking hours, not growing.
 
 
-hh
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 04 03:49AM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 7:13:32 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
 
> > In simplest terms, because her dip in her polling numbers from his announcement never
> > returned to where they were when he said she was cleared. That's permanent damage.
 
> The polls that said Trump was losing right up to election day?
 
Yes, those polls. Did they not have adequate resolution to show that Comey's
announcement was visible in them?
 
 
> > > Here is my take. His announcement and subsequent clearing had no effect on the election.
 
> > Except the polls proved otherwise.
 
> The polls that said Trump was losing right up to election day?
 
Yes, those polls ... and you're trying to avoid the point.
 

 
> > Except that meddling by the Russians is now known. As such, we can't blithely
> > ignore it anymore.
 
> But the effect is unknown.
 
Just because it is unknown doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
And you can't prove that its effect was zero.
 
> I think one of her key errors was the "deplorable" comment. It certainly affected
> my view of her. I was intending to vote for her right up until the last week.
 
Oh, so *you* changed your own mind right when Comey's investigation stuff
was breaking in the news ... are you really sure that it had utterly **zero** effect
on influencing your undecided position?
 
Particularly since her "deplorable" remark was made on 9 .. SEPTEMBER.
 
Yes, two months before the election...and seven weeks before you claimed to
have made up your mind.
 
In any event, there's always dozens of mistakes in anything and one of these
will always be labelled the worst one. And to try to pick Hillary's "worst" has
a huge amount of mistakes made to wade through.
 
But let's also not forget that there had also been a years-long ongoing campaign
which started even before the election to try to influence the public's opinions,
with the classical example being Benghazi - - not only was there the repeated
theater of witchhunts in front of Congress, behind the scenes, the Republican
legislatures never followed through on making the appropriations for enhanced
Embassy security that their own reports said were critically necessary.
 
Remember this fact for the next time that a US Embassy is attacked & our citizens killed.
 

> > > Americans in key battleground states rejected her. Simple as that.
 
> > And with extremely small margins, but the "winner takes all" process made it appear bigger.
 
> Irrelevant.
 
Not so, because Trump still lost the popular vote.
 
> Trump won Florida, Penn., Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio.
 
Only Ohio was really a generous margin:
 
OH: (population 11.6M): margin of 446,841 votes (51.3% vs 43.2%)
 
That one is a quite clear margin. But:
 
Florida (pop 20M): a margin of 112,911 votes (49.1% vs 47.7%)
PA (pop 12.8M): margin of 67,416 votes (48.2% vs 47.5%)
WI (pop 5.8M)I: margin of 22,748 votes (47.2% vs 46.5%)
MI (pop 10M): margin of 10,704 votes (47.3% vs 47.0%)
 
Do the above as deltas of their total populations to account for
nonvoters and FL's 1.4% apparent margin drops to 0.6%. Similarly,
the others become deltas of 0.5%, 0.4% and 0.1%.
 
 

 
> > Perhaps, but given the psychology of denial we so regularly see here, it's just
> > as unlikely as reading any concessions made here.
 
> Agree....which is one more reason she wasn't a good choice for POTUS.
 
Again you chose to avoid the point: all people regularly do this.
 
For example, try to show us that Donald is better at admitting his mistakes.
 
Good luck with that one. Really.
 
Considering how he just ended a CBS interview this past week when he was
pressed on his "Obama Wiretapping" claims, the evidence is indicating that
he's even worse than the average scum sucking lying swampy politician.
 
 
-hh
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.golf+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

0 comments:

Post a Comment