Driver to drive?

[John Devereux]

Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com> writes:

JD > Yes, he thinks the CIA actually *is*
JD > engaged in a cunning plan to sterilise
JD > the muslims with vaccines.
JD > Time to back away slowly ... -- John Devereux

That's dishonest rhetoric.
I never said they actually did such a thing,

It is hard to know precisely *what* you are saying, it is all innuendo
and leading questions. But it seemed that way to me.

but they have a history of doing even more
outrageous things.

No they do not. You are talking about the literal genocide (forced
sterilisation) of entire populations.

If you were a citizen of
country X and found out that CIA agents
actually were involved with vaccines, you
would have good reason to be quite alarmed.

Do you think such national intelligence
services are of particularly moral character?

No

Maybe you can be a character reference
for KGB, Savokh, Mossadh as well as CIA?

Having any of those agencies actually
involved with vaccines is a bad idea.

Nobody is disagreeing with that AFAIK.

--

John Devereux

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 05:12:22 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, 18 October 2013 19:49:27 UTC+11, John Fields wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:50:38 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 17 October 2013 10:30:22 UTC+11, John Fields wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:58:50 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman

snipped the rest of the pretentious nonsense

Typical Slomanesque response: When you can't counter, snip the
damaging bits and issue ad-hominem epithets.

That is a way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is to say that I get bored by tedious nonsense, and I imagine that everybody else does too.

---
If that were true you'd have stopped posting a long time ago.

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 05:13:45 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, 18 October 2013 17:49:24 UTC+11, Greegor wrote:

snipped Greegor being his usual demented self

Hello?

Goodbye.

---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkH3PdDZZuA

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:12:14 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:

JF > Shouldn't you have written: "You're a nitwit,"... -- JF

Careful!
Catching an Aspie at a spelling error could send them into a rage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/01/03/Interactivity/Images/shooting-suspects.jpg

---


--
JF

 

[John Devereux]

krw@attt.bizz writes:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:04:51 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:

JD > Yes, he thinks the CIA actually *is*
JD > engaged in a cunning plan to sterilise
JD > the muslims with vaccines.
JD > Time to back away slowly ... -- John Devereux

That's dishonest rhetoric.

You expect otherwise from a lefty?

Hmm, I wonder what pushed your button on this one?

Ahhh, got it.

Of course. And greegor.

These national - and indeed global - vaccination programs... they smell
a bit *socialist*, don't they?!

OK, you can have people buying flu shots and so forth. But to get herd
immunity you might need 90% uptake, hard to get that with a free
market. Without that herd immunity a lot of vaccines are not so
effective.

And to get global *eradication* you need an internationally coordinated
effort, sustained over decades with no monetary payoff.

Doesn't sound like shareholder value to me.


--

John Devereux

 

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 18:17:00 +0100, John Devereux
<john@devereux.me.uk> wrote:

krw@attt.bizz writes:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:04:51 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:

JD > Yes, he thinks the CIA actually *is*
JD > engaged in a cunning plan to sterilise
JD > the muslims with vaccines.
JD > Time to back away slowly ... -- John Devereux

That's dishonest rhetoric.

You expect otherwise from a lefty?

Hmm, I wonder what pushed your button on this one?

I'm sure you wonder about what day it is.

Ahhh, got it.

Of course. And greegor.

That made about as much sense as you usually do.

These national - and indeed global - vaccination programs... they smell
a bit *socialist*, don't they?!

I had no doubt that you couldn't read. You've demonstrated it long
enough.

OK, you can have people buying flu shots and so forth. But to get herd
immunity you might need 90% uptake, hard to get that with a free
market. Without that herd immunity a lot of vaccines are not so
effective.

Idiot. Do try to stay on topic.

And to get global *eradication* you need an internationally coordinated
effort, sustained over decades with no monetary payoff.

Doesn't sound like shareholder value to me.

You really are an idiot. The discussion was about spooks not
vaccinations. Now crawl back in your hole with Slowman.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 19 October 2013 02:46:44 UTC+11, k...@attt.bizz wrote:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:04:51 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:

JD > Yes, he thinks the CIA actually *is*
JD > engaged in a cunning plan to sterilise
JD > the muslims with vaccines.
JD > Time to back away slowly ... -- John Devereux

That's dishonest rhetoric.

You expect otherwise from a lefty?

krw wouldn't, but his idea of "honest rhetoric" is anything that matches his irrational delusions. He's never mastered the concept of "evidence".

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:12:58 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

Okay, so you don't know the difference between a copay and a deductible, that makes you ignorantly unreliable.

 

[amdx]

On 10/23/2013 1:16 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:12:58 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

Okay, so you don't know the difference between a copay and a deductible, that makes you ignorantly unreliable.

I know you need to meet your deductible before you have a copay.
And once I meet the deductible on my policy, few services require a copay.
How does it work on Obamacare.

 

[amdx]

On 10/23/2013 1:16 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:12:58 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

Okay, so you don't know the difference between a copay and a deductible, that makes you ignorantly unreliable.

I went back and read what I wrote, yes I did use copay, when I meant
deductible. Odd for me because I haven't paid a copay for over 6 years,
because of my high deductible.

I know you want to defend Obamacare, but using my misplaced word is
not going to make Obamacare any better.

 

[Gib Bogle]

On 24/10/2013 7:40 a.m., amdx wrote:

On 10/23/2013 1:16 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:12:58 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

Okay, so you don't know the difference between a copay and a
deductible, that makes you ignorantly unreliable.


I went back and read what I wrote, yes I did use copay, when I meant
deductible. Odd for me because I haven't paid a copay for over 6 years,
because of my high deductible.

I know you want to defend Obamacare, but using my misplaced word is
not going to make Obamacare any better.

Shirley you mean Romneycare?

 

[amdx]

On 10/23/2013 2:17 PM, Gib Bogle wrote:

On 24/10/2013 7:40 a.m., amdx wrote:
On 10/23/2013 1:16 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:12:58 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

Okay, so you don't know the difference between a copay and a
deductible, that makes you ignorantly unreliable.


I went back and read what I wrote, yes I did use copay, when I meant
deductible. Odd for me because I haven't paid a copay for over 6 years,
because of my high deductible.

I know you want to defend Obamacare, but using my misplaced word is
not going to make Obamacare any better.


Shirley you mean Romneycare?

Don't call me Shirley!
No, I meant Obamacare.

We have a healthcare problem, Obamacare is not the solution.

I heard last night 300,000 Floridians are getting cancellation notices.
But wait Obama said, you will be able to keep your existing insurance if
you want.

From Kaiser Health News,
"Florida Blue, for example, is terminating about 300,000 policies,
about 80 percent of its individual policies in the state. Kaiser
Permanente in California has sent notices to 160,000 people – about half
of its individual business in the state. Insurer Highmark in Pittsburgh
is dropping about 20 percent of its individual market customers, while
Independence Blue Cross, the major insurer in Philadelphia, is dropping
about 45 percent."

"Kris Malean, 56, lives outside Seattle, and has a health policy that
costs $390 a month with a $2,500 deductible and a $10,000 in potential
out-of-pocket costs for such things as doctor visits, drug costs or
hospital care.

As a replacement, Regence BlueShield is offering her a plan for $79 more
a month with a deductible twice as large as what she pays now, but which
limits her potential out-of-pocket costs to $6,250 a year, including the
deductible.

“My impression was …there would be a lot more choice, driving some of
the rates down,” said Malean, who does not believe she is eligible for a
subsidy.

Regence spokeswoman Rachelle Cunningham said the new plans offer
consumers broader benefits, which “in many cases translate into higher
costs.”"

"However, Florida Blue, formerly known as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Florida, will have to terminate 80 percent of its Florida individual
insurance policies to comply with the law."

I'm one of the 20%, I get to keep my policy, but have to pay for the
additions that Obamacare added.
Mikek

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:16:55 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:12:58 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

Okay, so you don't know the difference between a copay and a deductible, that makes you ignorantly unreliable.

Cranky! Cranky! >:-}

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Gib Bogle]

On 24/10/2013 9:19 a.m., amdx wrote:

On 10/23/2013 2:17 PM, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 24/10/2013 7:40 a.m., amdx wrote:
On 10/23/2013 1:16 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:12:58 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

Okay, so you don't know the difference between a copay and a
deductible, that makes you ignorantly unreliable.


I went back and read what I wrote, yes I did use copay, when I meant
deductible. Odd for me because I haven't paid a copay for over 6 years,
because of my high deductible.

I know you want to defend Obamacare, but using my misplaced word is
not going to make Obamacare any better.


Shirley you mean Romneycare?

Don't call me Shirley!
No, I meant Obamacare.

We have a healthcare problem, Obamacare is not the solution.

Yes, but he compromised (as usual) and went with the Republican plan.
Of course, it stopped being the Republican plan then.

 

[Greegor]

How would this help so much when
it all has a 10K deductible?

 

[amdx]

On 10/24/2013 4:44 AM, Greegor wrote:

How would this help so much when
it all has a 10K deductible?

Not much context here to answer your question.

But I'll try.

About 5 years ago when I got notice my premium was increasing to $9,900,
after a bit of shopping and research, I found my best option was to
raise my deductible. My deductible was $2,500, I raised it to $10,000.
This $7,500 increase in my deductible lowered my premium $5,600.
If I ever spend my $10,000 deductible for the year, I have no copays
for any medical services.
That seems like a no brainer.
I then opened a tax deductible Health Savings Account and put in
the $5,600 plus (as I recall) an additional $550 dollars to put
in the maximum allowed. I think the max that year was $6,150.
I spent a little out of the HSA, but after the max deposit the next year
I had over $10,000 in the account. This year the maximum deposit allowed
is $7,450, and that is what did.
After 5 years I have way more than $10,000 in the account, I think it
is a great system. Remember, the increase in my deductible of $7,500
only cost ($7,500 - $5,600 =) $1,900, but, only if I spent $10,000 on
medical expenses, and I never have.
Did I answer your question?
Do you have any comments?

Mikek

PS, If you want to post your healthcare premium, deductible,
and copays, I'd like to analyze it in comparison to mine.

 

[RobertMacy]

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 05:19:50 -0700, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

..snip...excellent detail, but still required by AIOE
Did I answer your question?
Do you have any comments?

Mikek

Interesting facts flying around here. People are spending more than their
food budget on betting they won't get sick. Laws in place to enrich
insurance companies [not medical service providers], and encourage people
to save [that's good, but also not good, since people can dip into that
cash pool the same way govt has dipped into the SS pool] Ok, ok, companies
and banks can make profits, as long as *I* come out ahead, I don't care,
right?

Can't find the post, but someone said 160,000 policies cancelled in CA [a
Democratic Party controlled state] and in Florida [an RP controlled
state(?)] It appears that even though YOU can choose to keep your old
insurance policy you may not be able to. and working the numbers in CA, if
those polices are at least $520/mo each that represents 'lost' revenue of
$1B per year!!, which is a serious chunk of change, even to an insurance
firm. And Florida too? But, more! One has to ponder the significance of a
firm willing to cut off that much income, throw it out for competitors to
be able to grab, realizing these companies have the business sense to
understand that by cancelling all these policies they will somehow come
out better in the finals.

After all these, apparently more expensive, plans are signed up for;
[understanding 'individual' policies cannot be cancelled] is there any
provision in the ACA to prevent cancellation across a broad plain of
holders, or prevention of increases, also across a broad plain? Justified
by the whining. "We just can't afford to do this, help us govt"? It seems
a reasonable scenario to expect an industry that already has the ear of
the govt to continue in that vein.

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 07:39:38 -0700, RobertMacy <robert.a.macy@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 05:19:50 -0700, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

..snip...excellent detail, but still required by AIOE
Did I answer your question?
Do you have any comments?

Mikek


Interesting facts flying around here. People are spending more than their
food budget on betting they won't get sick. Laws in place to enrich
insurance companies [not medical service providers], and encourage people
to save [that's good, but also not good, since people can dip into that
cash pool the same way govt has dipped into the SS pool] Ok, ok, companies
and banks can make profits, as long as *I* come out ahead, I don't care,
right?

Can't find the post, but someone said 160,000 policies cancelled in CA [a
Democratic Party controlled state] and in Florida [an RP controlled
state(?)] It appears that even though YOU can choose to keep your old
insurance policy you may not be able to. and working the numbers in CA, if
those polices are at least $520/mo each that represents 'lost' revenue of
$1B per year!!, which is a serious chunk of change, even to an insurance
firm. And Florida too? But, more! One has to ponder the significance of a
firm willing to cut off that much income, throw it out for competitors to
be able to grab, realizing these companies have the business sense to
understand that by cancelling all these policies they will somehow come
out better in the finals.

After all these, apparently more expensive, plans are signed up for;
[understanding 'individual' policies cannot be cancelled] is there any
provision in the ACA to prevent cancellation across a broad plain of
holders, or prevention of increases, also across a broad plain? Justified
by the whining. "We just can't afford to do this, help us govt"? It seems
a reasonable scenario to expect an industry that already has the ear of
the govt to continue in that vein.

The cancellations are required by the ACA; the policies were non-compliant.

And the insurance companies are happy to cancel the policies. The customers are
required by law to buy replacement policies, and they will be more expensive.
The insurance companies didn't lobby against ACA; they knew they would make more
money.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

 

[amdx]

On 10/24/2013 9:39 AM, RobertMacy wrote:

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 05:19:50 -0700, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

..snip...excellent detail, but still required by AIOE
Did I answer your question?
Do you have any comments?

Mikek


Interesting facts flying around here. People are spending more than
their food budget on betting they won't get sick. Laws in place to
enrich insurance companies [not medical service providers], and
encourage people to save [that's good, but also not good, since people
can dip into that cash pool the same way govt has dipped into the SS
pool] Ok, ok, companies and banks can make profits, as long as *I* come
out ahead, I don't care, right?

Can't find the post, but someone said 160,000 policies cancelled in CA
[a Democratic Party controlled state] and in Florida [an RP controlled
state(?)] It appears that even though YOU can choose to keep your old
insurance policy you may not be able to. and working the numbers in CA,
if those polices are at least $520/mo each that represents 'lost'
revenue of $1B per year!!, which is a serious chunk of change, even to
an insurance firm. And Florida too? But, more! One has to ponder the
significance of a firm willing to cut off that much income, throw it out
for competitors to be able to grab, realizing these companies have the
business sense to understand that by cancelling all these policies they
will somehow come out better in the finals.

After all these, apparently more expensive, plans are signed up for;
[understanding 'individual' policies cannot be cancelled] is there any
provision in the ACA to prevent cancellation across a broad plain of
holders, or prevention of increases, also across a broad plain?
Justified by the whining. "We just can't afford to do this, help us
govt"? It seems a reasonable scenario to expect an industry that already
has the ear of the govt to continue in that vein.



..snip...excellent detail, but still required by AIOE

Could you explain that to me? I suspect some internet organization.

The companies below are dropping hundreds of thousands from coverage.
Probably 1,000,000 people just in this list. I'm sure there are more, I
only gabbed the first Google hit.
What is the chance that the these are low profit or no profit
producing customers?
What is the chance those dropped are sicker people?
What is the chance those dropped are likely to sign up for Obamacare?
Is it good for Obamacare to get the sicker people?
Since the companies are dropping the sicker people will Obamacare make
the insurance companies more profitable?
Should I buy insurance stock now?

Insurance companies dropping customers.

Florida Blue is terminating about 300,000 policies, about 80
percent of its individual policies in the state.

Kaiser Permanente in California has sent notices to 160,000 people,
about half of its individual business.

Insurer Highmark in Pittsburgh is dropping about 20 percent of its
individual market customers.

Independence Blue Cross, the major insurer in Philadelphia, is
dropping about 45 percent.

KHN said Blue Shield of California sent about 119,000 cancellation
notices out in mid-September, about 60 percent of its individual business.

 

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:42:25 +1300, Gib Bogle <g.bogle@auckland.ac.nz>
wrote:

On 24/10/2013 9:19 a.m., amdx wrote:
On 10/23/2013 2:17 PM, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 24/10/2013 7:40 a.m., amdx wrote:
On 10/23/2013 1:16 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:12:58 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

Okay, so you don't know the difference between a copay and a
deductible, that makes you ignorantly unreliable.


I went back and read what I wrote, yes I did use copay, when I meant
deductible. Odd for me because I haven't paid a copay for over 6 years,
because of my high deductible.

I know you want to defend Obamacare, but using my misplaced word is
not going to make Obamacare any better.


Shirley you mean Romneycare?

Don't call me Shirley!
No, I meant Obamacare.

We have a healthcare problem, Obamacare is not the solution.

Yes, but he compromised (as usual) and went with the Republican plan.
Of course, it stopped being the Republican plan then.

Lying doesn't help your case. That obviously never stops lefties,
though.