Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #155734 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-01 10:49 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-03 17:11 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 320 — 37 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 10:49 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-01 13:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 12:05 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-02 04:41 -0400
Re: I Feel Old "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-01-02 11:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 17:14 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-03 08:07 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 15:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 11:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-03 17:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 18:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 06:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 12:24 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-03 09:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-03 13:12 -0700
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 16:56 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 14:27 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-03 23:53 +0000
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-04 07:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 14:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 16:55 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 11:41 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-03 17:37 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-03 13:11 -0700
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-04 16:01 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 16:23 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-03 17:30 -0400
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-04 14:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:15 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 13:31 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-05 22:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-04 17:07 -0800
Re: I Feel Old philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-06 19:21 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-01 21:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-01 22:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 15:57 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-01 20:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-02 00:45 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 06:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 08:18 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 07:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:34 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-02 14:27 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:28 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-02 19:56 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 07:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-03 10:00 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-17 08:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 13:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 11:15 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-06 11:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-06 12:02 -0600
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 18:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-06 18:06 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 09:22 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 15:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 09:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-07 17:47 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 18:47 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 19:23 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 10:58 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 06:37 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 15:53 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 11:26 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 09:53 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:24 +0100
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-10 06:06 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-08 10:13 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 17:42 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-09 07:07 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-09 11:55 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 15:40 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-10 06:13 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-09 13:36 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-09 15:30 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-08 10:43 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 10:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 10:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 22:53 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 12:53 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:29 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:26 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 16:22 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 10:03 +1100
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-12 21:01 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 14:22 +1100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-13 10:14 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-13 18:51 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-14 07:02 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 13:06 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 09:51 +1100
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 06:01 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-08 13:21 -0600
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-08 20:58 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net> - 2016-01-08 20:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:31 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-09 18:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-09 12:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 15:31 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 17:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-09 17:07 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-10 11:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 17:08 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:43 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 08:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 09:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 12:28 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 10:58 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 14:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 13:57 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 18:19 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 17:37 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 18:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-08 16:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-09 18:38 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 21:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-09 22:56 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 23:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 14:58 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 14:01 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 16:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 05:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 14:48 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-11 17:28 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 19:01 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 16:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-07 13:13 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 18:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 17:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-08 23:20 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:29 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-04 18:30 +0100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 10:59 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 19:48 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-05 06:27 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 16:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 12:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 11:08 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 13:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-04 14:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 22:38 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 17:47 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-13 01:27 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 11:18 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-13 19:05 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 20:22 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-14 14:09 -0600
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-15 14:51 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 09:48 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 17:26 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 13:19 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-15 09:20 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-15 17:44 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 12:57 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-19 12:42 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-19 15:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 19:15 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 13:44 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-15 15:02 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-16 08:58 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 23:51 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 16:01 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 17:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 08:03 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-16 08:29 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 03:38 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 15:32 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 16:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 16:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 02:11 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 14:02 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 14:22 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-18 05:09 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 15:00 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-18 03:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-16 16:15 +0100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-17 11:39 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-18 04:41 +1100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-16 16:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-16 11:19 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-16 18:36 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-16 17:23 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 13:01 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-16 20:55 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-16 14:53 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 05:43 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 19:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 09:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 14:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 15:19 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 19:27 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 15:00 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 15:32 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 22:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 16:12 +1100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-17 11:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 12:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 09:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-17 10:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-17 15:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 05:14 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 15:38 -0600
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-16 14:09 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-16 15:19 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-15 19:29 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-15 14:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-14 13:46 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-14 05:17 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-14 13:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 22:37 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-05 04:44 -0400
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 11:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 17:04 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-04 17:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-02 15:01 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 15:58 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 06:40 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 12:31 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 22:06 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 07:09 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 12:11 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 20:42 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 16:43 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 22:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-04 18:21 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-04 17:47 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 16:10 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:26 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:57 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:46 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-07 17:36 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-07 13:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 15:35 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-08 00:15 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 19:41 +1100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 12:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-07 21:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:51 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 12:59 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:35 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-05 17:31 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 07:38 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 13:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 05:49 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 07:13 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 16:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:39 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-06 09:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 10:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 17:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:42 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 14:20 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:34 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 19:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 12:35 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 20:54 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 23:48 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:38 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-07 07:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 06:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-09 21:47 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 05:45 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-10 12:18 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 08:12 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-10 13:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-07 08:15 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 05:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:29 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:20 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 20:52 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:34 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:40 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:39 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:22 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 17:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 20:13 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:37 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-08 23:25 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Freddy1 <something@something.com> - 2016-01-02 21:35 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-03 05:34 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 08:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Freddy1 <something@something.com> - 2016-01-03 15:17 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-03 20:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-04 05:09 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:57 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-01 20:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-01-02 07:00 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Louis Krupp <lkrupp@nospam.pssw.com.invalid> - 2016-01-02 01:44 -0700
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 13:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-02 09:11 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-02 11:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-03 08:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-03 17:11 +0000
Page 5 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 16 Next page →
| From | Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-09 13:36 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ZPadnVgD-P6-_AzLnZ2dnUU7-L-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #156321 |
jack wrote: > > And some are dramatically lower in the total tax take than others. Right, Alaska has a negative tax. They make so much from oil taxes, that they pay a dividend to all declared residents. (Maybe not so much anymre, due to the drop in oil prices and maybe reduced output of the Alaska wells.) Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-09 15:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6ru19$49l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156326 |
On 1/9/2016 1:36 PM, Jon Elson wrote: > jack wrote: > > >> >> And some are dramatically lower in the total tax take than others. > Right, Alaska has a negative tax. They make so much from oil taxes, that > they pay a dividend to all declared residents. (Maybe not so much anymre, > due to the drop in oil prices and maybe reduced output of the Alaska wells.) > Yup. This year they're proposing an income tax, since those oil revenues aren't working out so well and they've got a $3.5B budget gap. They already have a corporate income tax..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 10:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n6olaa$lg2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156244 |
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes: > In article <n6n2tu$685$1@dont-email.me>, > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >>On 07-Jan-16 11:36, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>> Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>>> The max is ~$55k/yr for single-employer plans, which isn't >>>> "lavish", though it doesn't look that bad on the surface. >>> >>> $55,000 a year pension is not a lot of money these days, especially >>> for two people. >> >>It's more than the median household income, and most of the people >>earning less are still paying a rent/mortgage _and_ have kids, so their >>monthly costs are much higher. >> >>Also, keep in mind that _doesn't_ include whatever they're getting from >>Social Security. >> >>> Some states tax pension income. Some states have onerous property >>> taxes. >> >>US median property tax is $1838/yr, ranging from $183/yr (LA) to >>$6,082/yr (NJ). That's not a significant problem for someone getting >>$55k/yr, especially if they don't have a mortgage. And, if they are >>smart, they'll move somewhere with low property taxes and no income >>taxes on pensions; it's not like they have a job to worry about. > > I am constantly surprised by the tax burden of these leftopondians. > $6k median property tax? I pay ~$450, and I am well above medium in > my property, and the municipality is very tax-happy. > > Or is NJ such an outlier? NJ is right next to NY State, and worse NYC. I saved a lot of bucks moving across the river. That's not counting the bridge toll, which is only 1 way. You pay to get in. :) -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 10:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6oo7k$6ur$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156255 |
On 08-Jan-16 09:43, Dan Espen wrote: > Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes: >> Or is NJ such an outlier? > > NJ is right next to NY State, and worse NYC. > > I saved a lot of bucks moving across the river. > > That's not counting the bridge toll, which is only 1 way. You pay to > get in. You're not paying to enter NY; you're paying to leave NJ. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 10:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9d47a816-33eb-4bb9-a723-de2088ba2d9d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156259 |
On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 12:08:04 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > You're not paying to enter NY; you're paying to leave NJ. Yeah, the toll collection would never work in the reverse direction. Note that you pay to leave NJ when going to NYC or to Phila.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 10:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6oppd$ueh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156244 |
On 08-Jan-16 03:58, Morten Reistad wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> US median property tax is $1838/yr, ranging from $183/yr (LA) to >> $6,082/yr (NJ). That's not a significant problem for someone >> getting $55k/yr, especially if they don't have a mortgage. And, if >> they are smart, they'll move somewhere with low property taxes and >> no income taxes on pensions; it's not like they have a job to worry >> about. > > $6k median property tax? I pay ~$450, and I am well above medium in > my property, and the municipality is very tax-happy. > > Or is NJ such an outlier? NJ's median is 3.3x the US median; I haven't checked whether it meets the formal definition of an outlier, but it's certainly unusually high, just like LA is unusually low. NJ and LA are also an exceptions to the general rule that states with high property values have low property tax rates and vice versa, which results in most of them clustering around the same absolute value. > I am constantly surprised by the tax burden of these leftopondians. Think again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP The US, at 26.9%, is lower than virtually all of Rightpondia, and far lower than the EU overall at 35.7%. Most countries with a lower tax burden than the US are in Central and South America, Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, the Caribbean and Oceania, i.e. "developing" rather than "developed" countries. >>> Health care, such as a supplemental policy for what Medicare >>> doesn't cover, is very expensive. Prescriptions are expensive. >> >> Indeed, and that's why I pointed out that PBGC doesn't cover _any_ >> supplemental benefits, e.g. health or long-term care insurance. > > I realise we get a pretty good deal for the 14.2% pension&health > contribution we pay over here. Yes, you do; our payroll tax of 15.3% for Social Security & Medicare provides lower benefits than you get in retirement and _zero_ benefits before retirement. OTOH, if you exclude people who don't have health insurance (despite Obamacare), our health outcomes _are_ better, so it seems we do get something for all the extra money we spend. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 10:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4ad49459-6d16-4253-8ffa-30bb4b938f9f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156260 |
On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 12:08:04 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > Yes, you do; our payroll tax of 15.3% for Social Security & Medicare > provides lower benefits than you get in retirement and _zero_ benefits > before retirement. If a person becomes extremely disabled (really bad shape), they can qualify for S/S disability payments. > OTOH, if you exclude people who don't have health insurance (despite > Obamacare), our health outcomes _are_ better, so it seems we do get > something for all the extra money we spend. The NYT did a report on that and some western countries have better healthcare outcomes than we do. The U.S. spend 20% of its healthcare money on administration. Anyone who visits a doctor's office will see staff _constantly_ on the phone trying to work something out with the insurance company. Constantly! Many times paperwork has to be resubmitted for payment. Sometimes reimbursement can take months. Doctors waste a lot of their time checking whether a test is covered by insurance or not. Another source of big waste is "defensive medicine" where doctors order unnecessary tests/procedures to cover their a** as a defense against lawsuits. This is very costly. As Time magazine reported last year, the health insurance industry is extremely profitable. They have big lobbyists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 22:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dfasvpFu2t0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156268 |
On 2016-01-08, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 12:08:04 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
>> Yes, you do; our payroll tax of 15.3% for Social Security & Medicare
>> provides lower benefits than you get in retirement and _zero_ benefits
>> before retirement.
>
> If a person becomes extremely disabled (really bad shape), they can
> qualify for S/S disability payments.
>
>
>
>
>> OTOH, if you exclude people who don't have health insurance (despite
>> Obamacare), our health outcomes _are_ better, so it seems we do get
>> something for all the extra money we spend.
>
> The NYT did a report on that and some western countries have
> better healthcare outcomes than we do.
Some?
--
Today is Pungenday, the 8th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3182
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "879" <879@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-09 12:53 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfb7goF281iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156291 |
"Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message news:dfasvpFu2t0U1@mid.individual.net... > On 2016-01-08, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 12:08:04 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> >>> Yes, you do; our payroll tax of 15.3% for Social Security & Medicare >>> provides lower benefits than you get in retirement and _zero_ benefits >>> before retirement. >> >> If a person becomes extremely disabled (really bad shape), they can >> qualify for S/S disability payments. >> >> >> >> >>> OTOH, if you exclude people who don't have health insurance (despite >>> Obamacare), our health outcomes _are_ better, so it seems we do get >>> something for all the extra money we spend. >> >> The NYT did a report on that and some western countries have >> better healthcare outcomes than we do. > > Some? Yes, some like Spain, Italy, Portugal etc don’t.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-09 11:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <p047mc-kr.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156298 |
In article <dfb7goF281iU1@mid.individual.net>, 879 <879@nospam.com> wrote: > > >"Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message >news:dfasvpFu2t0U1@mid.individual.net... >> On 2016-01-08, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >>> On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 12:08:04 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, you do; our payroll tax of 15.3% for Social Security & Medicare >>>> provides lower benefits than you get in retirement and _zero_ benefits >>>> before retirement. >>> >>> If a person becomes extremely disabled (really bad shape), they can >>> qualify for S/S disability payments. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> OTOH, if you exclude people who don't have health insurance (despite >>>> Obamacare), our health outcomes _are_ better, so it seems we do get >>>> something for all the extra money we spend. >>> >>> The NYT did a report on that and some western countries have >>> better healthcare outcomes than we do. >> >> Some? > >Yes, some like Spain, Italy, Portugal etc don’t. Yet, Spain has this QA success. They tried rigourous QA on all health system admittals in two provinces in the 1990s, and the mortality sunk by an impressive amount. This system was rolled out in all of Spain during the next 5 years. It _really_ improves the results. So far, only France among large countries have copied them; with the UK in the pipeline. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-09 11:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <9r37mc-kr.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156291 |
In article <dfasvpFu2t0U1@mid.individual.net>, Huge <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote: >On 2016-01-08, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 12:08:04 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> >>> Yes, you do; our payroll tax of 15.3% for Social Security & Medicare >>> provides lower benefits than you get in retirement and _zero_ benefits >>> before retirement. >> >> If a person becomes extremely disabled (really bad shape), they can >> qualify for S/S disability payments. >> >> >> >> >>> OTOH, if you exclude people who don't have health insurance (despite >>> Obamacare), our health outcomes _are_ better, so it seems we do get >>> something for all the extra money we spend. >> >> The NYT did a report on that and some western countries have >> better healthcare outcomes than we do. > >Some? There was a news blurb this summer that we took the first place in cancer survival rates in the latest stats, from the Netherlands. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 16:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n73u71$s4c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156268 |
On 08-Jan-16 12:44, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> Yes, you do; our payroll tax of 15.3% for Social Security & >> Medicare provides lower benefits than you get in retirement and >> _zero_ benefits before retirement. > > If a person becomes extremely disabled (really bad shape), they can > qualify for S/S disability payments. That's 8.9M people as of the end of 2015, or 3.3% of the under-65 population; there is zero benefit to the other 96.7%. The average benefit is $1,165.79/mo, i.e. not enough for rent in most places. >> OTOH, if you exclude people who don't have health insurance >> (despite Obamacare), our health outcomes _are_ better, so it seems >> we do get something for all the extra money we spend. > > The NYT did a report on that and some western countries have better > healthcare outcomes than we do. Only when you count the uninsured, which have _far_ worse outcomes than the insured. That's why universal coverage is so important, and why Obamacare has _measurably_ improved overall outcomes, even though two thirds of the previously uninsured still haven't signed up. > The U.S. spend 20% of its healthcare money on administration. Yes. OTOH, is it worth paying someone a dollar to avoid wasting a thousand dollars on unnecessary tests/procedures--or outright fraud? > Anyone who visits a doctor's office will see staff _constantly_ on > the phone trying to work something out with the insurance company. > Constantly! Many times paperwork has to be resubmitted for payment. > Sometimes reimbursement can take months. Doctors waste a lot of > their time checking whether a test is covered by insurance or not. The vast majority of claims are instantly approved; arguing over one rejected claim can take hours, though, so to an observer, it may seem like problems are a common event. In most cases, the problem is that something was miscoded, and all it takes to get approval is using the correct code. This is common since each insurer uses different codes or has different rules for the same codes, and it's understandable that office staff can't keep them all straight. There are similar problems with sharing records. > Another source of big waste is "defensive medicine" where doctors > order unnecessary tests/procedures to cover their a** as a defense > against lawsuits. This is very costly. I hear such complaints all the time, but I've never seen anything that seemed to match. OTOH, I _have_ seen doctors run all sorts of tests "just in case" or to "rule X out", despite having lab reports for the same test from another doctor (or ER). They tell me I have insurance, so why am I complaining? One doctor worried about how much radiation I'd been exposed to for all these wasteful tests--and then ran other tests on me to rule _that_ out as a cause, despite my problem obviously starting before the tests! > As Time magazine reported last year, the health insurance industry > is extremely profitable. They have big lobbyists. Yes, they do. It's notable that, once the public option was killed, they suddenly supported Obamacare--and switched all their campaign contributions from Reps (who opposed it) to Dems (who supported it). S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 10:03 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dflf1tFksqsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156554 |
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message news:n73u71$s4c$1@dont-email.me... > On 08-Jan-16 12:44, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>> Yes, you do; our payroll tax of 15.3% for Social Security & >>> Medicare provides lower benefits than you get in retirement and >>> _zero_ benefits before retirement. >> >> If a person becomes extremely disabled (really bad shape), they can >> qualify for S/S disability payments. > > That's 8.9M people as of the end of 2015, or 3.3% of the under-65 > population; there is zero benefit to the other 96.7%. The average > benefit is $1,165.79/mo, i.e. not enough for rent in most places. But those can obviously move to where the rent is lower. >>> OTOH, if you exclude people who don't have health insurance >>> (despite Obamacare), our health outcomes _are_ better, so it seems >>> we do get something for all the extra money we spend. >> >> The NYT did a report on that and some western countries have better >> healthcare outcomes than we do. > > Only when you count the uninsured, which have _far_ worse outcomes than > the insured. Its also true when you consider just the insured. > That's why universal coverage is so important, and why > Obamacare has _measurably_ improved overall outcomes, even though two > thirds of the previously uninsured still haven't signed up. > >> The U.S. spend 20% of its healthcare money on administration. > > Yes. OTOH, is it worth paying someone a dollar to avoid wasting a > thousand dollars on unnecessary tests/procedures--or outright fraud? Not when the absolute vast bulk of that money wasted has nothing whatever to do with unnecessary tests/procedures or outright fraud. >> Anyone who visits a doctor's office will see staff _constantly_ on >> the phone trying to work something out with the insurance company. >> Constantly! Many times paperwork has to be resubmitted for payment. >> Sometimes reimbursement can take months. Doctors waste a lot of >> their time checking whether a test is covered by insurance or not. > The vast majority of claims are instantly approved; BULLSHIT. > arguing over one > rejected claim can take hours, though, so to an observer, it may seem > like problems are a common event. > In most cases, the problem is that something was miscoded, and all it > takes to get approval is using the correct code. Doesn’t explain why it takes so much time to get the correct code. This is common since > each insurer uses different codes or has different rules for the same > codes, and it's understandable that office staff can't keep them all > straight. There are similar problems with sharing records. > >> Another source of big waste is "defensive medicine" where doctors >> order unnecessary tests/procedures to cover their a** as a defense >> against lawsuits. This is very costly. > > I hear such complaints all the time, but I've never seen anything that > seemed to match. OTOH, I _have_ seen doctors run all sorts of tests > "just in case" or to "rule X out", despite having lab reports for the > same test from another doctor (or ER). They tell me I have insurance, > so why am I complaining? > > One doctor worried about how much radiation I'd been exposed to for all > these wasteful tests--and then ran other tests on me to rule _that_ out > as a cause, despite my problem obviously starting before the tests! > >> As Time magazine reported last year, the health insurance industry >> is extremely profitable. They have big lobbyists. > > Yes, they do. It's notable that, once the public option was killed, > they suddenly supported Obamacare--and switched all their campaign > contributions from Reps (who opposed it) to Dems (who supported it).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 21:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <dflt0iFnuqqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156554 |
"Stephen Sprunk" wrote: > One doctor worried about how much radiation I'd been exposed to for all > these wasteful tests--and then ran other tests on me to rule _that_ out > as a cause, despite my problem obviously starting before the tests! Logical thinking is not a widely distributed trait.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 14:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dflu86Fo7a6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156572 |
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message news:dflt0iFnuqqU1@mid.individual.net... > "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: > >> One doctor worried about how much radiation I'd been exposed to for all >> these wasteful tests--and then ran other tests on me to rule _that_ out >> as a cause, despite my problem obviously starting before the tests! > > Logical thinking is not a widely distributed trait. Not just logical thinking either, even just basic memory too. I happen to have the arteries in my ankles quite deep. My regular GP does a pulse check there to check for clogged leg arteries and never finds any pulse there. My cardiologist told me about that problem that isnt all that unusual and pointed out that the pulse is very obvious on the top of my feet so the legs are fine. I told the regular GP that and he agreed, but still fails to find a pulse in the ankles and has to be told again. He's the primarily gynaecologist in town and delivers most of the babies. Bit of a worry. I keep using him because some of the others in that surgery are even worse and the other one in town with a very good reputation is very difficult to get an appointment with when you need one urgently.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 10:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <447da87e-e482-42b0-8481-5609c4e006c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156554 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 5:23:00 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 08-Jan-16 12:44, hancock4@ wrote: > > Anyone who visits a doctor's office will see staff _constantly_ on > > the phone trying to work something out with the insurance company. > > Constantly! Many times paperwork has to be resubmitted for payment. > > Sometimes reimbursement can take months. Doctors waste a lot of > > their time checking whether a test is covered by insurance or not. > > The vast majority of claims are instantly approved; arguing over one > rejected claim can take hours, though, so to an observer, it may seem > like problems are a common event. "Vast majority of claims instantly approved"? Certainly not my experience. At one point, all claims of myself and also my mother were rejected and had to be resubmitted (different doctors, different insurers in different states). They've improved since then, but a hell of lot of claims still require resubmission by the doctor's office or pharmarcy. > In most cases, the problem is that something was miscoded, and all it > takes to get approval is using the correct code. This is common since > each insurer uses different codes or has different rules for the same > codes, and it's understandable that office staff can't keep them all > straight. There are similar problems with sharing records. I thought healthcare diagnose codes were uniform. Yes, the rules for each code vary tremendously by _plan_ even within an insurer. Years ago, the healthcare companies offered about four or five plans, basically varying in co-pays and deductibles, but generally universal. Today, it's ridiculous. > > Another source of big waste is "defensive medicine" where doctors > > order unnecessary tests/procedures to cover their a** as a defense > > against lawsuits. This is very costly. > > I hear such complaints all the time, but I've never seen anything that > seemed to match. OTOH, I _have_ seen doctors run all sorts of tests > "just in case" or to "rule X out", despite having lab reports for the > same test from another doctor (or ER). They tell me I have insurance, > so why am I complaining? Unless you know a doctor really well on a personal level, they'll never admit to running tests for defensive purposes. But "just in case" is for that reason. As mentioned, some areas of the country are more litigous than others. Healthcare costs much more in Philadelphia than it does in Pittsburgh, party for that reason. (As does auto insurance.) > One doctor worried about how much radiation I'd been exposed to for all > these wasteful tests--and then ran other tests on me to rule _that_ out > as a cause, despite my problem obviously starting before the tests! You're fortunate that a doctor was concerned about radiation, usually they poo-poo any such concerns, or say modern tests don't emit much. (FWIW, at the dentist, the technician no longer goes outside the room to shoot the digital x-ray; and I don't think they wear film badges.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 18:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn9d74m.2j8.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #156589 |
On 2016-01-13, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 5:23:00 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> On 08-Jan-16 12:44, hancock4@ wrote: >> >> I hear such complaints all the time, but I've never seen anything that >> seemed to match. OTOH, I _have_ seen doctors run all sorts of tests >> "just in case" or to "rule X out", despite having lab reports for the >> same test from another doctor (or ER). They tell me I have insurance, >> so why am I complaining? > > Unless you know a doctor really well on a personal level, they'll > never admit to running tests for defensive purposes. But "just in > case" is for that reason. > > As mentioned, some areas of the country are more litigous than others. > Healthcare costs much more in Philadelphia than it does in Pittsburgh, > party for that reason. (As does auto insurance.) I know someone who is at a conferance in the UK at the moment, discussing how injuries from car accidents vary in the EU. For years it has been known that general medical problems vary too > > >> One doctor worried about how much radiation I'd been exposed to for all >> these wasteful tests--and then ran other tests on me to rule _that_ out >> as a cause, despite my problem obviously starting before the tests! > > You're fortunate that a doctor was concerned about radiation, usually > they poo-poo any such concerns, or say modern tests don't emit much. > > (FWIW, at the dentist, the technician no longer goes outside the room > to shoot the digital x-ray; and I don't think they wear film badges.) > > > -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 07:02 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfnoq9F80j9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156590 |
<mausg@mail.com> wrote in message news:slrnn9d74m.2j8.mausg@smaus.org... > On 2016-01-13, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 5:23:00 PM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>> On 08-Jan-16 12:44, hancock4@ wrote: >>> >>> I hear such complaints all the time, but I've never seen anything that >>> seemed to match. OTOH, I _have_ seen doctors run all sorts of tests >>> "just in case" or to "rule X out", despite having lab reports for the >>> same test from another doctor (or ER). They tell me I have insurance, >>> so why am I complaining? >> >> Unless you know a doctor really well on a personal level, they'll >> never admit to running tests for defensive purposes. But "just in >> case" is for that reason. >> >> As mentioned, some areas of the country are more litigous than others. >> Healthcare costs much more in Philadelphia than it does in Pittsburgh, >> party for that reason. (As does auto insurance.) > > I know someone who is at a conferance in the UK at the moment, > discussing how injuries from car accidents vary in the EU. For > years it has been known that general medical problems vary too Unsurprising with general medical problems given that diet and demographics vary considerably and so does the genetics to a lesser extent. >>> One doctor worried about how much radiation I'd been exposed to for all >>> these wasteful tests--and then ran other tests on me to rule _that_ out >>> as a cause, despite my problem obviously starting before the tests! >> >> You're fortunate that a doctor was concerned about radiation, usually >> they poo-poo any such concerns, or say modern tests don't emit much. >> >> (FWIW, at the dentist, the technician no longer goes outside the room >> to shoot the digital x-ray; and I don't think they wear film badges.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 13:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7671v$ard$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156589 |
On 13-Jan-16 12:14, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> On 08-Jan-16 12:44, hancock4@ wrote: >>> Anyone who visits a doctor's office will see staff _constantly_ >>> on the phone trying to work something out with the insurance >>> company. Constantly! Many times paperwork has to be resubmitted >>> for payment. Sometimes reimbursement can take months. Doctors >>> waste a lot of their time checking whether a test is covered by >>> insurance or not. >> >> The vast majority of claims are instantly approved; arguing over >> one rejected claim can take hours, though, so to an observer, it >> may seem like problems are a common event. > > "Vast majority of claims instantly approved"? Certainly not my > experience. I've had only two claims rejected _in my life_. The first was cleared up with a short call to the insurer to explain the circumstances, and the second was avoided by my dentist adjusting his schedule (oddly, anesthesia was covered for two minor surgeries on the same day, but not one minor each on two different days, which was our original plan). > At one point, all claims of myself and also my mother were rejected > and had to be resubmitted (different doctors, different insurers in > different states). They've improved since then, but a hell of lot > of claims still require resubmission by the doctor's office or > pharmarcy. Insurers invested a _lot_ of money in software to automatically approve or reject claims as soon as they're submitted, and then they studied which auto-rejections frequently get reversed and turned them into auto-approvals. Since they're going to end up paying those claims anyway, they want to avoid unnecessary labor costs--and focus their adjusters on handling claims that really _should_ be denied. >> In most cases, the problem is that something was miscoded, and all >> it takes to get approval is using the correct code. This is common >> since each insurer uses different codes or has different rules for >> the same codes, and it's understandable that office staff can't >> keep them all straight. There are similar problems with sharing >> records. > > I thought healthcare diagnose codes were uniform. Some use Medicare's codes, some don't; even those that do often have additional codes for things Medicare doesn't cover or to distinguish between similar cases where Medicare doesn't need to--but one case is covered by private plans and one isn't. That's usually why things end up "miscoded": they're coded correctly for Medicare, but an alternate code has to be used with private plans to indicate it meets additional qualifications that the original code doesn't. > Yes, the rules for each code vary tremendously by _plan_ even within > an insurer. Well, at least within each class of plans. For instance, they may have several PPO plans with the same rules with different payment structures (e.g. lower premiums vs higher deductibles); ditto for HMO plans. My insurer's EPO plans are almost identical to their PPO plans except a referral is required to see a specialist, which means any given code might be approved or rejected solely based on the _context_. >> One doctor worried about how much radiation I'd been exposed to for >> all these wasteful tests--and then ran other tests on me to rule >> _that_ out as a cause, despite my problem obviously starting before >> the tests! > > You're fortunate that a doctor was concerned about radiation, > usually they poo-poo any such concerns, or say modern tests don't > emit much. Well, a dozen CT and MRI scans with contrast plus several dozen X-rays within a couple months should concern _any_ doctor. I was concerned myself after the first few, but I got used to ER docs refusing to treat me at all if didn't agree. I never got the same doctor twice, of course, and they apparently assumed that only _they_ could figure out the issue--and only if they started over from scratch. > (FWIW, at the dentist, the technician no longer goes outside the > room to shoot the digital x-ray; and I don't think they wear film > badges.) My current dentist has two X-ray machines: the first is wall-mounted, and they do leave the room, but it's only used for new patients or after major surgeries; the second is handheld and they obviously can't leave the room, and that gets used at least once for every visit. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "879" <879@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-09 09:51 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfasr5FubetU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156260 |
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message news:n6oppd$ueh$1@dont-email.me... > On 08-Jan-16 03:58, Morten Reistad wrote: >> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >>> US median property tax is $1838/yr, ranging from $183/yr (LA) to >>> $6,082/yr (NJ). That's not a significant problem for someone >>> getting $55k/yr, especially if they don't have a mortgage. And, if >>> they are smart, they'll move somewhere with low property taxes and >>> no income taxes on pensions; it's not like they have a job to worry >>> about. >> >> $6k median property tax? I pay ~$450, and I am well above medium in >> my property, and the municipality is very tax-happy. >> >> Or is NJ such an outlier? > > NJ's median is 3.3x the US median; I haven't checked whether it meets > the formal definition of an outlier, but it's certainly unusually high, > just like LA is unusually low. > > NJ and LA are also an exceptions to the general rule that states with > high property values have low property tax rates and vice versa, which > results in most of them clustering around the same absolute value. > >> I am constantly surprised by the tax burden of these leftopondians. > > Think again: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP > > The US, at 26.9%, is lower than virtually all of Rightpondia, and far > lower than the EU overall at 35.7%. > > Most countries with a lower tax burden than the US are in Central and > South America, Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, the Caribbean > and Oceania, i.e. "developing" rather than "developed" countries. > >>>> Health care, such as a supplemental policy for what Medicare >>>> doesn't cover, is very expensive. Prescriptions are expensive. >>> >>> Indeed, and that's why I pointed out that PBGC doesn't cover _any_ >>> supplemental benefits, e.g. health or long-term care insurance. >> >> I realise we get a pretty good deal for the 14.2% pension&health >> contribution we pay over here. > > Yes, you do; our payroll tax of 15.3% for Social Security & Medicare > provides lower benefits than you get in retirement and _zero_ benefits > before retirement. > > OTOH, if you exclude people who don't have health insurance (despite > Obamacare), our health outcomes _are_ better, Not for the bottom say 10% of society they aren't. And I bet you can't nominate any area where they are better than matter like infant mortality or years in good health either. so it seems we do get > something for all the extra money we spend. No you don’t. Not even with cosmetic surgery and crap like that. Norway's health care system leaves yours for dead by any measure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web