Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #27032 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-11-28 07:21 -0500 |
| Last post | 2013-12-07 22:04 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 79 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-11-28 07:21 -0500
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-28 04:45 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-28 05:00 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-11-28 06:50 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-11-28 09:38 -0600
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-11-28 07:53 -1000
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2013-11-29 09:06 -0500
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-11-29 08:13 -0600
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-11-28 20:24 -0500
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-11-28 18:47 -1000
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-11-29 09:54 -0500
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-12-11 12:40 -0500
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-12-11 08:23 -1000
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Spam@ControlQ.com - 2013-12-11 13:38 -0500
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-12-11 18:42 +0000
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-12 02:38 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-11-29 03:34 -0600
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-11-29 08:49 -0500
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-11-29 08:34 -0600
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-11-30 18:03 +0000
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-11-30 18:06 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-12-01 03:09 +0000
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-11-30 22:32 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2013-11-30 21:26 -1000
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-12-01 08:53 +0000
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-01 17:16 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-01 17:13 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2013-11-30 17:50 -0500
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-01 03:32 -0600
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2013-12-01 05:34 -0500
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-12-01 21:36 +0000
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2013-12-02 05:23 -0500
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-12-02 20:58 +0100
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-02 19:24 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-12-03 09:23 +0000
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-03 02:09 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-02 19:02 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-02 19:04 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-02 00:42 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-02 03:13 -0600
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-02 19:26 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2013-12-02 12:10 +0100
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-02 05:35 -0600
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2013-12-02 13:40 +0100
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-02 06:22 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-12-02 20:34 +0100
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-02 19:28 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-03 02:10 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-12-03 14:26 +0100
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-03 06:58 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-12-03 17:31 +0100
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-03 02:34 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-03 03:44 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2013-12-03 11:51 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2013-12-03 14:09 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-04 21:30 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2013-12-05 04:07 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <notagoodone@invalid.org.invalid> - 2013-12-11 17:05 +0000
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-12 02:40 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-12-03 12:39 -1000
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-04 21:32 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-04 02:07 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-04 21:35 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <notagoodone@invalid.org.invalid> - 2013-12-11 16:59 +0000
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-12 02:43 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-11-30 18:04 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-11-28 20:29 -0500
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-07 22:01 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-28 05:06 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-11-28 06:51 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-28 05:11 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-11-28 06:47 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google mhx@iae.nl - 2013-11-28 10:50 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-28 15:36 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-11-30 18:08 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2013-11-29 09:33 +0100
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-12-01 16:56 -1000
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-05 05:25 -0800
Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-07 22:04 -0800
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-28 07:21 -0500 |
| Subject | OT: ObamaCare vs. Google |
| Message-ID | <op.w69dxd1t5zc71u@localhost> |
This is about ObamaCare's massive technology failure. This article demonstrates how easy it is for Google and it's users to setup a website with 1 million requests per second, sustained, under 10 minutes, and under $10 (USD) to it's users: http://googlecloudplatform.blogspot.ca/2013/11/compute-engine-load-balancing-hits-1-million-requests-per-second.html 1) "... was able to demonstrate how to scale a cloud application deployment within 5 seconds after the setup, without pre-warming, enabling Google Cloud customers to serve 1 million requests per second and sustain that level for an indefinite period of time." 2) " ... took a total of 7 minutes and 30 seconds." 3) "This entire setup and test cost just $10 USD!" It takes me longer to eat than it takes them to setup a commercial grade cloud application. Now, compare that to the ObamaCare website. It's expected to crash again this holiday weekend because 200,000 users are expected sign up but the website can only handle 50,000. Yes, you read that correctly... Cost of the ObamaCare website? Half a billion dollars (USD) and climbing. It seems I was wrong about Obama. He is doing something to spur the U.S. economy. It's just a question of which economy... I wonder how much of that was diverted into illegal arms and drugs? How much went untaxed into offshore accounts? There is no way on Earth that more than one percent that money made it into the website. Maybe, they should scrap the website, give that link to a High School student, from a high ranking H.S., who has good grades, who is in a computer club and pay him two hundred bucks to create a new website... Fifteen minutes later, before his lunch hour is over, we'd have a new website. That would shave two to five billion dollars off our taxes and healthcare. Some of that non-spent money could be spent to pay for the DOJ and FBI to investigate where exactly and to what criminals all that money went. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-28 04:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <66f4b142-0618-47d6-9cf2-0a4853a17c22@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #27032 |
If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-28 05:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1f417310-eee5-4c00-a34f-2efd28661a86@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #27032 |
In fairness to Obama, the *political* challeges involved in putting that system together are probably unfathomable! Now, I'm British so I could have got the wrong end of the stick on some of this, so do correct me where I err... I'm talking about how the system has to: * Interface with 1000's of health care providers to get details of peoples health care plans; * Interface with the same to get information on pre-existing health conditions; * Interface with IRS to get details of your earning and tax returns; * Interface with benefits agencies, and even sign people up to benefit programmes where they qualify. I'm sure I'm only covering a small part of it. Now, putting the *technical* challenges of that (just getting the network VLAN/VPN infrastructure in place, presumably leveraging the internet, is a massive understaking) imagine the *political* intertia one would have to overcome, in, say *forcing* the IRS to develop interfaces on their side (again, I'm not talking about the coding of it) to allow a third government entity (the Affordable Healthcare "system") access to it. Then factor in all the other agencies and private companies that they have to interface to. All this would have to be agreed, interface specifications developed *on both sides* and tested, within the time-frame. And there's the problem. The time-frame. This is a truly massive project, and I would estimate one would have block out their calendar for approximately six years to get something like this in working order. The challenges aren't really technical per-se (IMO) - they are more policital. It's more about overcoming paranoia, the fear of change, and opening up of systems. Our IT guys *freak out* if I call them and ask them to install some software on my desktop PC FFS! So, I'm no particular fan of the current administration, but, in this particular case, I doubt if the "other side of the house" would have fared any better. It's certainly stirred up the debate on the rights and wrongs of a socialist health care system, that's for sure!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-28 06:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6efa6cec-a0d3-4db4-83c5-c926f26e2efb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #27035 |
On Thursday, November 28, 2013 5:00:57 AM UTC-8, Mark Wills wrote: > In fairness to Obama, the *political* challeges involved in putting that system together are probably unfathomable! > > > > Now, I'm British so I could have got the wrong end of the stick on some of this, so do correct me where I err... > > > > I'm talking about how the system has to: > > > > * Interface with 1000's of health care providers to get details of peoples health care plans; > > * Interface with the same to get information on pre-existing health conditions; > > * Interface with IRS to get details of your earning and tax returns; > > * Interface with benefits agencies, and even sign people up to benefit programmes where they qualify. > > > > I'm sure I'm only covering a small part of it. Now, putting the *technical* challenges of that (just getting the network VLAN/VPN infrastructure in place, presumably leveraging the internet, is a massive understaking) imagine the *political* intertia one would have to overcome, in, say *forcing* the IRS to develop interfaces on their side (again, I'm not talking about the coding of it) to allow a third government entity (the Affordable Healthcare "system") access to it. Then factor in all the other agencies and private companies that they have to interface to. All this would have to be agreed, interface specifications developed *on both sides* and tested, within the time-frame. > > > > And there's the problem. The time-frame. This is a truly massive project, and I would estimate one would have block out their calendar for approximately six years to get something like this in working order. The challenges aren't really technical per-se (IMO) - they are more policital. It's more about overcoming paranoia, the fear of change, and opening up of systems. Our IT guys *freak out* if I call them and ask them to install some software on my desktop PC FFS! > > > > So, I'm no particular fan of the current administration, but, in this particular case, I doubt if the "other side of the house" would have fared any better. It's certainly stirred up the debate on the rights and wrongs of a socialist health care system, that's for sure! I think communist medicine is wrong. I also think the problems blamed on free amrekt are due to communism is insurance government interface. Gov is the problem. if you let say wal mart build hoispitals problem over soon and let MIT an cal tek do the computing/network as class projects as requiremetn to graduate at bach master phd level..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-28 09:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <99CdnV3zyb0X_grPnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #27035 |
Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > In fairness to Obama, the *political* challeges involved in putting > [Obamacare] together are probably unfathomable! All you need to know about the American healthcare system in one easy-to-understand graph: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/22/american-health-care-terrible_n_4324967.html Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-28 07:53 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <l6Wdnam1e-G1HgrPnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #27048 |
On 11/28/13 5:38 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> In fairness to Obama, the *political* challeges involved in putting >> [Obamacare] together are probably unfathomable! > > All you need to know about the American healthcare system in one > easy-to-understand graph: > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/22/american-health-care-terrible_n_4324967.html > > Andrew. > Thanks, Andrew, I was hoping someone would post that chart. -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-29 09:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <52989f61$0$295$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #27050 |
On 11/28/13 12:53 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 11/28/13 5:38 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> All you need to know about the American healthcare system in one >> easy-to-understand graph: >> >> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/22/american-health-care-terrible_n_4324967.html > Thanks, Andrew, I was hoping someone would post that chart. That is exactly what we would expect to see from the far left liberal Huffington Post. Though I agree that the physical condition of far too many Americans today is disturbing (over weight, no exercise). That's the problem, not the health care system. I'm over age 55 yet at 6' and 170 lbs within 2 lbs of my high school weight and wear the same belt size. I work at it. The current US system isn't perfect. But completely tearing it apart and putting 1/6 of the US economy under control of the government is a draconian non-solution. Those relatively few having difficulty affording care would be far better served by subsidizing just them directly, not discarding the whole system for everyone. Some of the problems (which have nothing to do with the website): 1) "If you like your health care you can keep it. Period." A lie. 2) "If you like your doctor you can keep him/her." A lie. 3) "Average yearly costs will go down $2500 per family." A lie. 4) Death panels, aka rationing, are integral to Obamacare. 5) Many doctors are refusing to participate due to forced low fees. Doctor shortages will be inevitable, as will long wait times. 6) Obamacare is simply forced wealth redistribution disguised. Decent people, on the left and the right, all want to see the poor receive proper health care. The right has been characterized as heartless and wanting to "throw granny off the cliff" which is inflammatory, false, and non-productive. What the UK's national health care mess tells us about ObamaCare: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/21/what-uk-national-health-care-mess-tells-us-about-obamacare/ Great Britain's Increasingly Scandalous National Health Service: http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottatlas/2013/07/05/happy-birthday-to-great-britains-increasingly-scandalous-national-health-service/ -Doug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-29 08:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <QbqdnYj3V8m_PAXPnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #27066 |
Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> wrote: [ Attempt to blame the people for their own misfortuned deleted. ] > Decent people, on the left and the right, all want to see the poor > receive proper health care. The right has been characterized as > heartless and wanting to "throw granny off the cliff" which is > inflammatory, false, and non-productive. And true. > What the UK's national health care mess tells us about ObamaCare: > http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/21/what-uk-national-health-care-mess-tells-us-about-obamacare/ > > Great Britain's Increasingly Scandalous National Health Service: > http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottatlas/2013/07/05/happy-birthday-to-great-britains-increasingly-scandalous-national-health-service/ Despite repeated attacks and underfunding, it's still far better than the US. And the graph proves it. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-28 20:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op.w7ad69jl5zc71u@localhost> |
| In reply to | #27048 |
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:38:50 -0500, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > In fairness to Obama, the *political* challeges involved in putting >> [Obamacare] together are probably unfathomable! > > All you need to know about the American healthcare system in one > easy-to-understand graph: > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/22/american-health-care-terrible_n_4324967.html > The HuffingtonPost article complains about costs per person being too large in the US per person as compared to their lifetime. According to the article, those costs are the reason the US is an outlier. You understand that ObamaCare is *raising* costs per person, yes? We're going to be so far to the right we won't fit on the page! LOL. Did you _intend_ to cite that article Andrew? See? Costs go up: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/obamacare-tax-increases-will-impact-us-all See? Costs go up: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/obamacare-increases-premiums-much-305-percent Don't like that group? Here's another one. See? Costs go up: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/10/enrollment-in-obamacare-exchanges-how-will-your-health-insurance-fare Another: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/knowyourrates/ 1) USA is not the only outlier, see Russia... 2) Despite the non-correlation with life expectancy, we have better quality of health care. If you live in the EU, would you go to Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia and Latvia for health care? If you live in the US, would you go to Canada or Mexico for health care? 3) We also have many expensive selective health care options, like plastic surgery and dental. Both of those are likely to distort. With government healthcare, it'll be the cheapest solution. So, we would've likely returned to the norm on that chart, if ObamaCare wasn't jacking prices up through the roof. 3) All non-US countries are in USD PPP (Purchasing Power Parity). Is USA in USD or USD PPP? I can't tell from the article. It's probably in USD, not USD PPP... If so, that would introduce such a distortion. I.e., did the authors assume the two are equal? 4) We have a large class of freeloaders who drive up costs. Hospitals can't refuse care in the US like they can in other countries (Canada, Japan). Their care is primarily via the emergency room instead of via scheduled doctor visits. Those higher costs of emergency room care are paid for by all of us. ObamaCare rolls these freeloaders into the system and provides all of them even more healthcare at our expense. 5) Some countries have higher rates of death which reduces total costs of healthcare. The EU has death rates twice as high as the USA. South Africa has very high rates of death. Germany is actually exporting elderly to other countries to lower their healthcare costs. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/26/german-elderly-foreign-care-homes 6) ObamaCare will cost me 4 times as much without a Federal subsidy and 2 times as much with. How exactly is that fixing the problem of healthcare costs being too high? ... Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-28 18:47 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <5fqdnX7-qu_5gQXPnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #27055 |
On 11/28/13 3:24 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:38:50 -0500, Andrew Haley > <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >> Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> In fairness to Obama, the *political* challeges involved in putting >>> [Obamacare] together are probably unfathomable! >> >> All you need to know about the American healthcare system in one >> easy-to-understand graph: >> >> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/22/american-health-care-terrible_n_4324967.html >> >> > > The HuffingtonPost article complains about costs per person being too > large in the US per person as compared to their lifetime. According > to the article, those costs are the reason the US is an outlier. You > understand that ObamaCare is *raising* costs per person, yes? We're > going to be so far to the right we won't fit on the page! LOL. Did > you _intend_ to cite that article Andrew? > > See? Costs go up: > http://taxfoundation.org/blog/obamacare-tax-increases-will-impact-us-all > > See? Costs go up: > http://taxfoundation.org/blog/obamacare-increases-premiums-much-305-percent > > Don't like that group? Here's another one. See? Costs go up: > http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/10/enrollment-in-obamacare-exchanges-how-will-your-health-insurance-fare Yeah, the conservative press has been preaching that for years. It's only now that we're beginning to see actual figures. > Another: > http://www.manhattan-institute.org/knowyourrates/ > > > 1) USA is not the only outlier, see Russia... > > 2) Despite the non-correlation with life expectancy, we have better > quality of health care. If you live in the EU, would you go to > Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia and Latvia for health care? If you > live in the US, would you go to Canada or Mexico for health care? How do you define "better quality of health care" on a broad scale *except* by looking at overall outcomes (in other words, life expectancy)? The chart in question came from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an international organization based in Paris. The full report may be downloaded here: http://gallery.mailchimp.com/de3259be81e52e95191ab7806/files/HAG2013.pdf A very similar study has been published by the World Health Organization (WHO), http://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/EN_WHS2013_Part3.pdf. Its findings cover more countries and are consistent with OECD's. > 3) We also have many expensive selective health care options, like > plastic surgery and dental. Both of those are likely to distort. > With government healthcare, it'll be the cheapest solution. So, > we would've likely returned to the norm on that chart, if ObamaCare > wasn't jacking prices up through the roof. As I said above, the predictions about prices vary a lot depending on whom you ask. By next year we'll have some facts to quote. > 3) All non-US countries are in USD PPP (Purchasing Power Parity). > Is USA in USD or USD PPP? I can't tell from the article. It's > probably in USD, not USD PPP... If so, that would introduce such > a distortion. I.e., did the authors assume the two are equal? Inasmuch as OACD is an international organization based in Paris, it seems probable that they would consistently use USD PPP. > 4) We have a large class of freeloaders who drive up costs. > Hospitals can't refuse care in the US like they can in other > countries (Canada, Japan). Their care is primarily via the > emergency room instead of via scheduled doctor visits. Those > higher costs of emergency room care are paid for by all of us. > ObamaCare rolls these freeloaders into the system and provides > all of them even more healthcare at our expense. I don't know much about Canada and Japan (although I have several friends who live in Canada who prefer their health care system to ours by a wide margin). But I'm curious about your definition of "freeloaders." I've spent a good deal of time in England, France, and Belgium. I've been sick in all three places. Doctors treat anyone who seeks treatment, without charge, unlike here. People are forced to go to the emergency room in the US who don't have expensive health insurance. It is well-known in the medical community that people who are able to seek treatment in early stages of disease (i.e., from a doc) will have a better outcome at a much lower cost. > 5) Some countries have higher rates of death which reduces total > costs of healthcare. The EU has death rates twice as high as > the USA. South Africa has very high rates of death. Germany > is actually exporting elderly to other countries to lower their > healthcare costs. > > http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/26/german-elderly-foreign-care-homes Death rates are 100% in all countries. The question is, what is the average life span? I see 20 countries with longer average life spans than the US, many of which are in the EU. > 6) ObamaCare will cost me 4 times as much without a Federal subsidy > and 2 times as much with. How exactly is that fixing the problem of > healthcare costs being too high? ... I don't know where you live or what you base this on, or whether your more expensive coverage is more comprehensive than previously, or any of the other facts that would relate to that statement. I do know that my church and my daughter's small business are seeing ~10% increases next year, but the coverage is better. My daughter will probably get a subsidy, but we don't know how much yet. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-29 09:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op.w7bfodqv5zc71u@localhost> |
| In reply to | #27060 |
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 23:47:30 -0500, Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: > On 11/28/13 3:24 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:38:50 -0500, Andrew Haley >> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>> Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> The HuffingtonPost article complains about costs per person being too >> large in the US per person as compared to their lifetime. According >> to the article, those costs are the reason the US is an outlier. You >> understand that ObamaCare is *raising* costs per person, yes? We're >> going to be so far to the right we won't fit on the page! LOL. Did >> you _intend_ to cite that article Andrew? >> >> See? Costs go up: [links] > > Yeah, the conservative press has been preaching that for years. It's > only now that we're beginning to see actual figures. > ... and so far they confirm what the conservative press has said. >> 2) Despite the non-correlation with life expectancy, we have better >> quality of health care. If you live in the EU, would you go to >> Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia and Latvia for health care? If you >> live in the US, would you go to Canada or Mexico for health care? > > How do you define "better quality of health care" on a broad scale > *except* by looking at overall outcomes (in other words, life > expectancy)? There are many factors more important to quality of health care than life expectancy which has strong genetic and cultural components. E.g., deaths due to hospital error, contraction of contagious, high risk diseases while in the hospital, errors in prescriptions or procedures or operations leading to additional surgeries or deaths, etc. > The chart in question came from Organisation for Economic Co-operation > and Development (OECD), an international organization based in Paris. > The full report may be downloaded here: [link] > > A very similar study has been published by the World Health Organization > (WHO), [link] > Its findings cover more countries and are consistent with OECD's. Do you consider both of them to be non-biased towards EU politics and cultural beliefs given that they are both headquartered in the EU? AISI, they both promote a strong pro-EU agenda in everything. It's somewhat anti-US. >> 4) We have a large class of freeloaders who drive up costs. >> Hospitals can't refuse care in the US like they can in other >> countries (Canada, Japan). Their care is primarily via the >> emergency room instead of via scheduled doctor visits. Those >> higher costs of emergency room care are paid for by all of us. >> ObamaCare rolls these freeloaders into the system and provides >> all of them even more healthcare at our expense. > > I don't know much about Canada and Japan (although I have several > friends who live in Canada who prefer their health care system to > ours by a wide margin). I'm sure the guy who had to pull out his own rotting tooth didn't, nor the women coming to the US to birth children, nor the women coming to the US to have abortions. They're all Canadians. > But I'm curious about your definition of "freeloaders." They were described in the snipped paragraph. If you want a more of an economic definition, you can look up "free rider". See also "forced rider" for comparison. > I've spent a good deal of time in England, France, and > Belgium. I've been sick in all three places. Doctors treat anyone who > seeks treatment, without charge, unlike here. People are forced to go to > the emergency room in the US who don't have expensive health insurance. Yet, Medicaid was most likely available to them, but they didn't have it. > It is well-known in the medical community that people who are able to > seek treatment in early stages of disease (i.e., from a doc) will have a > better outcome at a much lower cost. True, but when healthcare is available, e.g., work, Medicare, Medicaid, etc, and someone doesn't go to the doctor is that a healthcare issue, or a personal freedom? I qualify that as a personal freedom. What about when someone could afford healthcare but doesn't? Same thing. What about someone able to work but doesn't? Same thing. So, we're always going to have people who are able to seek treatment, but don't, who could have healthcare if they wanted to, but don't. Your example only affects people who want treatment but can't get it, because they aren't willing to pay for healthcare, or didn't sign up for Medicaid, Medicare, etc. We'd have to make it illegal for people to not visit their doctors regularly to fix the issue you brought up which was not being treated early enough. What do you think about that? If everyone, except the poor who qualify for Medicaid, is forced to pay for health insurance, why shouldn't everyone be forced to go to the doctor under the same rationale? >> 5) Some countries have higher rates of death which reduces total >> costs of healthcare. The EU has death rates twice as high as >> the USA. South Africa has very high rates of death. Germany >> is actually exporting elderly to other countries to lower their >> healthcare costs. > > Death rates are 100% in all countries. Death is final, yes. However, death rates are not 100%. Death rates include the living, i.e., dead/living. So, it's a function of the population size and quantity of people dying. If the population is increasing, the death rate will decline even if the number of dying stays relatively constant for a while. If many people are dying now, be it old age or young and violent/tragic, the death rate increases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_rate > The question is, what is the average life span? Why? > I see 20 countries with longer average life spans than the US, many of > which are in the EU. If you move US back to underneath Finland, the age variation is only about four years for English speaking countries. Lifespan is affected by many things other than healthcare, like genetics, culture, work, smoking, drinking, etc. (See post to Andrew for more, not all inclusive.) Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-11 12:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op.w7xvdrm45zc71u@localhost> |
| In reply to | #27060 |
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 23:47:30 -0500, Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: > On 11/28/13 3:24 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:38:50 -0500, Andrew Haley >> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>> Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> 6) ObamaCare will cost me 4 times as much without a Federal subsidy >> and 2 times as much with. How exactly is that fixing the problem of >> healthcare costs being too high? ... > > I don't know where you live or what you base this on, or whether your > more expensive coverage is more comprehensive than previously, or any of > the other facts that would relate to that statement. I do know that my > church and my daughter's small business are seeing ~10% increases next > year, but the coverage is better. My daughter will probably get a > subsidy, but we don't know how much yet. > When I read your reply, it rang so untrue that the word "bullshit" popped into my head. So, I stopped reading the other responses. I decided to wait until I could ask my retired, elderly parents about their insurance. After filtering out Gavino's rash of responses, there are now thirty four replies. My parents insurance increased by over $6,000 this year. They asked their insurance company why it increased so much. The answer was that it _purely_ due to the ACA. They had to cancel their healthcare which they have had since my dad had retired. Eventually, they found a replacement policy, with far less coverage, but enough. It cost "only" $1,300 more than they had been paying. However, their deductible went from well under $1,000 to way over $10,000. Now, they've had to make changes to keep that extra money at hand. Can you imagine all the families and elderly who are going to be harmed when they can't come up with such a large deductible in an emergency? So, Obamacare is screwing over nearly everybody, including the elderly, except those that get a free ride, or subsidized ride. If the young are supposed to pay for this, then there is no way that the 26 year age limit for dependent children can stand. I doubt that the subsidies can last for a long time either when there are millions of free riders. This law requires *major* changes to even make it financially viable. Basically, the result is simply going to be that everyone pays a fortune so that a small percentage of the poor, mostly minorities, can have free healthcare. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-11 08:23 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <EISdnRF64NgmMDXPnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #27222 |
On 12/11/13 7:40 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 23:47:30 -0500, Elizabeth D. Rather > <erather@forth.com> wrote: >> On 11/28/13 3:24 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>> On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:38:50 -0500, Andrew Haley >>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>>> Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>> 6) ObamaCare will cost me 4 times as much without a Federal subsidy >>> and 2 times as much with. How exactly is that fixing the problem of >>> healthcare costs being too high? ... >> >> I don't know where you live or what you base this on, or whether your >> more expensive coverage is more comprehensive than previously, or any >> of the other facts that would relate to that statement. I do know that >> my church and my daughter's small business are seeing ~10% increases >> next year, but the coverage is better. My daughter will probably get a >> subsidy, but we don't know how much yet. >> > > When I read your reply, it rang so untrue that the word "bullshit" > popped into my head. So, I stopped reading the other responses. > I decided to wait until I could ask my retired, elderly parents > about their insurance. After filtering out Gavino's rash of > responses, there are now thirty four replies. I am happy to report that my daughter's business will end up saving $250/month, or nearly 25% on insurance for her and her employees thanks to Obamacare (same insurance plans, lower cost). My husband and I are on Medicare, and have Medicare Advantage plans. We are mostly satisfied with our coverage, although it's annoying that allergy drugs are not covered, and my husband has allergies. Our medicare premiums depend on our reported income, but are still about 1/4 of what we paid before before becoming eligible. Just trying to introduce a few facts into the discussion :-) Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spam@ControlQ.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-11 13:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.BSF.2.00.1312111337530.63990@yoko.controlq.com> |
| In reply to | #27223 |
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > > Just trying to introduce a few facts into the discussion :-) > Why inject facts when made up stats and false anecdotes seem to be the standard for this discussion?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-11 18:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l8abne$8of$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #27223 |
on 11/12/2013 18:23:54, "Elizabeth D. Rather" wrote: > On 12/11/13 7:40 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 23:47:30 -0500, Elizabeth D. Rather >> <erather@forth.com> wrote: >>> On 11/28/13 3:24 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>>> On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:38:50 -0500, Andrew Haley >>>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>>>> Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>> 6) ObamaCare will cost me 4 times as much without a Federal subsidy >>>> and 2 times as much with. How exactly is that fixing the problem of >>>> healthcare costs being too high? ... >>> >>> I don't know where you live or what you base this on, or whether your >>> more expensive coverage is more comprehensive than previously, or any >>> of the other facts that would relate to that statement. I do know that >>> my church and my daughter's small business are seeing ~10% increases >>> next year, but the coverage is better. My daughter will probably get a >>> subsidy, but we don't know how much yet. >>> >> >> When I read your reply, it rang so untrue that the word "bullshit" >> popped into my head. So, I stopped reading the other responses. >> I decided to wait until I could ask my retired, elderly parents >> about their insurance. After filtering out Gavino's rash of >> responses, there are now thirty four replies. > > I am happy to report that my daughter's business will end up saving > $250/month, or nearly 25% on insurance for her and her employees > thanks to Obamacare (same insurance plans, lower cost). > > My husband and I are on Medicare, and have Medicare Advantage plans. > We are mostly satisfied with our coverage, although it's annoying that > allergy drugs are not covered, and my husband has allergies. Our > medicare premiums depend on our reported income, but are still about > 1/4 of what we paid before before becoming eligible. > > Just trying to introduce a few facts into the discussion :-) Another fact. It's a long URL; here's the shorter version. http://bit.ly/1iXh5Xs Aneurin Bevan, In Place of Fear. The NHS in the UK is free at the point of consumption. Before it gets heavily criticised here -- and some of your criticisms will have validity, for it's far from perfect -- remeber that it has worked for 60 years, and no-one, and I mean no-one, in the UK would want to see its core principles attacked, regardless of political persuasion. > > Cheers, > Elizabeth >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-12 02:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9a3db4d2-e6fe-4c0e-a916-e198fc1db09a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #27225 |
uk is almsot 3rd world country
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-29 03:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <VNOdnRf-oJ4BwgXPnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #27055 |
Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:38:50 -0500, Andrew Haley > <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >> Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> In fairness to Obama, the *political* challeges involved in putting >>> [Obamacare] together are probably unfathomable! >> >> All you need to know about the American healthcare system in one >> easy-to-understand graph: >> >> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/22/american-health-care-terrible_n_4324967.html >> > > The HuffingtonPost article complains about costs per person being too > large in the US per person as compared to their lifetime. According > to the article, those costs are the reason the US is an outlier. Not entirely. There's also the outcomes: that graph has two axes. > You understand that ObamaCare is *raising* costs per person, yes? > We're going to be so far to the right we won't fit on the page! > LOL. Did you _intend_ to cite that article Andrew? > > See? Costs go up: > http://taxfoundation.org/blog/obamacare-tax-increases-will-impact-us-all Well, yes, they would say that, wouldn't they? Clearly, the USA needs a solution to its appalling healthcare system, which costs a fortune but delivers poor outcomes. Obamacare is not the last step, but at least it's a step in the right direction. Of course it's difficult to implement and will have problems. Undoubtedly it's too complex, because it has to fit with the existing systems and providers; the existing system is absurdly expensive and absurdly complex. However, this modest proposal been blocked at every turn by well-funded vested interests who have managed to convince many people that European-style systems are a step on the road to a communist dictatorship. Rather than ranting about Obamacare, it'd be nice to hear someone on the right come up with a constructive suggestion about what to do. One that doesn't leave poor people to die in the gutter. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-29 08:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op.w7bcn8d35zc71u@localhost> |
| In reply to | #27064 |
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:34:20 -0500, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:38:50 -0500, Andrew Haley >> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>> Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> The HuffingtonPost article complains about costs per person being too >> large in the US per person as compared to their lifetime. According >> to the article, those costs are the reason the US is an outlier. > > Not entirely. There's also the outcomes: that graph has two axes. > Yes entirely. If you adjust cost to align with other English speaking countries, it's in the same clump near Finland. From the US to Japan, that only represents a four year difference in lifespan. That can be attributed to many reasons other than healthcare: wealth, mental, pollution, hours worked, food quality, exercise, obesity, drinking genetics, gun violence, culture. Are you conflating health with healthcare? > Clearly, the USA needs a solution to its appalling healthcare system, Clearly? How so? What makes it "appalling"? It was an excellent system that had just a few flaws that needed fixed which Democrats prevented Republicans from fixing for six decades. Democrats scrapped the system and replaced with a Ponzi scheme worse than Social Security. It's riddled with numerous faults, far more than before. Some of these will likely never be fixed, just like before. > which costs a fortune but delivers poor outcomes. I think most of the "poor" outcomes, at least from that graph, is due to selective healthcare. The age range for the U.S. is entirely inline with other English speaking countries. > Obamacare is not the last step, but at least it's a step in the > right direction. What direction? Is "foul-up" a direction? What was the wrong direction? > course it's difficult to implement and will have problems. The prior system wasn't completely broken like now. It was partially broken and minimally so. That could've been fixed. > However, this modest proposal been blocked at every turn by > well-funded vested interests who have managed to convince many > people that European-style systems are a step on the road to a > communist dictatorship. I don't think they need to convince anyone of that. You saw the link to Germans exporting elderly to reduce healthcare costs, and you might've seen the article about the guy in Canada who couldn't get his rotting tooth pulled for a year who pulled it himself, and the women in Canada coming to the U.S. to get abortions and birth children because they couldn't get care in Canada. That's just a handful of the articles over the past decade on the poor quality of socialized medicine. > Rather than ranting about Obamacare, it'd be nice to hear someone on > the right come up with a constructive suggestion about what to do. Repeal ObamaCare. Fix the small list of things that were broken before: eliminate inability of hospital to refuse care to uninsured, fraudulent and excessive charges to Medicare and Medicaid, and unwillingness of government to require digital records and legible prescriptions to prevent mistakes. > One that doesn't leave poor people to die in the gutter. Those below the poverty threshold could get healthcare via Medicaid previously and currently. So, there is no literal reason poor people to "die in the gutters" other than they rejected government healthcare or they were a victim of gun violence. If those who oppose gun control are shooting each other, what do you expect to happen? Do you really expect society to save you - at their expense? If you have a deathwish, you should expect death. Nearly every black man who dies due to gun violence in an urban environment is killed by a racist, nearly all of whom are black... The victim was racist too, but against whites. There are over 500 murderers and victims each year in a nearby city, year over year, for five, maybe seven, decades now. Nearly all of those people were or are black. You won't see or hear about those victims' civil rights, i.e., loss of life, from the likes of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. No white man was involved. It's not racist. Apparently, it's not important to the black community either. All of those same people were up in arms over Trayvon, but there was not a single mention of all those others who die each year. That was just one U.S. city with a large black populace. They even inspired the President to say something, but he said nothing about all those other dead blacks either. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-29 08:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <aa-dnQsctc-QOwXPnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #27065 |
Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> wrote: > Nearly every black man who dies due to gun violence in an urban > environment is killed by a racist, nearly all of whom are black... I was wondering how long it'd be before you played the race card. This conversation, at least on my side, is at an end. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-30 18:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l7d98q$ikr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #27068 |
on 29/11/2013 14:34:56, Andrew Haley wrote: > Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> wrote: > >> Nearly every black man who dies due to gun violence in an urban >> environment is killed by a racist, nearly all of whom are black... > > I was wondering how long it'd be before you played the race card. > This conversation, at least on my side, is at an end. > > Andrew. > I find that discussions around healthcare, race, guns or religion with my American colleagues & aquaintances are generally impossible. I no longer find their peculiar views surprising, and generally ignore them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web