Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #27032 > unrolled thread

OT: ObamaCare vs. Google

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  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 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#27146

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 2:39:25 PM UTC-8, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> On 12/3/13 9:51 AM, gavino_himself wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 3:44:50 AM UTC-8, Mark Wills wrote:
> 
> >> On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 10:34:58 AM UTC, the_gavino_himself wrote:
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> usa is best example of containing that by containing gov power and spending
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> You're being ironic, right? Shirley you are not serious?
> 
> >
> 
> > 100% serious
> 
> > what are you some kinda wako who thinks socialism ever worked?
> 
> > socialism caused 130million deaths in 20th century
> 
> > stalin hitler mao pol pot castro etc!!
> 
> >
> 
> 
> 
> That shows a profound lack of knowledge. Hitler was a fascist, not a 
> 
> socialist (yes, they called it "National Socialism" but it was 
> 
> structurally a facist system of government.
> 
> 
> 
> Similarly, Communism is  philosophically and structurally quite 
> 
> different from Socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> You are far better at slinging slogans than rational discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Elzabeth
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> ==================================================
> 
> 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."
> 
> ==================================================

you seem not to get economics or politics

socialism/communism/fascism are the same, big government making the rules, and fuck the individual

the usa's brillaince was to restrict the government as never before, 3 branches, with separation of powers, and only enumerated power, rest to states aka local government

and it was #1 right quick

remember fdr caused the great depression along with the fed which governmetnalized the financial system in 1913, and in just 7 years caused the great dpression, which usa coulda went through  in year or 2 if frd didnt do what obama did and counterfiet money

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27135

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 7:51:59 PM UTC, gavino_himself wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 3:44:50 AM UTC-8, Mark Wills wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 10:34:58 AM UTC, the_gavino_himself wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > > usa is best example of containing that by containing gov power and spending
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > You're being ironic, right? Shirley you are not serious?
> 
> 
> 
> 100% serious
> 
> what are you some kinda wako who thinks socialism ever worked?
> 
> socialism caused 130million deaths in 20th century
> 
> stalin hitler mao pol pot castro etc!!

Please define "worked". If you were a simple proletariat, then no, it definitely never worked. If you were intelligentsia, then no, it didn't work. If you were bourgeoisie then yes, it worked. And if you were an actual member of the party, then it definitely worked.

I find it interesting that after the fall of the Berlin Wall, people thought that the threat of communism was over, and basically went to sleep. Looking back, it seems that what actually happened is that the fall of the wall allowed communism to spill out into the rest of the world. The communist "wave" simply spread Westwards, or, perhaps more correctly it moved Westwards. The Russians, tired of decades of communism were having none of it and were too busy trying to rebuild their country in a capitalist mould (whilst simultaneously having it raped by "investors" (rapists) from the west). Meanwhile, Europe fully embraced it, with the formal formation of EU [history lesson for Gavino, since he won't be bothered to look it up] the EU as a concept was first discussed in 1945/46, just after the end of WWII, with Winston Churchill being a staunch advocate of a "united states of Europe". A first step towards it was the EEC, formed in 1974 (if I remember correctly). The EU formally came into being in 1993, with the signing of the Mastrict treaty [1].

Since then, Europe has become more sovietised. Think about it. What constituted the Soviet Union? It was a number of different countries from (roughly) West to East: East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Albania, Hungary, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belorussia, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Mongolia, all “united” under common laws, with a common currency, with a certain degree of political (yes, they actually had “elections” in countries such as Georgia, and (LMAO) Romania (those Chauchescu's were *really* popular!) and some legal autonomy, but very much ruled from Moscow. What do we have under Europe? The exact same thing. “United” countries, living under EU wide laws, with a common currency, and a certain degree of political and legal autonomy, within the framework allowed under EU. That was the “price” to pay to join the EU – the surrender (to some extent) of sovereignty). Really, the only difference between the Soviet “Union” (ha, the irony, lets subjugate an entire continent, and call it a Union! How loving!) and the EU Soviet, is that the Soviet Union was obtained, if not by direct force/violence (as the Russian army swept Westwards during WWII on its way to Berlin, it simply consumed the countries in its wake) then by the threat of violence/war. (Note: I’m not sure how the Soviet map grew (if at all) during WWI. I need to start to look at that).

The incredible irony, for me, is, that those countries that were forced into the Soviet Union, and were elated to throw off their Soviet oppressors in 1991 with the breakup of the Soviet Union saw no problem in exchanging their newly won sovereignty for membership of the EU! You would think they would be once bitten, twice shy! But no. Though, in fairness, I think the EU carrot of subsidies and access to western credit would have been a big temptation. A lot of those countries, perhaps all of them, went through some very hard times after 1991, and it’s understandable that the governments of those countries would want to improve the lives of their populations.

You’ll appreciate that I’m coming from this from a very “British” viewpoint. I have a friend, Berry, from the Netherlands. He’s very dear to me, I love him very much, but politically, we just could not be further apart. We’re able to laugh about it. He pointed out, and he may be correct, that the British tend to have a different view of how Europe “should be”. And he feels that this difference of opinion arises out of the fact that Britain is an island. I think that there might be something in that. Brits tend to be a bit isolationist, and perhaps a little distrustful, and we are surprised when others don’t have the same view. The general view of the EU in the UK is very much anti-EU – our current government does not represent British opinion on the EU, though I note that the younger population (which tends to be more socialist leaning – I think it’s human nature) appears quite pro EU. The Brits, being an island, are very much looking at the EU in terms of “how is this good for us” – and not liking what they see. We’re not saying “how is this good for the collective” which is how you need to frame the question (I think) if you are more socialist leaning.

Finally, does anyone share my concern that Angela Merkel, a child of Soviet East German, and Communist Party member, is the figure head and driving force behind the EU? Talk about hidden in plain view!

By the way, Hitler was a Fascist, not a communist!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27147

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 2:07:37 AM UTC-8, Mark Wills wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 7:51:59 PM UTC, gavino_himself wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 3:44:50 AM UTC-8, Mark Wills wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > > On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 10:34:58 AM UTC, the_gavino_himself wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > usa is best example of containing that by containing gov power and spending
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > You're being ironic, right? Shirley you are not serious?
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 100% serious
> 
> > 
> 
> > what are you some kinda wako who thinks socialism ever worked?
> 
> > 
> 
> > socialism caused 130million deaths in 20th century
> 
> > 
> 
> > stalin hitler mao pol pot castro etc!!
> 
> 
> 
> Please define "worked". If you were a simple proletariat, then no, it definitely never worked. If you were intelligentsia, then no, it didn't work. If you were bourgeoisie then yes, it worked. And if you were an actual member of the party, then it definitely worked.
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that after the fall of the Berlin Wall, people thought that the threat of communism was over, and basically went to sleep. Looking back, it seems that what actually happened is that the fall of the wall allowed communism to spill out into the rest of the world. The communist "wave" simply spread Westwards, or, perhaps more correctly it moved Westwards. The Russians, tired of decades of communism were having none of it and were too busy trying to rebuild their country in a capitalist mould (whilst simultaneously having it raped by "investors" (rapists) from the west). Meanwhile, Europe fully embraced it, with the formal formation of EU [history lesson for Gavino, since he won't be bothered to look it up] the EU as a concept was first discussed in 1945/46, just after the end of WWII, with Winston Churchill being a staunch advocate of a "united states of Europe". A first step towards it was the EEC, formed in 1974 (if I remember correctly). The EU formally came into being in 1993, with the signing of the Mastrict treaty [1].
> 
> 
> 
> Since then, Europe has become more sovietised. Think about it. What constituted the Soviet Union? It was a number of different countries from (roughly) West to East: East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Albania, Hungary, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belorussia, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Mongolia, all “united” under common laws, with a common currency, with a certain degree of political (yes, they actually had “elections” in countries such as Georgia, and (LMAO) Romania (those Chauchescu's were *really* popular!) and some legal autonomy, but very much ruled from Moscow. What do we have under Europe? The exact same thing. “United” countries, living under EU wide laws, with a common currency, and a certain degree of political and legal autonomy, within the framework allowed under EU. That was the “price” to pay to join the EU – the surrender (to some extent) of sovereignty). Really, the only difference between the Soviet “Union” (ha, the irony, lets subjugate an entire continent, and call it a Union! How loving!) and the EU Soviet, is that the Soviet Union was obtained, if not by direct force/violence (as the Russian army swept Westwards during WWII on its way to Berlin, it simply consumed the countries in its wake) then by the threat of violence/war. (Note: I’m not sure how the Soviet map grew (if at all) during WWI. I need to start to look at that).
> 
> 
> 
> The incredible irony, for me, is, that those countries that were forced into the Soviet Union, and were elated to throw off their Soviet oppressors in 1991 with the breakup of the Soviet Union saw no problem in exchanging their newly won sovereignty for membership of the EU! You would think they would be once bitten, twice shy! But no. Though, in fairness, I think the EU carrot of subsidies and access to western credit would have been a big temptation. A lot of those countries, perhaps all of them, went through some very hard times after 1991, and it’s understandable that the governments of those countries would want to improve the lives of their populations.
> 
> 
> 
> You’ll appreciate that I’m coming from this from a very “British” viewpoint. I have a friend, Berry, from the Netherlands. He’s very dear to me, I love him very much, but politically, we just could not be further apart. We’re able to laugh about it. He pointed out, and he may be correct, that the British tend to have a different view of how Europe “should be”. And he feels that this difference of opinion arises out of the fact that Britain is an island. I think that there might be something in that. Brits tend to be a bit isolationist, and perhaps a little distrustful, and we are surprised when others don’t have the same view. The general view of the EU in the UK is very much anti-EU – our current government does not represent British opinion on the EU, though I note that the younger population (which tends to be more socialist leaning – I think it’s human nature) appears quite pro EU. The Brits, being an island, are very much looking at the EU in terms of “how is this good for us” – and not liking what they see. We’re not saying “how is this good for the collective” which is how you need to frame the question (I think) if you are more socialist leaning.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, does anyone share my concern that Angela Merkel, a child of Soviet East German, and Communist Party member, is the figure head and driving force behind the EU? Talk about hidden in plain view!
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, Hitler was a Fascist, not a communist!


no it definitly most certainly did not work

in usa capitalism let avg guy own house n car

in china most dont have flush toilette sitll

I dont think uk gets how inferior your economy and way of life seems to avg citizen of usa

I mean uk is almost 2nd world.....

if uk had half the illegal or poor minorities usa had ti would be like a zombie movie and it would burn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27219

On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 01:24:35 -0000, Rod Pemberton  
<dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> 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:
> http://taxfoundation.org/blog/obamacare-tax-increases-will-impact-us-all
>

Rod, you've lost it.  Your asm is good,  but this ain't Forth.
-- 
It's a money /life balance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27238

of course obamacare is a huge mistake

if you hire 16000 irs agents and train 0 new docs its cant possibly do anything but raise costs

the real fix would be to remove the crony communist socialist fascist insurance companies who are far frmo a free market and restrict health care cometition along with hmos

and reduce the lawyers of course

lawyers are non produtive and destroy wealth

replace lawyers with software

get the idea that if an accident happens someone doe snot get paid 100x what they make to make it right lol

groupthink to steal money is bad, look at the fed cuasing 2008 and 1922 depressions

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27073

huffington post is a democrat lie machine

usa medical is #1 in world

all forign idiots fly here for advanced procedures

we have best tek since usa invents it all

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27056

On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:00:57 -0500, Mark Wills  
<markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> 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;

Why?  All I think you should need is an account number.  Like a
check (cheque), it should have a routing number for the health care
provider and an account number which indicates the type of account.
The government wouldn't need to do anything for that.  All the
government has to do is pre-approve plans for each provider which
are compliant with the law.

> * Interface with the same to get information on pre-existing health  
> conditions;

Why?

1) It's private and we have privacy laws.  I.e., the government
really shouldn't be allowed to have your healthcare information,
if they are allowed...(?)  Anyway, they really don't need it.  It
should, IMO, be just between you, your doctors, and your insurance,
even if it's not that way.  The only real rationalization as to
why they would want it is as a backdoor method to nationality
identity cards (currently illegal in the US), or (illegally)
obtaining base biometric data for mass surveillance.  Of course,
the microwave body scanners at US airports do that too, if you
weren't aware.  They may not show your genitals anymore in public,
but they don't delete the captured images.

2) One of the key features of ObamaCare is insurance companies can't
take into account pre-existing conditions.  So, again, they don't
need it.

> * Interface with IRS to get details of your earning and tax returns;

Huh?  Illegal, I think...  The IRS can't provide your information to  
others,
except for financial crimes (IIRC ...).  The customer must provide this.
In fact, you must, by law, according to an article I read, provide your
*NEXT YEARS* income to ObamaCare, *BEFORE* you've actually earned it.
True.  Funny, ludicrous, but no joke.  So, you won't even have tax info
 from the IRS or your employer to do that since it's future income.  That's
going to be a huge nightmare for many Americans with variable or
intermittent income.

> * Interface with benefits agencies, and even sign people up to benefit  
> programmes where they qualify.

If the customer selects an ObamaCare approved healthcare policy from
those the insurance providers list on an exchange, why?  The insurer
knows what they provide.  I know what they provide.

> I'm sure I'm only covering a small part of it.

It looks to me like they don't need any of that.  Although, I'm really
not sure in full what the law allows and requires.  One article indicates
over a half-dozen Federal agencies are involved, including many you
have to question, e.g., Department of Homeland Security and Immigrations
and Customs Enforcement.  Do suicide bomber terrorists *really* sign up
for healthcare?  Do their partners get benefits afterwards?  Is an illegal
immigrant dumb enough to sign up for ObamaCare if he suspects ICE or the
FBI will do a background check and then deport him? ...

> 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.

Honestly, do you think our government is qualified to *ever* get it  
working?
Yes, that's funny, but I'm not joking.  I don't.  The IRS just abandoned a
$1 Trillion (capital T) USD computer upgrade just a few years ago because
they couldn't get it working after a decade of work.  How are they going to
get a half-dozen Federal agencies to working together if they can't even
fix the IRS for taxes? ...  Taxes on everyone.  Healthcare for everyone.
They spent 2,000 times as much trying to fix _just_ the IRS.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27183

wow

shoulda hired chuck moore and given him 1 trillion

did you also hear that a internet giant offered to do obamacare website freee?

or that IBM offered to obama to vut healthcare billing fraud with a system, that was projected to save 900B a year??

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27036

The other point I wanted to make about the Google system: Without more information, the results they are citing seem quite meaningless to me. From what I can gather, they seem to be presenting a simple web page to clients a million times a second. There's no doubt that that is pretty impressive, but without connections to back office systems running SQL queries yadda yadda yadda it's difficult to get a feel of just how well their systems would perform. I get the feeling the most you could say, is that "in a real world scenario" (I mean things like complex DB queries per page, cookies of around say 0.5kB in size, transmission of fairly detailed HTML and javascript to clients etc) then you could probably say that the bottle-neck *would not* be Google's cloud infrastructure. I'd stick my neck out and say that would probably be true. It certainly looks very impressive, but as we know, it's not the whole picture.

In terms of getting it set up and running in the time they did - absolutely incredible. Simply mind blowing!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27042

On Thursday, November 28, 2013 5:06:17 AM UTC-8, Mark Wills wrote:
> The other point I wanted to make about the Google system: Without more information, the results they are citing seem quite meaningless to me. From what I can gather, they seem to be presenting a simple web page to clients a million times a second. There's no doubt that that is pretty impressive, but without connections to back office systems running SQL queries yadda yadda yadda it's difficult to get a feel of just how well their systems would perform. I get the feeling the most you could say, is that "in a real world scenario" (I mean things like complex DB queries per page, cookies of around say 0.5kB in size, transmission of fairly detailed HTML and javascript to clients etc) then you could probably say that the bottle-neck *would not* be Google's cloud infrastructure. I'd stick my neck out and say that would probably be true. It certainly looks very impressive, but as we know, it's not the whole picture.
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of getting it set up and running in the time they did - absolutely incredible. Simply mind blowing!

oh totally

the html engine stuff is where all work is
this is where u got gut garphics idiots and keep html light n simple
site is lean with thin html
get the data
let the hospitals and insureres build a bridge to thsi system not other way round
let them pay for it
yes dont be bastard and keep interface simple

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27037

Here you go: From the article:

"Each web response was 1 byte in size not including the http headers."

Hmmm... Not exactly "vote for your favourite artist in X-factor", is it!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27040

On Thursday, November 28, 2013 4:21:03 AM UTC-8, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> 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

AWESOME!!!!

I say do this: hold a competition!!!!

Let all open source geeks make a example site with xyz few features nothign fancy, and line graphics designers up against wall and execute.

Then have competition of scalability.

Then have cheap commodity hardware competition.

Hell let the public university compsci depts earn thier $$ for a change and have them do it with free software on commodity hw.

then pick best and award say 30mil for hardware and turn it on, makign sure not to overpay network fags/isp cronies

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27051

On Thursday, November 28, 2013 1:21:03 PM UTC+1, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> This is about ObamaCare's massive technology failure. 
[..]
Is it relevant to this group? 

-marcel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27054

mhx@iae.nl writes:
> On Thursday, November 28, 2013 1:21:03 PM UTC+1, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> This is about ObamaCare's massive technology failure. 
> Is it relevant to this group? 

http://colorforth.com/1percent.html perhaps?  ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27075

I say we charge all the conries for 650mil plus damages

get all the money back

the give chuck morre and green arrays 100mil to do the site.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27062

On 28/11/2013 19:50, mhx@iae.nl wrote:
> On Thursday, November 28, 2013 1:21:03 PM UTC+1, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> This is about ObamaCare's massive technology failure.
> [..]
> Is it relevant to this group?

Of course not.
How to interpret OT: on or off
Very confusing.
See if I can killfile all these c*nts in Thunderbird.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27089

On 11/28/13 10:33 PM, Roelf Toxopeus wrote:
> On 28/11/2013 19:50, mhx@iae.nl wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 28, 2013 1:21:03 PM UTC+1, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>> This is about ObamaCare's massive technology failure.
>> [..]
>> Is it relevant to this group?
> 
> Of course not.
> How to interpret OT: on or off
> Very confusing.
> See if I can killfile all these c*nts in Thunderbird.

Conventionally, OT means "Off Topic".

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]

#27155

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) told Bill Hemmer on America’s Newsroom today that an internet giant offered to build the Obamacare website for free.
 
This was confirmed during testimony today before a Congressional committee. Issa, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman, said the Obama White House turned down the offer.
 

Bill Hemmer: Was it proven today that an internet company offered to build the website for free but the government passed on it? Was that true? Did that happen?
 
Rep. Darrell Issa: It was stated under oath that it was true. No one argued that it wasn’t.
 
The Obama administration blew over a billion dollars so far to build the failed Obamacare website.

http://www.infowars.com/confirmed-obama-wh-turned-down-offer-to-build-o-care-website-for-free-blew-a-1-billion-instead/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27184

then it was confired obama college room mate got th eno bid contract for obama care

f-ed it up

kept the 650mil

trump is right

sue the guy to get all the money back

site is worthless

now comes out all the signups are invalid because they don't actually isue plans??? yo are signed up and dont have plan because site doesnt talk to insurers

wow


at least good commies would deliver a gov service

all dems do is charge us and the bail like solyanrda

get charged

have nothing to show for it

+11T debt 5 years wow all to cronies who did nothing

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web